David Thompson
Subscribe

Categories

Blog powered by Typepad

« Escape Is Forbidden | Main | She Doesn’t Do Toilets »

July 15, 2019

Comments

David

this bozo is running for president.

It’s in pious drag, but I think it’s actually a kind of psychological abuse.

[+]

It’s in pious drag, but I think it’s actually a kind of psychological abuse.

Gaslighting.

David

Gaslighting.

Well, yes, pretty much.

WTP

I think it’s actually a kind of psychological abuse.

Well, they've been refining the process in their corporate diversity training labs (see Jane Elliott, etc.) for a few decades now. It's been long overdue to take it live to the masses for the real power grab.

jabrwok

Hot take detected

Single women love cats because deep down they miss submitting to strong, confident men who expect to be fed on time and don't care about their feelings.

Boatswain's Mate

Re: Muldoon's link about the Kiwi weightlifter who got the benefit of 30-something years of testosterone and other male hormones to aid in building muscle mass and and bone density, who then decided Dude Was a Lady, and, by some strange force of magic, beat women, who did not have the aforementioned 30+ years of benefit, at weightlifting.

The article states: Hubbard, who is the daughter of cereal magnate Dick Hubbard... (emphasis supplied).

NO! Just, for the love of all that's holy and profane, NO! "Hubbard, who is the child of...," or "who is the spawn (or product, or creature, or whatever) of," those are factually true and acceptable. But xir will NEVER be the daughter of ANYONE!

Dammit, words still have meanings! And there are only FOUR LIGHTS! So F*** YOU, O'Brien!

David
Yes, we must restructure society because some entitled princess doesn’t want to clean the bathroom.

Tim Newman discovers more feminism that sounds an awful lot like narcissism.

David

Hubbard, who is the daughter of cereal magnate Dick Hubbard

You have to wonder what future generations will make of the strange dance that many of us are doing.

Boatswain's Mate

Tim Newman discovers more feminism that sounds an awful lot like narcissism.

I have noticed that theme of "unpaid work" (along with "emotional labor" and similar, narcissistic concepts) come up more and more frequently.

My question is: Do feminists and SJWs truly believe that there can or should be absolutely no expenditure of even the slightest physical or mental exertion for which there is no monetary remuneration?

Does the mere fact that your heart beats (which does require physical effort) mean that some form of payment of such effort is required?

Oh, wait. I think I just answered my own question.

Haulm

That's ruined women's weightlifting for me...

Twenty years ago when Hawaii created the first girls wrestling state championship the conservative argument would have been that girls shouldn’t be wrestling. Today the conservative argument is that trans wrestlers shouldn’t ruin girls wrestling.

A society has to reject traditional sex roles enough to encourage girls to wrestle, but it has to be traditional enough to not yet embrace transsexualism. Girls wrestling is a sort of Goldilocks phenomenon. It can only occur for a short window when everything is just right.

David

I have noticed that theme of “unpaid work” (along with “emotional labor” and similar, narcissistic concepts) come up more and more frequently.

Judging by almost any of the feminist articles and publications featured here over the years, you might reasonably deduce that feminist is a synonym for woman who is outraged by the belated realisation that her choices, and vanities, have obvious and insufficiently flattering consequences.

I mean, it would cover the bulk of it.

jabrwok

Does the mere fact that your heart beats (which does require physical effort) mean that some form of payment of such effort is required?

We haven't had enough Kipling hereabouts of late.

When all men are paid for existing and no man must pay for his sins,
As surely as Water will wet us, as surely as Fire will burn,
The Gods of the Copybook Headings with terror and slaughter return!

Pogonip

You know, these feminists must have escaped from sitcoms. Their view of humanity is the stereotypes of a 24-minute TV show. My dad, born 1927, did plenty of cleaning, mainly because Mom, born 1929, couldn’t meet his finicky Pennsylvania Dutch standards, and also because they both worked.

Pogonip

OK, i guess the “Lion King” article is real after all.

https://thefederalist.com/2019/07/17/beyond-parody-wapo-article-insists-lion-king-racist-fascist-blah-blah-blah/

Squires

Dumb bint detected.

Fat girl with dyed hair and user icon tailored to disguise corpulence overreaches in announcement of enwokened status.

Hubbard, who is the daughter of cereal magnate Dick Hubbard...

Male who was raised without material struggle seeks display of obstacles overcome the laziest way.

Gaslighting

How many fingers are they holding up?

Answer: However many they want you to say.

David

Today’s words are public relations.

aelfheld

One does not read New Yorker 'humor' to be amused but rather to be validated.

Burge's Law: Every New Yorker cartoon can be improved by recaptioning "I think I'm going to kill myself" — David Burge (@iowahawkblog) March 23, 2014
Pogonip

https://bayourenaissanceman.blogspot.com/2019/07/not-family-friendly-but-fiendishly-funny.html?m=1

😄

TimT

One does not read New Yorker 'humor' to be amused but rather to be validated.

Strange case of a magazine that was started by a whole group of geniuses - Thurber, E.B. White, Dorothy Parker, S. J. Perelman - whose style was so idiosyncratic that all the latter generation can do is write pale imitations thereof.

But then, often there's nothing a comedy audience likes better than having their own views affirmed. There's a reason almost the entire comedy scene is stultifyingly progressive: it's so much easier for a stand-up to coast on the laughs of an audience that is comfortable and unchallenged.

Farnsworth M Muldoon

Good news everyone ! Another major problem has been solved. No comment on the test subject's lack of need for the solution is required, I think.

Baceseras

You knew it was coming 

It done been here already.

How spiritually bereft, how morally twisted, does a person have to be to boo the moon landing? It was fair enough for liberals to make the Apollo program a rhetorical foil for more welfare spending. Hubert Humphrey did that. So did Ed Koch, then in Congress, who explained, “I cannot justify approving moneys to find out whether or not there is some microbe on Mars when in fact I know there are rats in Harlem apartments.” But at the sacred moment Neil Armstrong stepped onto the Sea of Tranquility, with the aspirations of mankind resting on his shoulders and the dying cries of Gus Grissom and the other casualties of the Apollo program ringing in his ears, what kind of monster would interrupt with a boo?

The audience at the Harlem Cultural Festival, apparently. The crowd of fifty thousand that had gathered in Marcus Garvey Park to hear Stevie Wonder and Gladys Knight jeered when the lunar touchdown was announced. They were not alone. In the fraught ’60s, the space program irritated many radicals, including feminists, environmentalists, and peace campaigners, for reasons that went beyond its extravagant price tag, and involved its deeper, more symbolic meaning. This hostility is the subject of Neil M. Maher’s Apollo in the Age of Aquarius.

Maher offers no unifying thesis, but the thread running through his book is the sheer irrationality of left-wing opposition to the space program. A better word might be subrationality. . . .

Teal

No comment on the test subject's lack of need for the solution is required, I think.

https://twitter.com/iowahawkblog/status/1151556503918260224

https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2001/aug/14/edinburghfestival2001.edinburghbookfestival2001

"You could see the little girls, fat with complacency and conceit while the little boys sat there crumpled, apologising for their existence, thinking this was going to be the pattern of their lives."

“When women are paving the way for sharia, this is presumably because women want sharia.”

Ten

How spiritually bereft, how morally twisted, does a person have to be to boo the moon landing?

How rhetorically preposterous does a boomer have to be to make national Sixties dick-waving the ne plus ultra of western civilization? While otherwise largely misidentifying it, of course.

Tribalism is the most basic psychological drive of all

Do tell, physician.

NASA stopped sending people into space in 2011, yet you can buy organic yogurt at every supermarket.

She clanged, self-evidently. Oh the humanity.

WTP

Another major problem has been solved.

She nailed a couple pieces of wood to a chair. She's a design genius.

BTW, did someone mention Kipling? More apropos perhaps, at least as regards intent...

Man's timid heart is bursting with the things he must not say,
For the Woman that God gave him isn't his to give away;
But when hunter meets with husbands, each confirms the other's tale—
The female of the species is more deadly than the male.

jabrwok

The female of the species is more deadly than the male.

I've always wondered just what Kipling was thinking with that line. In a one-on-one conflict between a man and a woman, the man will win and the woman will lose and probably die, in almost every such conflict. How "more deadly" then?

More vicious, more spiteful, more manipulative...these I can see. But more deadly? That adjective requires some support. Unless he was just sucking up to the proto-Feminists of his age, or being all "chivalric" and boosting the pedestalization of women without actually believing what he was saying.

WTP

I've always wondered just what Kipling was thinking with that line

It is an interesting bit in it's historical context (1911), and in spite of my comment I think he was being, for his time, a tad more of a suckup to the women of his day than he lets on. The whole thing is rather wry in its wit and I can read it a half dozen different way TBH. Remember, of course, that the women's suffrage movement was becoming quite strong in both the US and the UK (and elsewhere?) at the time. Sir Winston had his own public disputes with the movement either around that time or shortly later on. I think the poem as a whole is both a tip of the hat to women for their historical talents (at least in a 19th century looking back perspective) with a poor hand well played. Yet at the same time he seems to be playing his own game at trying to hold the WS movement at bay by suggesting that they focus more on their implicit (hand that rocks the cradle and otherwise) power in modern Western civilization than the more hamfisted attempts at acquiring explicit political power, which from a perspective of that time seemed quite likely to fail. And likely ultimately will fail as we come back around to the Gods of the Copybook Headings.

Daniel Ream

I've always wondered just what Kipling was thinking with that line.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Female_of_the_Species_(poem)

Randy

So. Did anyone do anything wildly exciting over the weekend?

The wife and I went to the range and punched a bunch of holes in paper.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Blogroll