Tag Archives: feminists

Screeching Harpies Claim Another Scalp

Former Senator Jim Webb last night announced he would not be accepting a Naval Academy Alumni Association award because of recent protests from other alumni. At first, I thought Webb, whom I always respected as a military officer and politician (if that’s at all possible), had done something egregious, causing his fellow Naval Academy alumni to consider him undeserving of the award. And then, I find out that the “protest” was lodged by a horde of females because of an essay Webb wrote nearly 40 years ago.

That’s right. Apparently in the eyes of these shrews, Mr. Webb doesn’t deserve an award that honors lifetime service to the country, personal character, and significant contributions as leaders in business or government, because of an article he wrote nearly 40 years ago, claiming women shouldn’t serve in combat.

Now, this isn’t a debate about whether women can fight or not. It’s a completely separate issue here. I can see comments getting contentious already, so I’m saying this up front. In those days, the view that women have no place in combat was not an uncommon one. Women in many developed nations did not begin to integrate into combat roles until the late 1990s and early 2000s.

Germany opened all combat units to women in 2001, resulting in increased recruitment for female soldiers. By 2009, 800 female soldiers were serving in combat units.

The Australians didn’t start integrating women into combat roles until 2011.

A British Ministry of Defense study in 2010 concluded that women performed the same as men in land combat roles.

Israel and Denmark started exploring these options early – and by “early,” I mean in the mid- to late-1980s. In 1985, Norway became the first country to allow women in combat, but few of them were attracted by the opportunities.

Whether or not you agree with this report is irrelevant for the purposes of this discussion. Whether or not I agree with it is also beside the point. The point is that Jim Webb wrote an article stating his opinion that women do not belong in combat roles in 1979, when such views were nothing uncommon, and the raging, squealing shrews who represent today’s “feminism” are now claiming that his lifetime of service has been invalidated, because he wrote something which they disagree nearly 40 years ago, when most other military leaders agreed with him.

But let’s put all that aside for a moment. Let’s pretend Jim Webb is a misogynist beast, who wants to keep women barefoot and pregnant in the kitchen, making sammiches for men. From what I gather, he is no such thing, but for the purpose of this exercise, let’s just say he is. The question is: does he deserve the United States Naval Academy Distinguished Graduate Award?

The Distinguished Graduate Award (DGA) program started as a concept first envisioned by Rear Admiral Ronald F. Marryott, USN (Ret.), Class of 1957, when he was president and CEO of the United States Naval Academy Alumni Association. Rear Admiral Robert McNitt, USN (Ret.), Class of 1938, helped develop the concept to its current structure. The Alumni Association’s Board of Trustees approved the DGA proposal and in May 1998 the selection committee met under the chairmanship of Admiral Carlisle Trost, USN (Ret.), Class of 1953 to determine the nominating process. Distinguished Graduates are the embodiment of what we strive to achieve in the U.S. Naval Academy’s mission:

“To develop midshipmen morally, mentally and physically and to imbue them with the highest ideals of duty, honor and loyalty in order to graduate leaders who are dedicated to a career of naval service and have potential for future development in mind and character to assume the highest responsibilities of command, citizenship and government.”

As an institution, we honor our Distinguished Graduates because of their:

  • Demonstrated and unselfish commitment to a lifetime of service to our nation
  • Personal character which epitomizes the traits we expect in our officer corps
  • Significant contributions as Navy and Marine Corps officers, or as leaders in industry or government

Each of them serves as a beacon, lighting the way for our midshipmen as they begin to chart their naval careers. They also serve by example to motivate those alumni serving in the Fleet and Fleet Marine Corps. Our midshipmen can take away much from learning about our distinguished graduates. All the Distinguished Graduates honored – lived the traits of lifetime commitment to service, personal character and distinguished contributions to our nation.

Does Jim Webb check the boxes?

He graduated from the Naval Academy in 1968 and received the Superintendent’s Letter for Outstanding Leadership.

He was a combat veteran, who graduated first in his class from the Marine Corps Officer Basic School, earned the Navy Cross for heroism in Vietnam, has a Silver Star, two Bronze Stars, and two Purple Hearts, and was medically retired from the Marine Corps due to injuries received in Vietnam. Whatever else he may be, there’s no denying Webb is a war hero.

He graduated from Georgetown Law School with a JD, where he received the Horan Award for excellence in legal writing.

Webb worked as a staffer on the House Committee on Veterans Affairs, and also as an attorney represented veterans pro-bono.

