OK, at first it was kind of amusing. Snowflakes nationwide were losing their collective shit over the election of someone they did not support, because they were so enamored with the idea that Queen Pantsuit would be crowned on January 20, 2017. Things didn’t quite pan out that way, and things got out of hand very quickly.
There were recount demands.
There were unhinged lectures by out-of-touch, billionaire Hollywood actors, ivory tower academics, and snotty artists demeaning and harassing their fellow Americans, as well as the President’s family.
There were protests… sometimes violent ones.
And then there were the boycotts.
Uber, Nordstrom, UnderArmour, Nieman Marcus, “grab your wallet,” hearings on Trump nominees, unhinged demands that Ivanka Trump take art she has purchased off her walls, deranged mommies soiling themselves because a toddler – A FOUR YEAR OLD CHILD – whose grandfather happens to be the President, is attending pre-school with their precious snowflakes…
I’m no longer amused. Frankly, I’m a bit disturbed by the concerted snowflake effort to literally destroy what they perceive to be “the enemy” at any cost.
And in case you were wondering, the enemy is not just anyone who voted for Trump. The enemy is anyone who does business with him or his family. They can’t just walk away from the product and not buy it. They must destroy the entire business for selling it, and in the process impact jobs – work for the very people they claim to want to defend against those evil rich bastards who take advantage of them and keep them down. Because the little folks don’t matter if your overall strategic goal is to decimate the enemy.
Believe it or not, I’ve only discovered Wegmans recently, but having seen the selection of cheese, wine, international foods, meat, teas, prepared foods… I’m a convert.
Of course to the demented prognazis, nothing is sacred. Not even Wegmans. The store’s “crime?” Selling wine produced by a winery Trump purchased in 2011.
The regional supermarket chain with a cult following is facing calls to remove Trump Winery products from its 10 Virginia stores. Over the weekend, about 300 members of the Prince William County chapter of the National Organization for Women made plans to pressure Wegmans to stop carrying products from the Charlottesville winery.
“Certainly if Wegmans is carrying Trump wines, I personally will not shop there,” said Terry O’Neill, president of the National Organization for Women, who was not present at the meeting. The nonprofit, which was founded 50 years ago, has more than 500,000 contributing members, making it the country’s largest feminist organization.
The Rochester, N.Y.-based Wegmans sells 237 Virginia wines from 58 wineries at its local stores. Among those wines are five varieties from the Trump Winery, including Trump Blanc de Blanc and Trump Winery Chardonnay. According to Jo Natale, vice president of media relations for Wegmans, the company has been selling wines from the Charlottesville winery since 2008, before it was owned by Donald Trump — and long before he campaigned for the White House.
You see, to the prognazis, choice is not an option. If they refuse to buy the product, no one should be able to purchase it! Conform, or face boycotts and hits to your bottom line. They don’t want you to even have the option of purchasing a wine from Trump’s Charlottesville winery, and they’re willing to impact the bottom line of a store — which, by the way, is committed to charitable giving and improving its communities, in addition to employing hundreds of workers, who I would guess make a fraction of what NOW president Terry O’Neill rakes in — to achieve their goal.
The prognazis, as usual, have a very tenuous grasp on economics. They don’t understand that if enough people simply refuse to purchase a product, the drop in sales will inevitably cause the store to stop carrying it. No boycott of the store needed. If the product is not profitable, it will go away.
But they’re not willing to wait that long. They don’t want you to have that choice. And they’re willing to work to destroy a business, rather than let economics take its course. They don’t want you to vote with your wallet. They simply want to force you and the store to conform to their desires.
And, not to Godwin myself out of the conversation, but there’s a certain familiar feeling to the prognazis’ actions of late.
On April 1, 1933, the Nazis carried out the first nationwide, planned action against Jews: a boycott targeting Jewish businesses and professionals. The boycott was both a reprisal and an act of revenge against Gruelpropaganda (atrocity stories) that German and foreign Jews, assisted by foreign journalists, were allegedly circulating in the international press to damage Nazi Germany’s reputation.
