Leftists want a make-or-break revolution in America, forgetting that, when it comes to weapons, they’re the Stone Age tribes and conservatives are Europe.
I had an epiphany, albeit one that ends with blood. John Kerry has threatened all of America by announcing that if Trump is elected president, there will be a revolution. He’s not making a scholarly prediction; he summoning the troops.
When I read that, my first thought was, “Well, conservatives (i.e., Trump supporters) are the ones with the guns.” Leftists in America may be violent, but except for Antifa, some of whose members are armed, the lefts’ anti-Second Amendment stance means they’re armed with bricks and sticks.
And that’s when I had my epiphany. The leftists are the Stone Aged tribes of America. They paint themselves funny colors, make lots of noises, and do ritualized “violence dances.” They look scary but, just like any Stone Aged people, when the more advanced civilization’s guns come out, the Stone Aged people are done for. It’s not complicated: The side with the better weapons win, and conservatives are on that side.
The famous gun versus sword scene in the first Indiana Jones movie is a cute, graphic representation of this problem. Cute — but surprisingly accurate. Europe successfully colonized Latin America, Africa, North America, and the Caribbean because the Europeans had guns and the indigenous people — all of whom were Stone Aged in the technology, didn’t. In North America, Native Americans fought valiantly against European colonization but they were never going to win against the better armed Europeans.
Leftists would know this if they studied actual history, as opposed to made-up history.
The only thing that could change this dynamic goes back to the Obama administration’s weapon buying binge in 2013. In a recent American Thinker post, John Watson remembers how Obama went crazy arming his administrative agencies. (Watson speaks of the last two years of the administration, but I happen to know it began in 2013, so the purchases may be even more significant than Watson documents):
During the last two years of the Obama administration, some unusual purchases were made. Large quantities of ammunition were purchased, as were firearms, mostly for somewhat obscure agencies or agencies with no real need for such weaponry. Estimates are that over 1 billion rounds of ammunition were ordered, which resulted in making ammunition scarce for the normal civilian market.
Also significant was Obama’s troublesome statement made during his campaign, as follows
We cannot continue to rely only on our military … we’ve got to have a civilian security force just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded. We cannot continue to rely only on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives we’ve set.
Moreover, Watson reminds us that it wasn’t just ordinary guns and ammo these agencies got. It was serious stuff for agencies that had no possible use for that kind of thing (emphasis mine):
The Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service spent $4.77 million purchasing shotguns, 7.62mm caliber rifles, night-vision goggles, propane cannons, liquid explosives, pyro supplies, buckshot, LP gas cannons, drones, remote-control helicopters, thermal cameras, military waterproof thermal infrared scopes and more.
$426,268 on hollow-point bullets, including orders from the Forest Service, National Park Service, Office of Inspector General, Bureau of Fiscal Service, as well as Drug Enforcement Administration, U.S. Marshals, and U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement. The latter three, sure, but the Forest Service, National Park Service, and Inspector General’s Office?
These agencies are filled with Democrat denizens of the Deep State. It’s not impossible to imagine them using those taxpayer-funded weapons as an arsenal for the leftist side should John Kerry’s threatened “revolution” take place.
Of course, you can give Stone Aged fighters modern weaponry, but possessing them is not the same as knowing how to use them. Nevertheless, if the Deep State is the armory, we’re in trouble. If not, it will be a bloody war, but a short one, and history tells us that the Stone Age fighters will lose.
What we’re seeing with the Black Lives Matter movement is the BIG LIE — and it’s not the slander that cops are killers. This BIG LIE is even worse.
Right now, a whole lot of us are being bullied to parrot the slogan that “Black Lives Matter.” Before I get further into the weeds here, let me explicitly say that I’m not arguing that black lives don’t matter. I’m saying that the melanin content of people’s skin is irrelevant to me. At the largest level, all lives matter, because I value the human race. I think we do come into the world a blank slate, each of us worthy of respect.
As people move through life, regardless of what they look like, their sex, their chosen bed partners, their choice of job, etc., I continue to treat each person I meet as if he or she matters. I treat everyone nicely and assume (correctly, most of the time), that they’ll treat me nicely too.