Webb 1984-87 served as the nation’s first Assistant Secretary of Defense for Reserve Affairs and was the first Naval Academy graduate to serve as the civilian head Navy Secretary in 1987.

And, let’s not forget that while the perpetually offended harpies are still crying about an article Webb wrote nearly 40 years ago, other females who served honorably, defended him – even back in 2006 when he was running for the Senate.

“He recognizes the crucial role that women have in the armed forces today, and the sacrifices that they’re making alongside their male counterparts in the toughest assignments in Afghanistan and Iraq,” said retired Army Lt. Col. Kate Wilder, a Democratic activist.


The military women yesterday said the television ads Mr. Allen is airing that criticize Mr. Webb for writing a 1979 magazine article questioning a woman’s place in the U.S. Naval Academy are “powerful” but “bogus.”

“American military women have moved beyond Jim Webb’s … article,” Navy Capt. Barbara Brehm said.


The military women yesterday stressed that Mr. Webb’s point of view 27 years ago mirrored the sentiment that most men held at that time. They also think that Mr. Webb’s perspective changed, saying that in 1987 Mr. Webb opened more operational positions for women in the military than any other Navy secretary in history.

Wait… that sounds familiar. Didn’t someone closely resembling me say exactly this above?

In a characteristic show of class, which is something I’ve seen several times from Jim Webb, he declined to accept the award. “I am being told that my presence at the ceremony would likely mar the otherwise celebratory nature of that special day, and as a consequence I find it necessary to decline to accept the award,” he said.

Meanwhile, Kelly Henry, a 1984 Naval Academy graduate, wrote the letter to the alumni association asking the organization rescind Webb’s award, instead of graciously accepting her hollow victory, decided to double down on the cunt. After hearing his announcement Tuesday night, Henry said she was “absolutely stunned that he did the right thing,” as if she personally knew Webb to be a first class jerk with no honor or integrity – something I have never heard from anyone who has met him or worked with him.

Henry claimed Webb’s essay was highly-circulated while she was in Annapolis and it caused “harm” to many of her classmates, but interestingly enough didn’t have problems herself, so her offense is really on behalf of others. (On a related note, the other day a friend told me he saw a bunch of Black Lives Matter protesters downtown – all white kids.) Let’s also not forget that at the time, women at the Naval Academy were still a very new thing. The first class only graduated in 1980, and change, in general, is never easy, so laying the blame on Webb’s shoulders for the ostensible difficulties faced by a batch of brand new mids at the Academy for an article he published that likely reflected the common views of the times, is a stretch.

“The women will tell you that article was like throwing gasoline on the fire,” she said.

Henry said she was one of the “lucky” ones during her time at the academy and was in a company that welcomed the female mids. She said she was surprised to see Webb honored with the award, since 2016 marked the 40th year of women attending the Naval Academy.

She attended the academy’s celebration in the fall.

“At that celebration I felt we were embraced in the community,” Henry said. “We are no longer seen as something that tainted it, but now to see this? It completely takes away that feeling.”

So she was triggered by the Academy honoring a man who has dedicated his life to service, and who as Navy Secretary helped implement policies that actually created more opportunities for women in the service, because of an article he wrote in 1979, and when he graciously declined the award, because he didn’t want to mar the celebration with controversy, she went on to malign his character by claiming she was “stunned” that he did the right thing.

Really? Class. Do you haz it?

I may not like his politics. I may think he’s sometimes a petulant child, careening between political parties after they do something of which he disapproves. But do I consider him someone who is undeserving of an award that recognizes graduates who have “personal character which epitomizes the traits we expect in our officer corps” and have made “significant contributions” as officers or leaders in industry or government, all because he held and published a commonly-held view 40 years ago that is no longer popular? No.

I’m just not that petty.

Kelly Henry and her Sisterhood of the Glittery Hoo Ha apparently have long memories and embrace and nurture their grudges like Gollum embraces his precioussssssss.


Open letter to “feminists”

Dear Femtard Morons –

Yes, I call you this, and I’ve put “feminist” in quotes as the title of this post, implying you’re frauds, because you can hardly be compared to the strong, free, independent women who are your predecessors and who paved the way for women’s equal rights. The only thing you have in common with these heroes are your vaginas…

… and even that’s no longer a guarantee, given that there are those among you who were born with a penis, but have claimed your gender as their own. 