On the day of the boycott, Storm Troopers (Sturmabteilung; SA) stood menacingly in front of Jewish-owned department stores and retail establishments, and the offices of professionals such as doctors and lawyers. The Star of David was painted in yellow and black across thousands of doors and windows, with accompanying antisemitic slogans. Signs were posted saying “Don’t Buy from Jews” and “The Jews Are Our Misfortune.” Throughout Germany, acts of violence against individual Jews and Jewish property occurred; the police intervened only rarely.
Much like the Sturmabteilung troops refused to allow people to make a individual choices with their wallets, opting instead to forcibly prevent them from making that choice, the prognazis would rather force an entire store to close its doors, firing personnel and leaving the community of which they are a part – they would rather destroy a business – than allow people to make individual choices with their wallets.
Those who forget history and all that…
Or maybe they remember, which makes their actions all the more disturbing.
PS: If this unhinged fuckstick really keeps his promise of snipping off his schlong in response to us building a wall, I’ll personally contribute money for that venture and will spend my vacation laying bricks! Anything to keep these freaks from reproducing!
There’s this woman named Anne Mahlum, who runs a Solidcore gym in DC. When Ivanka Trump signed up for a class in one of her gyms under an alias, Mahlum went public, calling out the young mother, castigating her on social media for the world to see, and claiming that Ivanka Trump’s father is somehow “threatening the rights of many” of her “beloved” clients and coaches.
Just how many illegal aliens does Anne Mahlum employ? What rights are getting violated?
Oh, she didn’t elaborate on that part. She simply publicly called out Ivanka Trump for having the unmitigated gall to enter a place of business and pay for a service!
And for this – because the President’s daughter dared to take a fitness class in her studio – she was publicly harassed by this Muppet on meth lookalike!
Is it any wonder Ivanka Trump used an alias? Good lord! The woman wanted to take a fitness class. She wanted some anonymity, for a damn change, after being harassed by hysterical, virtue signaling leftist shit swizzles. And instead of affording the young woman some respect as a customer and understanding as a human being, Mahlum decided to call her out.
In a follow-up email, Mahlum, ostensibly after being slammed not just on her social media page, but also in the media, tried to mitigate the situation.
“…Solidcore is an organization founded on inclusivity” and apologized if her Facebook post didn’t make that clear. She stressed that Ivanka was not denied services, and she had not said the First Daughter could not attend Solidcore. She says she wanted to meet with Ivanka to suggest private classes and “in hopes of having a discussion about our community.”
The woman paid you to work out. She has zero obligation to discuss anything with you! She’s not her father. She wasn’t elected to anything. She’s not living on the taxpayer dime, and like you, she is an accomplished businesswoman, who is successful in her own right, and is and should be a role model to women. As Piers Morgan reminds us (HOLY SHIT I’M QUOTING PIERS MORGAN IN A BLOG POST IN A POSITIVE WAY!):
She graduated cum laude with a bachelor’s degree in economics from the Wharton Business School at the University of Pennsylvania.
In 2007, she launched Trump Fine Jewelry and the brand sells available throughout the US and Canada, as well as the Middle East.
She then launched her own fashion line that sells in major US department stores.
She was also, until recently, Executive Vice President of Development and Acquisitions at the Trump Organisation, and served on the board of 100 Women in Hedge Funds, an industry organisation that provides support to women professionals in finance.
As I wrote recently, Ivanka Trump is involved in multiple charities and has been a rock of support for women worldwide.
Some of the charities she supports are Habitat for Humanity, AIDS Life, the Children’s Aid Society, United Cerebral Palsy, and the Walkabout Foundation. And in 2010, Ivanka designed and sold a bracelet specifically to benefit the United Nations Foundation’s Girl Up campaign, which “aims to raise money and awareness to educate and propel adolescent girls in need to the next generation of leadership.”