However, that respect and niceness stop when people’s behavior moves beyond the pale. I don’t like liars, murderers, thieves, bullies — in other words, I don’t like hardcore leftists. They tell lies and, using those lies as a springboard, they bully and, eventually, kill people to steal their wealth and their liberty.
Believe it or not, despite the move to defund the police, the left’s worst lie isn’t that unarmed blacks are being slaughtered by rogue cops, although that is quite a big lie. here’s the data:
There are between 39 and 42 million blacks in America, and they make up 13-14% of the American population. They also make up 13.3% of the police officers in America. Police departments are not discriminating in hiring.
After Ferguson, the WaPo started obsessively tracking all police shootings in America. According to that list, in 2019, police shot and killed 1,003 people, 249 of whom were black. Fourteen of those black decedents were unarmed. Those unarmed black victims are equal to around 0.000034% of America’s black population. That is not a black genocide at police hands.
However, even that number is misleading, because while the men killed were not carrying guns, they were all dangerous. Only three of the fourteen officers involved in those shootings were criminally charged. Another one of the shootings was clearly an accident, while one death remains murky. As for the other nine deaths, each involved a situation in which the decedent, although not armed with a gun, violently attacked officers.
The most common weapon used to attack officers was a car. One person tried to choke the officer. The news reports don’t detail the other non-gun weapons the decedents used against the police, but we can assume fingernails, fists, knees, feet (shod or unshod), and anything nearby that could be used as weapons (rocks, boards, ballpoint pens, etc.). Before police shot one man, he was so violent he sent two police to the hospital and even a taser couldn’t stop him.
Doing the percentages again, in 2019, police officers who’s behavior was so heinous it justified criminal charges killed at most 0.000007% of American blacks. While each of those three deaths was a terrible individual tragedy, it’s scarcely an indictment of policing across America.
But as I said, those lies about police and black deaths, while a powerful weapon in Democrats’ hands are not the BIG LIE.
Here’s the BIG LIE that Democrats and their activist arms (Black Lives Matter, the NAACP, the mainstream media, etc.) tell: They claim that blacks aren’t as good as other races. That’s right, for all their crocodile tears about blacks, they actually see blacks as subhuman beings to be manipulated for power. And sure, some of the people doing the manipulating are blacks themselves. There are always people who are so unprincipled, they will sell anyone down the river….
A little history sets the stage:
When the British began colonizing the Caribbean and North America, slavery was still the norm around the world. Indeed, it was the norm throughout human history.
When you conquered another people, you had three choices: Walk away from them, which would allow them to fight again; slaughter them all, which was a brutish and wasteful business; or enslave them, which enriched you with their labor. You were especially enriched if you didn’t care whether your slaves lived or died — and that was the way of the world before the Jewish Bible insisted that even slaves had some human rights.
By the early 17th century, 1,600 years of Biblical teaching (both Old and New Testament) was raising Europeans up from a world in which cruelty, including slavery, was interwoven in the fabric of people’s lives. Still, when the British started colonizing areas in which sugar, tobacco, cotton, and indigo could be grown, slavery was still acceptable enough that it was seen as the most economically feasible way to create wealth in the new world and transfer it to the old.
The British originally tried to use the Irish, whom they despised, as their slaves. That effort failed only because the Irish, stubbornly, kept dying from heat and malaria in the intemperate climates found in the Caribbean and the American south.
That’s why the British turned to African marketplaces, where they bought people whom warring tribes had kidnapped and Muslim traders sold. It was a “trade” because everyone was involved, including the Africans themselves. Indeed, the legal case in America that established slavery as an acceptable practice came about because Anthony Johnson, a free black man who had come to America as an indentured servant, went to court when another black man claimed to be an indentured servant (subject to release) rather than Johnson’s slave.
As the 17th century turned into the 18th century, something happened in America, a combination of the Enlightenment and the Great Awakening. A large segment of the population realized that we are all God’s children. Moreover, they could no longer ignore that the 8th Commandment (Thou shalt not steal) must apply to stealing liberty as well as to stealing property.