For the record, I don’t consider you simpering, triggered, vacuous, perpetually offended, pussy hat-wearing femtards, hiding behind your plumbing (or in some cases bathing in mea culpas for the crime of being born with male “privilege”) and eschewing actual accomplishments and hard work, feminists. 

You want to be considered strong without actually working to become so. 

You want recognition as equal to men without working to make your accomplishments equal to men’s. 

You think you’re entitled to the world without earning the world, because you own a twat (sometimes).

You think your perpetual offense entitles you to consideration and respect. 

And you think your faults should be revered, because you happen to have two X chromosomes, instead of working to overcome them. You use your ostensible “feminism” as an excuse for your failures, while demanding special treatment because of it. 

When you have purged the last vestiges of anything that could possibly chafe your fragile labia from society’s lexicon, entertainment venues, schools, and workplaces, you are compelled find new sources of butthurt, because otherwise you will no longer be able to quell your feelings of entitlement by shaming others into worshipping at the altar of your inadequacies. 

Well, I’m here to tell you I’ve stopped paying attention to your impotent squeaks a long time ago. 

When everything is offensive, nothing is, and you’ve ceased being relevant. 

Want proof?

Two words: Wonder Woman

Apparently, the paragon of feminine strength, virtue, and beauty is giving you whining shrews heartburn, because ARMPITS! She shaved her armpits!!! 

And because you blithering harpies decided that armpit hair is “feminist,” anything that doesn’t toe your arbitrary line doesn’t qualify and must be offensive!

“FAKE FEMINISM!” screeches someone whose Twitter avatar is a man. (Let’s hope this was sarcasm, but you just never know in this crazy world.)

“I just don’t buy the idea that #Wonderwoman would shave her armpits,” squeaks another alleged “man,” who calls himself @anothernewdad. 

Others weren’t “offended” per se, but had to air their armpit disagreement. 

“controversial hot take: i wish #WonderWoman had visible armpit hair. she was raised on an island of women w/no schick advertisements”

And this, dear feminists – both male and female – is why no one takes you seriously. 

I love Wonder Woman. As a kid, I wanted to be Wonder Woman. I wanted to be smart, dedicated, independent, and strong. I wanted to save the country again and again. And as a fan, I’m squealing with excitement about the Wonder Woman movie coming out this summer!

And you screeching morons are ruining it, much like you spoil everything that’s fun, everything that’s exciting, and everything that doesn’t comport with your crazed, unhinged view of the world – a view that tosses economics, science, common sense, decency, and logic under the bus in favor of faux indignation, abdication of personal responsibility, and sanction of anyone who dares to disagree with you as an oppressive member of the patriarchy. 

I don’t consider you part of my definition of feminism. I don’t like you. I hate the fact that you insist on sticking your protruding probosces into everything I’ve ever enjoyed and reinvent it into dull-witted, boring, vaginal superiority- and identity politics-filled garbage a la the all-femme “Ghostbusters.”

You want to invent brand new gender identities for yourselves? Be my guest. That’s the very definition of a free country. But don’t think for a moment you will force me to accept your self-identification as a coffee table, and don’t think for a moment I will take your self-righteous whining as a cue to suspend reality in favor of your twisted worldview. 

You want to color your unshaven pit hair in all the colors of the rainbow? Great! Go for it. But don’t you dare stick your unwashed, unshaven armpits in my face and demand I accept them and worship them as beautiful. 

I don’t care if you’re triggered. 

I don’t care if you’re offended. 

I don’t care if Diana Prince has clean shaven armpits in the Wonder Woman movie. She’s a fictional character. Get over it. 

I don’t care if you’re offended that Major Motoko Kusanagi won’t be Asian in the movie adaptation of “Ghost in the Shell.” She’s a fictional character with lots of “shells” as her cyborg bodies. She could be anyone. 

I don’t care about your precious feelings, just as you don’t care about the feelings of millions of people who don’t toe your ideological line and go as far as to marginalize their experiences and lives because they’re part of the whole cisheteropatriarchy garbage boogieman you have created and taught yourselves to despise. 

Stop trying to ruin my fun!

A pissed off woman 

It’s Women’s Day, so why am I at work?

Today is International Women’s Day. March 8 is traditionally commemorated worldwide to honor women, mothers, daughters, grandmothers, etc. I remember giving my mom flowers on March 8 every year. Kind of like Mother’s Day, but on an international scale, and not just for mothers. And while it has definite socialist roots (it used to be called  International Working Women’s Day, ferpetessake!), it was always just a sweet holiday to me, in which we gave my mom carnations and took her out to a nice dinner. (Note to self: must remember to call mom today.)