And yet, she has been harassed, her business has been the target of boycotts, and she has been denigrated by the “tolerant” compatriots of Anne Mahlum for something as innocent as tweeting a photo of herself holding her baby – merely because they don’t like her dad.
And now, she can’t even take a fitness class in peace without being harassed by this rude harpy.
Anne Mahlum doesn’t just not comprehend the concept of fair treatment of her customers, she also doesn’t seem to understand what it means to be a decent human being and business owner.
She outed a client, who was obviously looking for some privacy and paid her to provide a service: fitness training.
She harassed her customer on social media, for no other reason than who her father is, and because apparently she had the gall to come into her place of business thinking she would… you know… pay for a service.
She virtue signaled her disdain for the President by publicly abusing his daughter, and when called out on her shitbaggery, backpedaled and fell back on the “inclusivity” damage control trope. Did she not think her jerkery would have consequences?
Inclusivity, my aching ass! She’s “inclusive,” as long as her clients toe her ideological line. And if they don’t, she compromises their privacy, calls them out publicly, and makes it difficult for them to do something as simple as take an exercise class!
You don’t have to agree with 45’s policies. You don’t have to like him personally. But there’s a way to do so without being a shit human being.
Maybe Anne Mahlum missed that memo.
Honestly, I could have spent a billion happy lifetimes not knowing about this, but if I have to find out about it, you will know about it too!
Because I’m a giver that way, and frankly, you need to share my misery.
But first, a little bit of background.
Apparently, there’s some Brit named Gavin McInnes, who the left claims is a “Holocaust-denying Nazi,” whose scheduled lecture at NYU was canceled because
screeching leftist banshees tolerant progressives rioted and demanded violence. Now, knowing the tolerant progtards, McInnes probably said something shockingly outrageous like “I disagree with leftist politics,” and for that, he needs to be physically assaulted and prevented from speaking, natch.
Among the most strident voices demanding McInnes be subdued via government force was some psychotic cunt monkey claiming to be a “professor,” who cursed at the NYPD for not kicking McInnes’ ass.
shrieking harpy peaceful progressive lady demanded the police assault a man who was invited to speak to a group of students, because apparently she did not like what he was going to say.
Now, I don’t know McInnes, but apparently he has a history of making inflammatory statements. And once again, the
tolerant toddler left – much like they did in Bezerkeley last week when Milo Yiannopoulos was scheduled to speak there – wreaked havoc, set fires, and destroyed property in an effort to silence someone with whom they disagree.
But back to psycho twat.
After her squealing viral tirade, the Internet decided to do a little research into Rebecca Goyette.
And this is where I wish I’d never met the Internet.
Two words: lobster porn.
That’s right. Let that sink in for a moment. The alleged “professor” who screeched at police to attack a man for exercising his right to free speech is a lobster porn “artist.”
I made the grave error of clicking on this link today, which also features a photo of Rebecca sporting a gigantic set of claws. Apparently, this… uh… hobby involves wearing large lobster claws and writhing around on the ground pretending to have sex with men wearing giant cloth penises.
I got about halfway into the article, gagged on my own bile, managed to hold down my breakfast, closed the link, and tried to unsee what I saw.
It was impossible. It burned itself into my eyelids, and no matter how much I rubbed my eyes, I couldn’t get rid of the sight of this grotesque, repellent sea sow, sporting lobster claws and baring her sagging udders for the world to see.
I didn’t want to Google “lobster porn,” because then I would have found “lobster porn.”
I was informed that Goyette also apparently has a website, which I refuse to look up, and refuse to link to or click on. According to her resume, she’s an adjunct professor at Montclair State University in New Jersey. Someone pays her to expose impressionable young minds to her version of “art,” which apparently involves intercourse with pretend penises, while wearing pseudo bondage bands on sagging teats and gigantic lobster claws on her hands.
