Tuesday, February 7, 2017

The Women's March Protests Are Totally Pointless

What "rights" are all you broads fighting for, anyway?

By: Jimbo X

Well, I figured I'd have to say something about all of this "Women's March" stuff eventually, so I'll hurry up, say my piece and leave all ya'll be.

To begin, let's go back to the Civil Rights Movement. Or, even more fitting, the Suffragette Movement. Alright gals, think very, VERY carefully here: what made those protests different from the ones you're doing today? 

Simply put: they were actually fighting for something concrete. The Suffragette Movement wasn't about fighting sexism or the patriarchy, it was a social movement to obtain a specific legal right - that being, the right to vote (although it is strange how history has seemed to have forgotten just how closely tied the Suffragette Movement was to the Temperance Movement, but hey, I'll let you do your own research there.) Same thing with the Civil Rights Movement. They weren't marching against racial discrimination, they were LITERALLY marching to overturn discriminatory legislation; the Civil Rights Act of 1964 didn't make racism illegal, but it did make a shit ton of Jim Crow laws - which formerly barred blacks from frequenting certain public facilities and even schools - illegal

Now, I want you to pay REAL close attention, girls. In one sentence, what concrete legal rights are all these marches you've been doing intended to obtain? What specific law - if any - are these marches meant to overturn, overrule or outright outlaw? 

Well, I hate to break it to you, husband-less cat-owners of America, but assembling by the hundreds of thousands to hold up signs reading "you can't comb over racism, homophobia, sexism, rape, Islamiphobia [sic]" doesn't actually constitute a concrete legislative demand. Unless, of course, the whole point of these marches is to drum up support for legislation that would make racism, homophobia, sexism and Islamiphobia [sic] illegal, at which point YOU would be the ones raping the United States Constitution

From what I've seen thus far, here's what I suspect the women's marchers might be trying to say:

  • Abortions are great, especially when they're free
  • Donald Trump is a big fat stupid doo-doo head
  • Smash the patriarchy so we can close the wage gap for good
  • Wah wah wah, Hillary didn't win and I don't know how else to react to not getting my way for the first time in my life

How women march for freedom vs. how men march for freedom.

Well, last time I checked, abortion is still perfectly legal and Roe v. Wade remains the law of the land. Granted, there's a pretty strong chance the Trump Administration could (and most likely will at least try) to cut funding to Planned Parenthood, but even if Congress DID manage to pass a bill saying no more federal moolah for P.P. - it STILL doesn't ACTUALLY outlaw abortion. Same thing if the Trump Administration tries (and it wouldn't surprise me if they did) to suspend any and all Medicaid funding for abortions. 

Roe v. Wade is still intact, skirts. The only difference is, instead of having taxpayers in Nebraska and Wisconsin unknowingly foot the bill for your latest de-fetusing, now you've gotta' pay for that shit on your own dime. You're not losing any Supreme Court bestowed rights, girls ... you're just liable to lose an entitlement (that being, publicly subsidized abortions) you're not legally or constitutionally obligated to receive in the first place. IF Trump and pals were trying to actively ram a bill through the House that outright banned abortions, you MIGHT have an argument. Unfortunately, "make other people pony up to have this thing scraped and vacuumed out of me" ISN'T a legally codified right anywhere, no matter how badly you wish it was.

The second bullet point is an even stupider aggrievement. Alright, so you don't like Trump. You think he's a sexist pig who might be a legitimate rapist, even though he's never been arrested for it (and certainly never charged with it, and doubly certainly never been convicted of it) and none of his alleged "victims" have ever come forward with concrete, tangible proof that he victimized them. Sorry, broads, but "I think he's an asshole" isn't a legitimate reason to remove him from office. To do that, he's actually gotta' do something that violates his oath as president, like, I don't know, lie before Congress about getting his dick sucked. Furthermore, what executive order has he signed thus far that literally deprives you of one legal right (sorry, but that's not the same thing as entitlement) you had Nov. 8, 2016? That's right, none, zip, nada. You're just as Constitutionally free as you were three months ago, and the fact that hundreds of thousands of you can assemble in the streets to yell "fuck you Orange Hitler" for six hours straight without having a tank run you over more than proves it