The slave owners weren’t stupid. They knew this to be true. As the world modernized and civilized, the only way they could justify their economic dependence on slavery was to dehumanize people of African descent. Once they were dehumanized, like a dog or a cow, the 8th Commandment no longer applied.
Dehumanizing. That’s what it’s all about. That’s the really BIG LIE.
In 2020, the era of government dehumanization that supported both slavery and Jim Crow is gone. Less than 15% of the population consists of people who were older than about five or ten in 1964, when the Civil Rights Act went into effect. In other words, only a small percentage of the American population felt the effect of systematic and systemic racism — or was responsible for it.
As those of us who grew up in the 1970s and 1980s know, there was lingering cultural racism going on even after all governments were banned from institutionalizing racism. Perpetrators did it in a spirit of stupidity or ignorance. We know better now, whether we’re Paula Deen or Ralph Northam and Joy Behar, neither of whom is as “woke” as s/he pretends to be. That attitude, thankfully, is gone from all but the most ignorant or meanspirited.
Yet despite sixty years of legal and cultural change, blacks are still being dehumanized. They are still being treated as less than fully human. And those heinous behaviors are still coming from the Democrat party, a party that is now wholly given over to the far left.
It’s the left that claims that blacks, unlike all other human beings in history are incapable of rising above past prejudice. And no, it’s not because of their skin color. Asians are easily distinguishable from whites, and they used to be subject to ferocious discrimination. Less than eighty years ago, President Franklin Roosevelt (a Democrat) threw every Japanese person in America, whether native-born or not, into concentration camps. But the Asians are doing very well in America despite that, earning the nickname “model minority.” Other recognizably non-white populations (e.g., East Asians who come from the poverty and dysfunction of India or Hispanics who don’t buy into the victim myth) do well too.
But leftists tell blacks that it is impossible for them to rise above poverty, damaging cultural behaviors, or the psychic pain of stupid people saying stupid things. Unlike every other group in America for the past three hundred years, leftists assure blacks and each other that blacks cannot overcome being downtrodden. They cannot do well in school because they’re downtrodden. They cannot be responsible at their jobs because they’re downtrodden. They cannot resist the lure of violence and crime because they’re downtrodden. They cannot stay away from substance abuse because they’re downtrodden. They cannot stay married and raise their children in stable, two-parent homes because they’re downtrodden.
What leftists are really saying is that blacks are genetically defective because of their race. If you’re born black, the leftist world view holds that you’re infantile, a creature of uncontrollable impulses, and neither very bright nor capable of hard work. If this sounds familiar, it’s because it’s exactly what leftists said of blacks in 1960 and 1860 and 1760 to justify enslaving them or otherwise depriving blacks of their civil rights: Blacks aren’t fully human. They can’t handle rights or responsibility or education . . . or freedom. The only difference this time around is that leftists phrase their insults in gentle, loving terms, thereby tying blacks to their abusers.
No wonder that blacks abort their children in such extraordinary numbers. They’re being told by the people they trust most that they’re less than human. For those helpless, defective people, Planned Parenthood (just as Margaret Sanger intended 100 years ago) is there to help. In public, it insists that Black Lives Matter. Behind clinic doors, it’s the biggest killer of blacks in American history.
So there’s the BIGGEST LEFTIST LIE OF ALL: Blacks are not fully realized human beings. They never have been and they never will be. That’s why I hate leftists, regardless of their race, color, gender, sexual orientation, sexual identity, or whatever label they plaster on themselves and on others. They always dehumanize people, whether to use them, as they do with blacks to get votes or with slaves to get labor, or to slaughter them, as they did the Jews and the gypsies.
Incidentally, at a subliminal level, all leftists understand that theirs is a binary system. They’re either at the top or the bottom. Right now, it’s amusing to see the purges going on, with leftists attacking other leftists. It’s the Mensheviks and Bolsheviks all over again. But when you see the frantic virtue signaling, with every business in America trying to outdo all the other businesses by showing more empathy for blacks than the next person or by confessing more guilt, this is what you’re seeing:
Every one of the people lining the street as Kim Jong-Il’s body was carried away was trying to cry louder than the next person. It’s like the old joke about the bear:
A bear surprises two hikers. One of them takes off at a dead run. The other hollers after him, “What are you doing? You can’t outrun a bear!” The first hiker, still running, hollers over his shoulder, “I don’t have to outrun the bear. I just have to outrun you.”