Please know crustacean coitus – no matter how “artistic” – is just not something I ever want to see. It’s bad enough I was subjected to Crusty McZucchini-Tits over here. Anthropod on human action is not my thing. Not even remotely curious!
But now I’ll never look at seafood the same way again, and you’ve joined me in visual hell!
The left ruins everything!
Some screeching, cunt-chafed harridan at Salon recently took to the Interwebz to shrewsplain to us why celebrities making paella in the wrong dish is apparently cultural appropriation. Mireia Triguero Roura sniffily tells us that while we were enjoying “unnecessarily gigantic meals” in our homes over the holidays (because she and her band of unshaven, rainbow-haired, perpetually offended harpies are ultimately the arbiters of what is necessary and what isn’t in other people’s lives), actor Rob Schneider was committing an act of nefarious cultural appropriation against Spain in his own home.
Spaniards were outraged. Some replied with angry, insulting tweets. Many sent pictures of their own paellas as inspiration. Others created fake, outrageous variations on the classic hot dog. A Spanish chef kindly took it upon himself to show the American actor what paella is and what it isn’t. For some hours, this became a trending topic in some regions in Spain. Schneider finally apologized and vowed to try to make it again, with all the new paella knowledge forced on to him through social media.
Massive raw lobster tails aside, Spaniards were reacting to what they felt was cultural appropriation of their cuisine.
Spaniards are certainly very proud of their cuisine, and we can be regionalists to a fault. No two towns can fully agree on what exactly you need to put in a paella. Some argue that onions give it the better flavor, but many will say that there is no place for them in the dish. Some take their issue with peas and fava beans, and others have unearthed family recipes going back to the 19th century to show that snails have a place on the rice. But small battles aside, there’s one thing everyone can agree on, and that is that one must cook paella in, well, a paella pan.
That’s right. Rob Schneider insensitively put stuff that he likes in his paella – in his own home – using the WRONG. FUCKING. PAN. – using ingredients he liked – and Spaniards lost their collective shit. Perhaps they should worry more about their abominable more than 18 percent unemployment rate, rather than soil themselves on Twitter because some celebrity posted a picture of his dinner, but that’s none of my business.
But then we have this Mireia Triguero Roura explaining just why it’s so offensive to cook what you want and how you want it in your own home, and I have to once again point to the fact that this cultural appropriation and perpetual offense garbage has jumped the shark. Hard.
The shallow and wide pan, with two handles in opposite sides, gives the name to this rice dish. And to some extent any rice dish cooked on such pan could qualify to be a paella. So even if we take this very low bar for defining paella, Schneider’s dish failed the test. As a twitter user pointed out he just made “rice with things,” or perhaps more accurately, things with rice.
Well… technically, that’s what paella is – rice with things. There’s vegetable paella. There’s seafood paella. There’s chicken paella, meat paella, mixed paella, you name it! There are also green beans, artichokes, and peppers – all depends on how you want to make it. So yeah – it’s rice with things, no matter how much snobbery you want to inject into your criticism.
To Schneider’s credit, where could he have turned to for a paella recipe that wouldn’t have infuriated most Spaniards? Just a few months ago, the famous chef Jamie Oliver failed the paella test again when he proposed a recipe that not only was again not made in the proper pan, but it also added something no Spaniard has ever seen in paella: chorizo. Just like Schneider, Oliver received his fair share of criticism on social media, and even newspapers reported the story as some outrageous insult to Spanish culture.
And why should Schneider give a shit if something he makes in his own home, for his friends and family, that he will consume “infuriates” anyone? Is he trying to sell it? No. Is he a chef in a Spanish restaurant? No. He’s a celebrity who posted a picture of his fucking dinner. Get over yourselves.
But unlike Schneider, Oliver is a chef, and a widely recognized one. So people will turn to him for advice. What are a celebrity chef’s responsibilities when writing a recipe for a dish that hails from a different cultural tradition than their own? How much should they stay close to the original dish and how much room do they have to be as creative as they want to be?
