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

"Victims" Who Bully

If you watch this it looks more like wincing than smirking.

Some poor kid, as yet unidentified, (but don't worry the left will take care of that oversight soon), is in deep trouble. This unfortunate Catholic schoolboy went to a pro-life rally and stood in place while a "native American" approached from a nearby pro-left rally banged a drum in his face for two or three minutes and now he faces possible suspension, national shaming and who knows what other "punishments". He kept his hands behind him the entire time as the native American elder fronted they young man. The boy did not speak. He didn't behave aggressively. He simply refused to retreat as the "native American elder" swung a mallet and banged a drum just inches from his face. 

His biggest crime?  He wore a "Make America Great Again" hat while doing it. His second "crime" was he didn't frown, didn't back away and wore (gasp) a smirky teenaged kid smile. Better yet, Nathan Phillips, the Native America Vietnam Veteran and former director of the Native Youth Alliance who banged the drum in the Catholic schoolboy's face gave a nice interview in which he lamented the idea of a border wall; said that Native Americans had never needed a wall and shed one of those single tears like that fake Indian in the anti-littering TV commercial back in the 60s.

The poor boy was the perfect target. The only thing the gang of thugs who backed up Mr. Phillips were there to do was to egg things on. The fact that you can hear on the tape several of the boys saying, "I don't understand what's going on."  Obviously the kids didn't realize that they were being set up for a video taped incident.

As someone who worked for years with boys, I probably view this video from a rather different perspective from that of communist, lesbian, feminist, Democrat, journalist, social justice warriors. As such, I will likely draw some ire from that class of folk. Also, I have probably have ruined any chance I might have to serve on the Supreme court simply by writing this weblog.

The most troubling thing about things like this is the inexorable slide the culture is taking toward a kind of mob rule/tribalism it represents. Such a culture, such a government tends to use bullying, lies, intimidation, shaming and punishment to enforce it's collective will on anyone who is not a member of the perceived majority. It is antithetical to the American way of life as it has been preserved for more than a quarter of a millennium. The US Constitution was brilliantly designed to push us to be better than we were then and in the future to be better than we are now.  It forced an end to slavery, the emancipation of women and acceptance of the minority populations who came to join us and the embracing of our differences.

We are going backwards. Political correctness, media control, public shaming and the slide toward collectivism takes us back to a medieval feudal style culture with an elite ruling class and a homogeneous proletariat who all think alike, act the same way and dare not believe differently from the herd.

Almost time to go home.

© 2019 by Tom King

Environmentalist Shaming

I note the youth of those who are the most militant of the environmental lobby. Their behavior reflects their youth. They do NOT want change unless that change preserves things the way they are. If you ever had to make a move because of a new job and had teens in the house, you have heard the lamentations of kids being forced to change to a new school. It's really pitiful. And it explains why, despite some very rational arguments against the leftist position that climate must NOT change, they cling to that idea and resist any notion that their world should be any different in 50 years than it is now. I do pity them if we ever get hit by a big asteroid. Talk about ruining their world. Their instinctive reaction to those who offer an argument that contradicts the heard belief in the doctrines of the First Environmentalist Church of Gaia is, of course, to shame the nay-sayers into submission. After all, shaming works particularly well with people who desperately want to belong to the herd. And frankly, most of these young snowflakes cannot imagine anyone who doesn't want to belong to the herd and accept their shared beliefs. To live outside the herd is unimaginable to a child.

Like children, they tend to resort to some form of shaming to defend their fundamentalist environmental religion when challenged.  I recently posted this little note. Frankly I did it to get a rise out of my lefty buds from the militant environmentalist save-the-world-through socialism wing of the Democrat and Green Parties. Here's what I asked:

CO2 is what plants breathe. So why do you guys hate plants?