Well, the perpetually offended uber-feminist brigade decided to hijack today to stamp their hooves and protest… something.

Much like the “Day Without Immigrants,” which appears to have gone unnoticed, and which resulted in some people who thought their political activism was more important than their jobs, getting shitcanned, this particular protest is meant “to highlight the economic power of women — as well as ongoing problems of discrimination and pay disparity.” To show how critical they are, women are being encouraged to take the day off from all work today and not to shop (except, of course at women and minority owned and small businesses). That’s all work, including unpaid labor.
I guess these cunt hat-sporting booger eaters won’t be taking care of the households and their children today either? Kids can fend for themselves, while mommy sits on the couch and impotently pumps her fist in the air, while sporting the trendy feminist scowl, for feminism – is that the way it works?

Once again, the virtue signalling socialist sow coalition is missing the economic point. Much like during the “Day Without Immigrants” protests, the economic impact will be negligible, other than to show them just how expendable they are.

Those same immigrants staging this protest and not buying anything, will purchase what they need tomorrow… or the next day. No harm, no foul. Any money “lost” from any sale today, will be made up tomorrow or the next day, because ultimately people need what they need.

I have no problem with people choosing where to shop based on anything they see fit. It’s their money. But to take  one day to virtue signal their support for small and women- and minority-owned businesses is an ineffective and economically stupid message to send.

Shutting down entire school districts and depriving children – including minority, low-income, and female ones – of a day’s worth of education doesn’t send the message that women are important. It says women are selfish twats, who think that their politics are more important than their commitment to teaching kids, who, with those kinds of role models, will likely grow up to be just as entitled and ignorant as these teachers, and forcing some parents, who probably aren’t privileged enough to afford skipping out on work and aren’t protected by teachers’ unions to take a day off.

And “striking from smiling” is literally the stupidest thing I’ve read in months! It honestly makes me want to throat punch the first scowling bitch face I see.

No, you screeching harpies, there’s no such thing as “emotional labor.” You will not get recognized or paid extra for being a nice person. But you might not get hired in the first place, if you go into an interview looking like someone shoved a live, venom-filled snake up your ass. Smiling is not the result of harassment. Smiling is polite. Smiling says, “No, I’m not a pernicious cunt wart, but a professional with whom someone would want to interact and possibly work.” Smiling is also psychologically healthy, which would go a long way toward explaining why these glowering hemorrhoids are so mentally unbalanced.

So, yes. I’m at work.


Because I love my job and my country, and because the work I do is more important than any political gripes I might have.

Because I understand that my value as an employee doesn’t depend on my plumbing, but rather on my performance.

Because manufactured outrage doesn’t trump my responsibilities.

Because I’m not selfish enough to force someone else to take on my duties while I vent my spleen at perceived slights, and I refuse to screw my co-workers.

Because refusing to work means refusing to get paid, and like many women, I’m not privileged enough to be able to afford that.

Because I refuse to demonstrate any kind of solidarity with turd-sucking, whining harridans who possess the economic acumen of  rotting stumps, but who believe they are entitled to MOAR respect and MOAR money despite their ignorance.

And because I prove how integral I am to the economy by actually doing a superior job, rather than shirking my duties.

Shutting down a school or business for one day will not prove your value. It may just do the opposite – much like it did with at least 100 immigrants, who failed to prove their impact on the economy, and lost their jobs in the process.

Things that make me want to nuke civilization from space

There are days.

There are days I literally want to shut down my computer and never come near the Internet again, and yet, I’m drawn to this collective psychosis we call “the world wide web,” like a moth to a flame… or one of those crackly lights that will kill the moth the moment it touches the bulb. Like a motorist who can’t help but rubberneck at a wreck on the side of the road, I had to open this. Immediately upon clicking on the link, I began to hit myself over the head with a metaphorical brick. WHY??

My recent article about ‘willy-cloning’ was greeted with such interest and hilarity on social media that the company responsible for the kits – Empire Labs, of Portland, Oregon – got in touch to ask if I fancied trying out a female version, the charmingly named ‘Clone a Pussy‘.

If that opening paragraph doesn’t make you die a little inside, this will.

The first thing to note is that Clone a Pussy does not create a model of the vagina itself – I can only imagine what sort of mess that would make with the moulding gel.

Instead, it creates a reasonably accurate copy of the vulva – the outside bits.