A chef is an artist with food. His only responsibility is to his customers, who will either love or hate his dish. He certainly has no responsibility to ask permission from the perpetually aggrieved about how he chooses to create. If they don’t like it, you know what they can do? Not spend money in his restaurant. Not buy the dish.
Did the Moors in ancient Spain, who began cultivating rice around the 10th century ask the Chinese in the Pearl River valley region who originated rice for permission to cultivate rice and use it in their dishes how they wished?
Did the Spaniards, who imported pepper seeds from Mexico in the 15th century ask them for permission to use them in their national dishes?
Saffron, a common spice in paella, is native to Southwest Asia and was likely cultivated in or near Greece. I don’t see the Greeks flinging “cultural appropriation” turds at the Spaniards for using that particular spice in their paella.
Food evolves, much like other art. Chefs explore new flavors, new spices, and new ingredients to make tasty dishes that stand out to their customers. Countries import various fruits, vegetables, and spices, and create new, interesting, innovative meals that vary with each individual palettes.
I’m guessing Mireia Triguero Roura is not that adventurous, nor is she open minded enough to understand diversity in that context, because when faced with a lack of things to be outraged about, these nags must dig deep to keep the indignation alive.
And she admits it.
It is hard to talk about cultural appropriation in food. For one, most cuisines have been developed as a result of the influences of many peoples, and hail from particular territories rather than countries.
Then perhaps she should stop talking about cultural appropriation in food. But no, she wastes many more paragraphs doing just that in the most inane, imbecilic manner!
A quick browse through the big food magazines in English reveals that virtually all have at least one paella recipe that includes chorizo—and most include other big no-nos among paella chefs. But most of them fail to mention that “chorizo” cannot be found in the dish in Spain. And in fact, most Spaniards felt even disgusted by the thought of it.
So what? Does that mean that others aren’t free to enjoy chorizo in their paella? Normal people just let others enjoy what they like, as long as it doesn’t infringe on their right to do the same. But apparently certain Special Snowflakes™ in Spain are unable to allow others to simply enjoy their own creations, so they have to destroy everyone else’s happiness, because it’s the only way they can validate their sad existences.
And yet if the nature of paella changes regionally inside Spain (even inside Valencia region), why should we allow those discrepancies only inside the borders of Spain? Shouldn’t we embrace, as David Rosengarten suggested in a Saveur article, the “changing nature of the dish” and “focus on the singular pleasure of eating it” instead? One could argue it should be a source of pride to see your cuisine become a source of inspiration for many around the world.
Unless one is a pretentious fuck weasel, in which case one writes entire articles waxing hysterical about “cultural appropriation.”
But at the heart of Spaniards’ battle to keep chorizo out of paellas around the world is the sense of protecting a sacred identity.
Sacred identity? What sort of fuckery is this? It’s food, ferpetessake! It’s rice mixed with olive oil, some veggies, spices, and proteins! It’s not like it came out of the Virgin Mary’s untapped asshole. It’s FOOD! Get over yourselves!
Earlier this year at Oberlin College, some students protested against a coleslaw and pulled-pork sandwich that was being sold under the name “banh mi,” which is a Vietnamese sandwich consisting of none of those ingredients.
Well, color me shocked! Oberlin students – the mental institution that spawned the feminazi, child molesting landwhale Lena Dunham – are protesting something?
Take, however, two of the big immigrant cuisines in the U.S.: Mexican and Italian. Arguably, tacos ordered in Texas are quite different from a carnitas taco found in Jalisco. And “marinara” sauce in the United States has come to mean a whole different world from the original Italian word. But unlike Mexican-American and Italian-American food in the U.S., which are the result of large populations of immigrants settling in the country and bringing with them their food and recipes and adapting both to the ingredients and the palates of the land, the chorizo-paella (or the Oberlin “banh mi”) seems rather the result of non-Spanish chefs in a test kitchen deciding what belongs in a dish with what seems like little research or respect to the country of origin. And unlike most creations that are a result of culinary cross-pollination (think: the ramen burger), no one is changing the name to suggest this is a new creation. (I suggest we call this “choriella” from “chorizo” and “paella”).