Right now, the virtue signalers are trying to outrun each other. Those that survive, the fastest and most agile, will then turn their deadly attention to you. They’re already dehumanizing you. Remember what Hillary said? You’re a “basket of deplorables.” Joe Biden just announced that 10-15% of Americans just “are not very good people.”
When I go on my Facebook feed and look at what the lefties post, what’s as interesting as the articles they post attacking Trump and Trump supporters is the chorus in the comments. Each commenter piles on frantically, trying to be more insulting than the next person in describing people, rather than challenging ideas: “Piece of sh*t,” “disgusting,” “disgusting white trash,” “clowns,” “slug,” “moron,” “bitch,” “dick.”
Blexit is the best thing that could ever happen to blacks but they’ve been so brainwashed into believing that they’re less than human, that their turning away from the loving hand promising to drag them out of the animal kingdom into which the left has placed them and place them where they rightfully belong, up here with the rest of the children of God.
UPDATE: This woman gets it (language warning):
Black lady screams at white liberals blocking the street
“You racist white liberals do this sh*t every f****** four years. We’re tired of it…F*** you, you dumb b*tch. You’re not here for me. You’re here because you’re dumb as f***” pic.twitter.com/PW8BYCWk5G
I am exploding with pent-up posts going back two weeks, so I thought a Bookworm Beat might be the best way to do a mental download onto the blog.
A good Obamagate overview. During their Russagate heyday, the leftist media had it easy because they could roll with a single message: “Russia! Russia! Russia!” And failing that, “Climate! Climate! Climate!”
Obamagate is harder because it is, in fact, an actual conspiracy. The nature of conspiracies is that they hide away in the dark, and involve serpentine steps to achieve nefarious goals. When brought to light, the malfeasors scurry away like cockroaches surprised by light. Then, investigators laboriously gather up the Raid and your roach motels to unravel the conspiracy and bring the conspirators before the law.
What I just wrote is a helpful analogy, but the actual facts of Obamagate are a bit harder to explain. That’s why I appreciated John Daniel Davidson’s masterful overview of Obamagate. He carefully avoids getting caught in the weeds of endless dates, actors, and lies, and focuses instead on the broad-brush outlines to reveal “the biggest political scandal of our time.” I actually disagree with that statement. I think that, as far as American politics go, it’s the biggest political scandal ever.
Anyway, if you’re struggling to get a handle on the two different narratives (FISA and Flynn) and the way they dovetail into a single concerted attack on the Trump campaign and then the Trump presidency, Davidson’s article is an excellent way to start.
Matt Taibbi continues his lonely journey as an honest progressive journalist. One of the things I didn’t get to blog about while my site was down was an article two law professors – one from Harvard and one from the University Arizona — wrote for The Atlantic about censorship. If you’re expecting to hear that they wrote a rousing defense of free speech, you’d be wrong. Instead, the professors advocated for abandoning constitutional free speech in favor of Chinese-style censorship, complete with tech giants giving the government the help it needs.
Taibbi does not agree, either with the professors or with other so-called “liberals” advocating for wiping out both the First and Fourth Amendments. While Taibbi doesn’t go back as far as Tom Friedman and his love affair with Chinese-style control, he does round up a few recent examples of how the Wuhan virus has been an opening for “liberals” to let out their inner fascist.
(By the way, I never use the word “liberal” to describe Democrats, progressives, or leftists. It is an obscene misnomer, and I won’t countenance it.)
Taibbi using that leftist drive for censorship as an opening to discuss covers the leftist love for “expertise,” its relentlessly scolding tone (think: Karen), and the severe limitations that hamper even good journalists. It’s a tour de force and deserves a read. Indeed, anyone, especially a progressive, who writes this deserves to be acknowledged, and that’s true even if Taibbi’s leftism still blinds him so that he meekly accepts as accurate the canard that Trump told people to inject over-the-counter disinfectants:
We have a lot of dumb people in this country. But the difference between the stupidities cherished by the Idiocracy set ingesting fish cleaner, and the ones pushed in places like the Atlantic, is that the jackasses among the “expert” class compound their wrongness by being so sure of themselves that they force others to go along. In other words, to combat “ignorance,” the scolders create a new and more virulent species of it: exclusive ignorance, forced ignorance, ignorance with staying power.