So while the male version can be put to, shall we say, practical use after construction, the female clone is for decorative purposes only.

audreyWho in the everblasting, rollerblading fuck would want to decorate their house with anything resembling a vagoo – inside or out? Sorry, but it’s not, in and of itself, an attractive body part. It’s pink. It’s hairy (unless you go the extra mile to de-fur). It’s oddly similar to Audrey 2 from “Little Shop of Horrors” sans teeth or blood lust.

“Oh, I know what this living room is missing! A set of labia vaguely slug-like in appearance! Perfect! Now let me just frame it and hang it riiiiiiight… over here.”

Yeahno, Cupcake! It ain’t pretty. It’s utilitarian. There’s certainly nothing embarrassing about it, but it ain’t art!

The second thing that made me want to hide under my desk today. Women paying for “expert vagina massages.”

They’re called gigolos, you daft bints. They’re getting you off for money. Calling it something different doesn’t change its nature.

Now, I’m all for the free market. Seriously. If a consenting adult wants to sell their… services for money to another consenting adult, more power to y’all! Have at it! But let’s not pretend it’s anything other than what it is. As I told She-Who-Must-Not-Be-Named when I found out she was dancing at a strip club in West Virginia instead of working as a waitress, “You are an adult, and you can do with your body as you please, but if you’re going to be a whore, be an honest whore.”

Third thing that makes me throat punch a hippie, apparently women just can’t do science. Why? Because TEH FEELZ!

The syllabi for college-level STEM courses—science, technology, engineering, and mathematics—are “gendered” because they promote the idea that knowledge can be ascertained through reason. This is a masculine concept that hurts women’s feelings and makes it difficult for them to succeed.

That’s according to “Are STEM Syllabi Gendered? A Feminist Critical Discourse Analysis” of the STEM syllabi at one Midwestern university. The discourse was authored by the University of North Dakota’s Laura Parson, and published in The Qualitative Report earlier this year.

It presupposes that certain stylistic choices—command words like “will” and “must”—are inherently masculine and anti-woman, and then sets out to determine whether these words show up in STEM syllabi. Since a syllabus is not a negotiation, but rather, a set of instructions about how to succeed in a given class, they do indeed contain lots of commands.

Parson needs to stop embarrassing all women and take up a distinctly feminine feminist field that shall not force her pretty, dainty, weak self to conform to those pesky facts that chafe her tender labia. (If you notice a vagina theme here… Yeah, there is one.)

Try Kvetching 101, or the advanced “Taking Offense 300 – Strategies in Silencing the Opposition.”

Go with “Ruminations in Third-Wave Feminist Thought – The Best Three Minutes of Your Life,” or “Tears: Your Ultimate Weapon Against the CisWhitePatriarchy.”

But stay the fuck out of the sciences or anything else requiring logical thought. Please!

And then there’s this piece of spewed dreck onto a computer screen that makes the ages old claim that white people inherently racist and privileged.

If you’re like me, growing up, the word “Black” was always spoken of in whispers in your family. It was like we were saying something taboo. Why was that? Because it was taboo. We might feel more comfortable saying “African-American,” but not “Black.” The reason is that we were raised to believe that “colorblindness” was the ideal for whites. We were taught that we shouldn’t “see color.” And saying the word “Black” was an acknowledgment of the fact that we did “see color.”

Well, thank dog I’m nothing like you, hipster douche Omega male! I can and have said the word “black” throughout my childhood and my adulthood. I do recognize color – the fact that it exists and that some of us have more melanin in our skin than others. I just don’t give a fuck. There, I said it. Beyond recognizing that there are different hues to human beings, I just don’t care. My black friends (there, I said it, you emasculated coward) make me just as happy as my white friends. Know why? Because they’re wonderful human beings. So go fuck yourself. You don’t speak for me, and I would wager that aside from a few guilt-ridden about their own whiteness, braindead Snowflakes, you don’t speak for any other white people either. Moron.

Then there’s this bit from the Santa Clara County Office of Education

Did you know that mispronouncing a student’s name negates the identity of the student? This can lead to anxiety and resentment which, in turn, can hinder academic progress. Help us build positive school culture and promote respect to students and families.

Crying-Baby-PicturesWell, holy microaggressing fuck!

So the identity of the individual isn’t based on accomplishments, intelligence, intellectual curiosity, ability, or anything else related to those antediluvian norms. The identity of the individual is based entirely on what the kid’s parents might or might not have been smoking at the time when they decided to name their little precious North West or Chanda Leer.