So ultimately, what Mireia Triguero Roura is offended by is the word “paella.” Just like any other Special Snowflake™ she just haz teh sadz that someone has the temerity to use a word with which she disagrees to describe something as basic as food, made by someone other than she and her band of perpetually aggrieved shrews find acceptable, and therefore, since her delicate labia are bruised by mere words, she can’t help but publicly shame them for it. Nagging – it’s like Vagisil for the SJW soul.
Krishnendu Ray, a New York University professor of food studies, argues in “The Ethnic Restaurateur” that white chefs have more freedom to play with other people’s food than chefs of color do, which creates an inherent inequality in the field. To that, I would add that in a world where most people turn to the Internet to find recipes — and English is the de facto lingua franca of the online world — English-speaking chefs not only have more freedom to play around, but they also have the power to ultimately transform traditional dishes from other countries, without so much as an acknowledgement.
And of course, no Salon article would be complete without quoting some obscure, perpetually victimized “professor” of food studies, claiming “white privilege,” to give the drivel what passes for gravitas in the world of the culture jihadists.
Cultural appropriation? Check.
White privilege? Check.
Ah! The recipe for progtard butthurt is complete!
Now, go enjoy your paella, heathens! Add some corn, tuna, and mayonnaise to it, and microwave it on high. And don’t forget to post a photo on Twitter and brag about your paella attempt, to really give this squealing nag something to gripe about!
The Halt Action Group (HAG) – no, they really do call themselves that – has decided that the best way to voice their concerns about President-elect Donald Trump is by harassing his daughter Ivanka.
To that end, the Halt Action Group (HAG), founded by Gingeras, Powers, artist Jonathan Horowitz, and several others, initiated a campaign called “Dear Ivanka.” The group has an Instagram feed in which they repost glossy stock images of Trump along with earnest appeals about what they foresee as the dire consequences of her father’s politics—topics addressed include global warming, universal health care, and contraception policy. Hoping to “thwart the normalization of what was unfolding in front of our eyes,” Gingeras said, the group, comprised of artists, dealers, psychoanalysts, and even a few collectors, reached out to the artists featured in Trump’s Instagram feed. They asked the artists to join them and ask Ivanka “to answer for some of the hypocrisy she embodies,” Gingeras said.
Earnest appeals? Right.
More like hysterical whining and teeth-gnashing not rooted in any reality.
Let’s start with the fact that Ivanka is a successful businesswoman, who has paid hundreds of thousands of dollars to purchase art and promote artists, who may or may not have had as much success with their work without her. Let’s also point out that Ivanka Trump is not her father, and his “policies” have yet to be implemented, because…
HE’S NOT FUCKING PRESIDENT YET, YOU GUM-FLAPPING, WHINING SNOT GOBBLERS!
“Racism, anti-Semitism, misogyny, and homophobia are not acceptable anywhere—least of all in the White House,” the HAGs write.
Well, that’s fortunate since Ivanka is an orthodox Jew, and her father bucked the general GOP trend of trying to legislate bathroom morality – even before he won the nomination – by publicly declaring that transgender people should use whatever bathroom they felt was appropriate.
All these facts, of course, haven’t stopped snobby, self-important, elitist assclowns from harassing Ivanka Trump and, in one case, even demanding that she remove art she has purchased – her own property – from her home!
Ivanka Trump has posed for pictures in front of her art collection, including a painting by Philadelphia artist Alex Da Corte, who recently Tweeted at her “Dear @Ivankatrump please get my work off of your walls. I am embarrassed to be seen with you.”