The people who want to add a censorship regime to a health crisis are more dangerous and more stupid by leaps and bounds than a president who tells people to inject disinfectant. It’s astonishing that they don’t see this.
Bastiat and the problem with the leftists’ apocalyptic world view. Years ago, I read, and fell in love with, Frédéric Bastiat’s famous economic essay, “What is seen and what is unseen.” In it, he examines the fallacy of those who say that even a broken window is a good thing, for it brings work to the glazier. Bastiat, however, points out that fixing something broken is a dead end. The window’s owner might have spent the same money on something more useful and necessary for him. This lost buying power is the “unseen” part for those who can see only a broken window and a glazier. Or, as Bastiat wrote, “Stop there! Your theory is confined to that which is seen; it takes no account of that which is not seen.”
Leftists have this limited “unseen” thinking about gun violence (they see only those 30,000 who die, not the hundreds of thousands or even millions whose lives guns save). They also have it with abortion, where the focus is on women (who can be seen), rather than on the millions of babies who never got the chance to grow up to be women (or men).
For an example of a “seen” woman’s suffering, think of Michelle Obama, who was very explicit about what a terrible choice it was for her to have children:
“My relationship with Barack was all about our equal partnership,” Obama recalled. “If I was going to have a unique voice with this very opinionated man, I had to get myself up and set myself off to a place where I was going to be his equal.”
“The thing that really changed it was the birth of our children. I wasn’t really ready for that. That really made it harder,” the first lady explained. “Something had to give and it was my aspirations and dreams.”
“I made that concession not because he said ‘you have to quit your job,’ but it felt like ‘I can’t do all of this so I have to tone down my aspirations, I have to dial it back,’” she added.
I didn’t particularly want children, but I knew it was a necessary thing to do to further my development as a mature human being. I realized that I’d miss the selfish life (and I did miss it), but that life also frightened me because I saw that it was preventing me from fully growing up. Now that my children are themselves grown, the pay-off for having had them is huge because they are delights to have around. For me, despite the lost sleep, boredom, and frustration, it was a win-win.
But back to Bastiat, progressives, and the Wuhan virus. Actually, I won’t spell out the argument in this post because you can read it here.
San Franciscans are paying the price for subsidizing vice. For a very long time, San Francisco has been subsidizing vice. First, it decriminalized crime. Drug taking, public drunkenness, public excretory functions, stealing (as long as the thief took goods worth less than $950) . . . they’re all allowed in San Francisco. For people who like engaging in those crimes, especially stealing, San Francisco is the place to be.
San Francisco has also been subsidizing substance abuse for quite a long time. Under the banner of decency, it’s made clean needles available to IV drug users and provided them with food, shelter, and other benefits. San Francisco’s progressives say that this is right and proper because drug users are victims too.
It’s true that many homeless people are mentally ill. Of course, it’s a chicken and egg question whether they had pre-existing issues and self-medicated, making themselves worse, or whether the substance abuse itself created the mental health issues. It’s also true that tossing junkies and mentally ill people in jail is not a solution.
These are real problems and require thoughtful approaches. However, you’d also think that someone in San Francisco might have realized that it’s a bad idea to create what is effectively a Utopian environment for disruptive, dangerous, dirty, disease-ridden druggies and other people with anti-social behavior.
Tax-paying, working San Francisco residents have been complaining about the homeless problem for a while now. Still, it’s hard to take their complaints seriously when they elect Chesa Boudin as the town’s DA, the man who promised to decriminalize everything. They also elected London Breed, another hard leftist, to be their mayor.
This is what happens when genuine lifestyle issues (such as being able to walk the streets safely or run a business) crash into virtue signaling. Virtue signaling always wins.
“People are coming from all over the place, Sacramento, Lake County, Bakersfield,” Jeanine Nicholson, the first lesbian head of the San Francisco Fire Department, grumbled. “People are getting released from jail in other counties and being told to go to San Francisco, where you will get a tent and then you will get housing.”
The people coming to the City by the Bay weren’t wearing flowers in their hair, they were homeless junkies who had heard that they were going to get free hotel rooms, along with pot and booze.
And it was all true. Every word of it.
San Francisco was spending $200 a night to house the homeless, or as the current politically correct euphemism insisted that they be called, the ‘unhoused’, in hotel rooms at a cost of over $100 million.
You have to read his article to believe it and, even after reading it, you might not believe it.
San Francisco always had a wacky edge, but it was an aesthetically beautiful and still functional city. Those days are over. Large parts of San Francisco are sewers with homeless people camped on the streets and affluent citizens hiding in their homes. My old neighborhood, once a working- and middle-class bastion, is the brothel center of San Francisco. The City that Herb Caen always boasted “knew how” is dying.
Go to college; get therapy. Three years ago, I wrote a post about Macalester College, a small and expensive liberal arts college in St. Paul, Minnesota, and its proud boast about having multiple therapy dogs. I was revolted.
If you look at the photo for that post, which is simply the cover of Macalester’s magazine for parents, you’ll see that it shows girls crowding around the therapy dog. That was a familiar sight for me. When I was on a small liberal arts college campus several years ago, one that had a therapy dog, I noticed incoming freshman crowding around the dog, not in a “What a cute dog” way, but in an “I desperately need help way.” I also noticed how highly feminized the boys were, whether they were gay or straight.
Heather MacDonald, who’s a smarter, more knowledgeable, and a better writer than I am, has just written a lengthy article about the therapeutic culture at Yale and other American colleges, something that fuses feminism with mental illness. She describes how students are never told to buck up and embrace their experience. Instead, they are encouraged to revert to toddler-esque panic and equally immature means of relieving that panic. This instruction in helplessness is paired with the bizarre feminization of the therapeutic college culture:
For the last 40 years, men have been an underrepresented minority in higher education, reports American Enterprise Institute scholar Mark Perry. Since 1982, females earned nearly 14 million more college degrees than men. Colleges began a “desperate” search for women faculty in the 1970s that eroded the “intellectual rigor of elite higher education in the U.S.,” says Camille Paglia, the feminist professor and author. “Due to that sudden influx, academe’s entire internal culture changed,” she says. As the female presence has grown, so have claims of a crisis of collegiate mental health.
Nationally, about two-thirds of the students who sought treatment for mental-health disorders in the 2018–19 academic year were female, according to the Center for Collegiate Mental Health. At Yale, therapy use is heavily female and LGBTQ, according to students. “There are few straight men using therapy,” one self-identified “queer” girl in the GLC said. “It’s stigmatized for straight CIS men. Almost all my friends who go to therapy identify as gay or trans.”
I sent my college-attending children links to MacDonald’s article. I think they’ll recognize their classmates, especially their unstable, highly neurotic, angry, and dangerous female classmates, in the article.
You have to read this. Dov Fischer, a lawyer and rabbi, has written an extraordinary article entitled A Time to Hate. He explains how he, like other conservatives during the Obama years, hated Obama’s policies and corruption, while still accepting that Obama was the duly elected president. That is, conservatives understood that Republicans ran lousy candidates and paid the price. It was up to conservatives to step up their game at election time if they wanted something different than the Obama presidency.
Now, however, after three years of unmitigated hysteria, corruption, lies, coups, and other attacks on the core of the Trump presidency (that is, three years of attacks on our constitutional notion of the executive office) Fischer has changed his mind. He has learned to hate.
As I said, the article is extraordinary, and I highly encourage your looking it over.
That’s enough for one day. By the way, as you can see, I’ve changed my “woman writing” picture for a new one that better suits my blog’s format. When you see that image at the head of a post, you’ll know that the post is one that jumbles together a whole lot of things that interest me.
The NYTs’ piece about women’s alleged poop paranoia is another weapon in the Left’s ongoing war to shred women’s privacy and get men into women’s restrooms.
I have written several posts over the years about the Democrats being the party of poop, to which I’ve linked at the end of this post. Democrats can also claim the honor of having turned one of America’s most beautiful cities (that would be my hometown of San Francisco) into a literal sh*thole. And just today, the New York Timesadded another entry, one that’s more nefarious and less unintentionally humorous than people realize:
It is no exaggeration to say that the article is full of fecal matter. I put on gloves, sprayed myself with disinfectant, and glanced through it to discover the Left’s latest fecal fantasy. What I found was a lot of feminist silliness and an underlying message that women are victims buying into the patriarchy if they believe that they should be allowed to use the toilet without an audience, especially a male audience.
Before I get to the meat of the matter, I have to discuss the picture illustrating the article, because it’s really confusing. Looking at the far left stall, some have commented that it appears that two women are in there, maybe having a nice conversation while one poops or maybe engaging in some weird fetish stuff that I don’t want to think about. However, closer examination reveals that the woman on the left is cannot be an active participant in what’s going on. The artist’s childlike warped perspective can lead to only one conclusion: That poor woman is trapped within the wall of the stall, kind of like this:
I’d prefer not even to touch upon the other images, one of a man doing things, another of a scary smiling toilet, and the last of a woman who made herself at home by taking her shoes off in a dirty public bathroom. Oh, ick! But still, if you read on, that man will make an appearance in this post.
The article’s text tells us that women need to stop being embarrassed that they have bodily functions and that poop smells. If only the corporate world would pay attention to this problem!
We may be living in an age where certain pockets of the corporate world are breathlessly adapting to women’s needs — company-subsidized tampons, salary workshops, lactation rooms. But even in the world’s most progressive workplace, it’s not a stretch to think that you might have an empowered female executive leading a meeting at one moment and then sneaking off to another floor to relieve herself, the next.
Yes, the gray Lady is now concerned about “the pootriarchy.” I learned from my mother, who spent her last years in an old age home, that one of the ways in which extremely demented elderly people revert to their infantile status is to play with poop. At first glance, it appears that the same holds true for demented elderly media outlets. I smell a more nefarious motive . . . and really, it does smell just like poop.
The core of the article is the claim that women have been oppressed for centuries by having to hide their bowel movements while men can publicly poop and fart with style and humor. The article is correct that men and women in Western society approach voiding differently, but I’d like to suggest that it’s not the patriarchy that did this. It’s because, outside of the world of transgender madness, men and women have different bodies.
When it comes to voiding, the primary difference between men and women from the waist down is the penis. Thanks to that handy-dandy watering hose, men can pee while standing up and fully clothed. It’s an awesome thing. It’s discrete and it makes it easy for men to relieve themselves publicly. They’re necessarily going to become more comfortable with any public voiding.
Women, meanwhile, need to strip down and squat down to pee (although they can stand if they don’t mind peeing all over their feet). That’s an extraordinarily vulnerable position in which to find oneself. In war zones, when men have to defecate from the same vulnerable position, they’ll take a friend with them to guard them against enemies who may sneak up on them. In civilized societies, women guard against predators while in this vulnerable position by demanding privacy.
In other words, putting aside all the third-wave feminist crap in the NYT’s latest entry in the poop wars, women’s poop issues aren’t about the patriarchy, they’re about safety. But the Times doesn’t acknowledge this. As the illustration above shows, it wants to do away with privacy altogether by making men a part of every woman’s bathroom experience.
The goal of an article like this is to further the push for getting men into women’s bathrooms. Women who want privacy are shamed by being told that they are victims of the poop patriarchy. They need to get over it, the LGBTQ crowd, sex perverts, and useful idiots insist, and let men join women while women are at their most physically vulnerable.
The Left is the party of poop in part because its members are ridiculously immature and in part because controlling poop means controlling people . . . in this case, women who want privacy from predators while pooping.
By the way, if you are the type of person, male or female, who prefers not to share your internal body odors with others, I recommend Poo-Pourri Before-You-Go Toilet Spray, which I’ve learned through my little Bookworms is very popular among college students who live in close confines.