It was targeted at the environmentalist narrative that CO2 is bad, which seems to me a little strange. After all, an abundance of CO2 makes plants grow really really well and they, in turn, enrich the atmosphere with oxygen. It's a lovely thing. One of my friends, who I do not lump in with the fanatic progressive left as he debates with a remarkable level of fairness, commented. He objected that he didn't hate plants, it was the people cutting down the rain forests. Of course they are doing that to grow crops and grass for cattle to eat, so they don't exactly hate plants. They just want to grow more of a certain kind of plants. I pointed this out. The discussion is ongoing.

So what I find strange is that the environmentalist true-believers want to preserve dense rain forests and at the same time want to reduce the carbon dioxide gas the rain forest plants need to survive and grow well.  And, as progressives are so fond of saying when we try to end some intrusive government program, "Well, what are you going to replace our program of increased government and anti-people initiatives with if we're going to 'save' the planet."

How about nothing? The question assumes we need to "save" the planet. Okay, make polluters clean up after themselves. I can get behind that, but to return human civilization to some Luddite agrarian pre-technology human civilization would require millions of people to die off because we can't afford them. It certainly explains the progressive infatuation with abortion.

As to what you can do practically to "save" the rain forests, I don't think the environmentalist left has a good plan. Unless the forces of environmentalism plan to invade Brazil and physically stop all those indigenous peoples and their willing corporate allies and Brazilian ranchers and farmers from clearing farmland, I don't see that there's a lot they can do about it. AND if they do plant crops instead of trees, those plants will likely be CO2 breathers like the rain forest trees so it's not a total loss of biomass.

Something similar has happened in the USA. Today there are more trees in North America than there were when Columbus' started the invasion of evil white people. We fight wildfires nowadays instead of letting them burn down areas the size of states like they used to when indigenous peoples were doing forestry management. We plant trees along every street and hedges and green lawns around every house, even in places that were barren save for some barely alive dry grass before we moved in. We have crops instead of grasslands, but, hey, we're feeding people who because they eat better are now living long enough to complain because we don't go back to total wildness and do the decent thing. The "decent thing" is, of course, to go ahead and die off by the billions and reduce the surplus population (defined as mainly anyone who is not a progressive). Of course, what people that are left after the deplorables are sifted out of the populations*, will starve because progressives tend to not be a bunch of hick farmers and protesting doesn't create much in the way of food.

I'm sorry. I get started when someone takes a side track to deflect from the point - which is:

1. A rise in CO2 levels, as science has shown, follows rather than leads periods of warming. So rising CO2 levels are likely a result of a rise in global temperatures rather than the cause of it.
2. A rise in CO2 levels leads to an explosion of plant growth of all kinds, which leads to a rise in oxygen levels due to the plants CO2 scrubbing proclivities.
3. As CO2 levels rise, the rain forests will thicken and spread into areas where people aren't fighting it, so Mama Nature won't be going gently into that good night.
4. Socialism won't fix that. (See the missing Aral Sea, The Caspian and very Black Seas - thank you Soviet Union and Communist China).
5. CO2 is good for the plants. Crops grow better, rain forests grow thicker and your houseplants are happier. God has built into the Earth some amazing automatic climate control mechanisms.
6. That said, no one has figured out how to put a thermostat on the sun and climate temperatures rise and fall at the whim of merry old Sol. Nothing we can do about that. It's a NUCLEAR furnace 93 million miles away. And who is to say that the temperature we have now should be locked in as the one and only ideal temperature. Climate has changed a lot throughout the ages in response to many factors. Volcanoes are pretty good at blocking out sunlight and cooling things off or at pumping billions of tons of CO2 into the air. We haven't figured out a control thermostat mechanism for volcanoes yet either.
7. No one will starve if the temps go up. I know you've heard that we'll have vast desert wastelands if temps rise just a degree or so. Well, what they don't tell you is that a few degrees rise will open up vast acres of farmland in Canada, Siberia, and northern Europe to potential cultivation. We'll just have to move around a bit to adapt, but that is why God gave us two legs and UHaul gave us rental trucks and trailers.

Just sayin'
 
© 2018 by Tom King
 
* Can you say "gulags".