First of all, it’s her fucking property, for which she paid quite a bit. If she wants to wipe your painting with her kid’s shitty diaper, she’s within her right to do so. If she wants to hang a tacky, red “Make America Great Again” hat from a nail hammered right into the middle of your work that my cat could have painted by dipping his tail into some watercolors, she could. Because it’s HERS, you sniveling fuck goblin! You want to cough up the auction value of this trash you painted and buy it back from her? I’m sure she’d be thrilled, as she’s paid quite a bit of money for the art collection she displays in her home, and the artists she graciously promotes by doing so have benefited both financially and in terms of publicity.
In one post, Trump shimmies in front of a Dan Colen “chewing gum” painting; a comparable work sold for $578,500 at Phillips New York in 2012. In another post, Trump’s child plays the piano in front of a “bullet hole” silkscreen by Nate Lowman; a bullet-hole painting in the same palette sold for $665,000 in 2013 at Sotheby’s in New York. In yet another post, taken from a Harper’s Bazaar shoot, Trump poses at her dining table in front of a work by Alex Israel. A similar painting by Israel sold for $581,000 in 2014 at Phillips New York.
The hypocrisy is incredible! They were more than happy to take her money when she was just a businesswoman and the daughter of a real estate mogul who helped promote their work on the world stage. But now, because it’s en vogue in their snotty, quasi-intellectual circle jerks to hate Trump, they’re condemning her for nothing more than being the daughter of a President-elect whom they did not support!
It’s not just the supercilious hypocrisy that bothers me here, but also the promotion of frothing histrionics by HAG, who staged a protest outside Ivanka’s home on in late November.
For the record, Ivanka Trump has nothing to do with their irrational fear of Mike Pence and his alleged “homophobia,” which has amply been addressed, had anyone bothered doing a shred of research. For the record, no he didn’t try to divert public money for “conversion therapy.”
For the record, Ivanka Trump has done plenty to help people who “don’t look like” her, you blithering ignorami! Some of the charities she supports are Habitat for Humanity, AIDS Life, the Children’s Aid Society, United Cerebral Palsy, and the Walkabout Foundation. And in 2010, Ivanka designed and sold a bracelet specifically to benefit the United Nations Foundation’s Girl Up campaign, which “aims to raise money and awareness to educate and propel adolescent girls in need to the next generation of leadership.”
In addition to the protest, the group collected cards from people explaining why they are concerned about the president-elect.
‘I am a Muslim-American immigrant and I don’t feel safe,’ one card read.
‘You’re scaring the hell out of women,’ another said.
So she’s scaring the hell out of women by helping promote and educate them?
She’s scaring the hell out of women by showing that a woman can rise up and become a business powerhouse in her own right, outside of daddy’s sphere of influence?
She’s scaring the hell out of women by showing them what they are capable of with some creativity and ingenuity?
I guess it makes sense given the kind of pseudo-feminist toads who are engaging in this campaign of intimidation against her.
Success would require hard work, talent, creativity, and strength. These alleged “feminists” don’t exhibit any of those traits, and they’re too lazy to develop them. Instead, they wallow in their inadequacies and demand the world worship their flaws, rather than their ability to overcome them – as if their warts should be a claim check to others’ means merely by “virtue” of their ugliness, and as if their sores somehow make them more righteous. It’s certainly easier than working to evolve and mature as human beings or nurture nascent talents!
Maybe these pompous, overbearing ass bags should look in the mirror and really examine who is “scaring the hell out of women.” Is it the successful businesswoman, who uses her wealth and creativity to help others, including up-and-coming artists, the poor, and women worldwide…
…or the pompous, overbearing ass bags themselves, who are fomenting hysteria, spreading misinformation, and targeting the family of a President-elect they don’t like – something they vehemently opposed and screeched about when Democrat presidents were in office – merely because they’re related?
But that would require some self awareness and objectivity. I doubt they’re capable of either.