As someone whose last name was consistently butchered by teachers in school, I understand the embarrassment when a teacher struggles to phonetically spell a foreign name, only to fail miserably. I get having to preemptively pronounce your name before the teacher stumbles like a drunken clown, making all the other kids giggle. But could we possibly get some damn perspective here, people?

Getting little Nevaeh’s or Reighleigh’s (no, really – that’s Riley) name wrong won’t traumatize her/him/it/whatever. It won’t destroy their identity, unless they’re being raised by weak-minded parents, who don’t teach them where their value comes from, which I suspect is the case for many of these poor kids, whose parents think naming them something “cool” and “different” will garner them respect without having to actually accomplish anything to earn it. Trying too hard to be original? Don’t. If your child has an ethnic name, be understanding. Recognize that not everyone is going to get it right from the first get-go, and that it’s not a slight against you, your ethnicity, or your child. In other words, stop being a special fucking snowflake!

Thank dog it’s Friday. I can avoid stupid on the weekends… I think.


I thought you wanted gender equality, ladies!

Guess what, femitards! Words have meaning, and gender equality means just that. It means your little groups and clubs get the same treatment as fraternities and other gender-specific organizations on campus.

Oh, that’s not what you wanted? Gosh, that’s too bad!

If Harvard is going to purge itself of sex-segregated institutions like fraternities, so too must they eliminate sororities and women’s-only clubs.

And the women don’t want that.


So if you must believe the male-only clubs encourage rape, then you must also accept the conclusion that these women’s clubs foster an environment where women are more likely to be rape victims. And if you think that is bullshit, you have to toss the entire study.

But coeds at Harvard don’t see it that way. They want to preserve their little clubs while telling the men to stop being so damned sexist.

Feminist_Rape_Protest_HarvardI said this a long time ago, and I’ll say it here. These women (and I use that word loosely, because some of them bear a strong resemblance to shrieking warthogs) don’t want equality. They don’t want to be treated the same as men, because if they were, they would weep crocodile tears and demand exemptions.

Oh, wait! They already do!

Students and alumni took their concerns to Harvard Yard and Twitter on Monday night, protesting the administration’s new policy and asking for women’s groups to be exempted. Many women expressed a need for safe spaces and wondered why they were being treated the same as the dominant and more-problematic male groups.

Why? Because equal treatment means just that. If Harvard is going to put an end to single-gender social clubs, it has to apply that policy equally. Or did Harvard not teach these… ladies… what equality means?

These women don’t want personal empowerment.

They don’t want equal treatment.

If they really wanted to stop rape on campus, they would demand the ability to carry a self defense tool such as a firearm at school.

But that’s not what they’re demanding, and they screech in outrage and clutch their collective pearls at the very suggestion.

Instead they want the forcible shutdown of any organization that consists of men, as if somehow that would stop a determined rapist.

They want to shut down male groups with the full force of the university standing behind them, because it provides the illusion that they somehow have power over men.

They miss the irony of having mommy and daddy college slapping the evil boys for them, even as they claim to be independent, strong feminists.

I hate the fact that they have hijacked the “feminist” label! No longer is a feminist a free-thinking, powerful, intelligent woman able to protect herself and her loved ones when needed and to advance her intellectual, career, and personal goals on a level playing field.

obey trigglyA scantily-dressed, 300-lb., unshaven, unwashed parody of a woman with rainbow hair, freakish piercings, and an attitude of entitlement has now become the avatar of feminism. An entitled Trigglypuff, demanding everyone else worship her inadequacies and hand her respect because of, not in spite of them.

Today’s feminist doesn’t want to become a stronger person. She is content with being a sad, miserable mediocrity and is empowered not by hard work, but by stomping on the rights of others like a rampaging buffalo.

She doesn’t measure achievement by how high she can climb using her own effort, but by how successful she is at keeping the competition down using force provided by others.

She wants to be handed things without bothering to earn them, she doesn’t respect the rights of others, and she wants to forcibly impose her views on them by limiting their right to speak and associate freely, as if her precious feelings obligate others to surrender their freedoms.

She doesn’t want equality. She wants special treatment, and she wants the world to advance her desires by turning reality on its head by affirming and genuflecting in front of her flaws and deficiencies, instead of working to overcome them.

Equality is parity. It’s fairness. It’s a level playing field.

It’s certainly not the erection of barriers to help the inadequate feel better about themselves.

Maybe it’s time these entitled Snowflakes learn that lesson.

%d bloggers like this: