Feminist Logic: Women Can't Be Toxic

So toxic masculinity is real but there's no such thing as toxic femininity? Now, that hardly seems like it's fair to women. I think its downright discriminatory to say that women can't be as toxic as men, but that seems to be the narrative from feminists lately. I hesitated to post that link because the article is packed with unsourced "statistics", hyperbole and straw man logic fallacies, but it's the feminist narrative. Men bad, women good!

What balderdash! Sin is sin. In a fight men just happen to be bigger and more likely to win. And if a man does hold back from fighting with a women and gets himself clouted with a skillet for his trouble, he doesn't report it to the statistics police. If a man suffers abuse at the hands of his spouse and refuses to hit her back, that goes unreported. So on paper, women seem to be taking all the abuse. As it turns out those lopsided statistics are just that - lopsided.

It's not a masculinity problem, it's a sin problem and the feminist movement has set a trap for men by redefining what sin is. They told men traditional sexual values were out the window and that women want sex in the same way men do - setting off a sexual revolution that ignored thousands of years of human history altogether and cast off the protections women had won over millennia of civilization building. In the process of embracing sexual freedom, feminists have inadvertently given men permission to be pigs. The idea that women want "it" in the same way men do has created a mythos that has further encouraged the growth of a massive pornography industry; an industry that teaches generations of impressionable kids that abusing women is what women secretly want men to do to them. And if someone goes after the porn industry to shut it down, they're shouted down by the same forces of political correctness that claim women can't be toxic.

There's an old expression, "Hoist by his (or her) own petard." It means blown up by the bomb you were building. I think it's an appropriate expression here. It's the same leftist baloney that says people of color can't be racist and progressives can't exploit the masses.

Why?

Well...........because we say so!

© 2018 by Tom King

Hoist by Their Own Petards

I used to hear the phrase "hoist by their own petard" and imagine someone dangling from the end of a rope attached to a particularly sensitive appendage. The phrase with that thought in mind is particularly poetic these days, if not entirely accurate. Actually a "petard" is a bomb of the sort that sappers (military engineers) used to set under under walls to attack fortifications (from which we derive the term "undermine"). To be "hoist by one's own petard" is literally to have the bomb or mine, with which you are attempting to attack your enemy, blow up in your face and send you flying. Thus you are "hoist" by your own petard.

The Democrats have long been using undermining as a way to attack their enemies. One of the favorite weapons has been to attack sexist pigs (pretty much all Republicans) by finding people who have been sexually abused. Hillary Clinton famously argued that all such accusations must be given credibility as no one would ever make such an accusation falsely. She said this after destroying the multiple women who accused her hubbie of groping, fondling, raping, or propositioning them for sex. Even after he got caught getting serviced under the Presidential desk during a conversation with a cabinet official and lied bald-faced to the American people about it, Democrats lined up to defend him saying, "It was only sex!"

Of late, the Democrats are discovering how dangerous it is to attack your enemy with sexual petards while smoking long cigars yourself. The carnage has been spectacular taking down Senators, Congressmen, movie moguls, actors and journalists right and left. Women, apparently tired of being groped in the name of sexual liberation, have come out of the woodwork to accuse dozens of famous men (even one notable gay man) of everything from butt-grabbing and casting couch misbehavior to pedophilia and saying naughty words.

The Democrats should check the quality and stability of the sorts of explosives they are using to build their petards. While they've successfully damaged such notables as Roy Moore and Bill O'Reilly, they've also blown up long-time supporter Harvey Weinstein who has a whole bunch of embarrassing photos of himself with his arms around Hillary Clinton, Diane Feinstein and other Democrat women who all seem to be smiling and enjoying the embrace of the old Hollywood lech.

The list is getting embarrassingly long including such notables as Charlie Rose, Matt Lauer, Kevin Spacey, Al Franken, and Louis C.K.* The latest "shocking" accusation has been a complaint filed with Minnesota Public Radio against lovable 75 year-old liberal curmudgeon and humorist Garrison Keillor, who was terminated immediately by MPR. Kellor, ironically, recently defended Democrat Senator and professional comedian (ah, but I repeat myself) Al Franken over his sexual indiscretions saying that the accusations against Franken were "low comedy" and should be forgiven. Keillor went on to say, "A world in which there is no sexual harassment at all is a world in which there will not be any flirtation."

It is the irony of progressive liberalism that the so-called "party of the people" claims that it will usher in an age of liberation in which a utopia of sex, drugs, and rock n' roll will surely follow the worldwide adoption of the principles of socialism. Yet in every case, almost the first thing the new socialist dear leaders do is ban rock n' roll, make drugs unobtainable (even the pharmaceutical ones) and make sex a dangerous proposition. There have never been more grim societies than the ones that first promised to create a worker's paradise. Hitler, Mussolini, Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, and all the rest of them created grim societies based on repression and shared misery. The sex, drugs, and rock n' roll crowd were inevitably the first ones up against the wall.

Newsweek attempted to blame it all on Republicans claiming the Democrats had borrowed the technique of claiming sexual misconduct against political opponents from Republicans. "They did it first," is the liberal journalist's talking point, as though Bill Clinton boning the interns was the first time any politician was ever called out on sexual misconduct. Even Bill Clinton isn't safe now as both sides have opened fire with all their guns. Clinton, himself, the poster boy for "it's only sex", is currently being fed to the journalistic wood-chipper by fellow Democrats who, as Winston Churchill famously described it, "...are feeding the crocodile hoping it will eat them last."

CS Lewis more than a half century ago pointed out the danger of allowing ourselves to be governed by "omnipotent moral busybodies". The great danger in seizing for yourself the unearned moral high ground is that the morally superior almost inevitably morph into grim, judgmental, iron-pantsed hypocrites and if you've given them any power over you, they will be determined to exercise that power over you. Robber Barons, as Lewis pointed out, may eventually be satisfied and stop robbing you, but those who boss and bully you with the approval of their own conscience never get tired of it and always become progressively more oppressive.

Just sayin'.

© 2017 by Tom King

 * I've begun to think it's all part of a feminist plot to take over the world. Men are getting scarce anymore on news programs and the ones that are left have been very polite to their female colleagues lately. I'm noticing male journalists wear a kind of hunted look lately, sitting there alone, the only source of testosterone on a long talk show couch that reeks of estrogen and anger from one end to the other.

An Entirely Inappropriate Adjective

Only a feminist could use a term that means literally "for the sake of the f-word" and then expect me to respect her opinion as a woman. First off I find that word to be unlovely, crude and almost a kind of verbal rape in the way it is used. Every thing it is attached to as an adjective is reduced by the word to the status of a crude sort of verbal rape.

If we wish to promote respect for women and their rights as human beings (all of which are enumerated in the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, The Bill of Rights, and the Bible), then women's rights advocates should choose better words it seems to me.

I'm just saying.....© 2017 by Tom King