The third one is so stupid, I don't even know where to begin. First off, the patriarchy isn't real. It doesn't have a physical address, it doesn't have a newsletter and it doesn't have a secret handshake. I've had a penis for more than 30 years, and I've yet to be invited into this inner sanctum of domineering white men, whose sole purpose is to conspire and conjure up plans to suppress women and minorities. Furthermore, if the patriarchy is indeed real, how do you explain the fact that men make up a majority of the nation's homeless and almost ALL of the nation's incarcerated population? Why do women - across the board - receive lighter sentences than men for the exact same crimes? Why do women win primary custody of children in anywhere from 66 to 88 percent of all divorce hearings? Why do women earn a majority of the nation's advanced degrees and why do women own a majority of the nation's wealth? And for God's sake, why do men - regardless of race or ethnicity - tend to die almost five years younger than those with XX-chromosomes

Then there's the inevitable complaint about the so-called "wage gap." Remember the Equal Rights Amendment they tried passing back in the '70s? Well, it was shot down for a reason - it would royally fuck up the economy. Same job, same gender, same pay - sounds good, right? Yeah, until you realize it means a first year substitute music teacher would be guaranteed the same pay that a physics teacher with a Ph. D. and 30 years of experience makes. Would a female office manager who oversees 10 people be entitled to the same pay as a male district manager who oversees 10 offices? Would hospitals be forced to pay a part-time female ENT doctor the same wage as a full-time male brain surgeon? Aye, now you see why it never got off the ground

...in hindsight, was it really that wise of an idea to let them vote?

Oh, and that whole "77 cents for every dollar a man makes" chestnut? A buncha' bullshit made up by the AAUW to cajole weak-kneed department chairs into giving them tenure. And if you need further proof that the wage gap is a bunch of hooey, here's a couple of articles debunking it for you to read on your own time from such festering misogynistic shitholes as Fortune, The Wall Street Journal, Time and Forbes.

And the fourth bullet point is the way that perplexes me the most. Not unlike the Black Lives Matter fad from last year, this whole Women's March movement (although, really, it's more of a hashtag than anything else) isn't actually outlining a workable set of policy reform ideas, but rather, just providing a brand name for a disparate group of anger-fueled individuals to loudly display their moralistic outrage over intangible concepts as some sort of pop cultural hobby. Uh, how exactly does holding up signs wishing literally half the population death achieve a policy goal again? It literally doesn't do anything to get you any closer to legislative reform, but it DOES give you something to retweet and post on Instagram. And in today's virtue signalling driven social media-scape, the endgame is never action, but always sycophantic affirmation.

And does anybody else find it just a little crazy that seemingly NONE of these hos seem to be pushing for the elimination of the electoral college - you know, the one LEGITIMATE social reform movement aggrieved Hillary voters could've chosen as their pet project in the wake of Trump's election? 

Then again, drumming up support for changing the Constitution takes - what's that word again? Oh yeah, effort. Why attempt to change the legal mechanism that LITERALLY cost Hillary the election if it means having to do actual work when it's far easier to just put on a Meg Griffin cap and say the word "pussy" a lot instead? 

Speaking of "pussy," isn't it just a little hypocritical for all of these Women's Marchers to run around wearing vagina masks and dressing up like golden-showering promising penises as a statement about how incensed and offended they were the President said he could grab women by the cooters 12 years ago? Bitches, please. For once, try to think like a normal, God-fearing Middle American. Even if you are rightly offended by Trump's alleged pussy-grabbing, is bragging about copping feels in a private discussion really more stomach churning than forcing an elementary schooler to walk around wearing a sign that says "this pussy bites back?" Dudettes, I'm sorry, but I'm honestly MUCH more disturbed that somebody would not only refer to their own primary school aged daughter as a crude sexual euphemism, but proudly parade her about in public as a political tool than I am any of The Donald's purported crotch grabbings. 
Feminists, seen here displaying why none of their candidates will ever win anything again.

Say what you will about the Tea Party dingbats - and yeah, it's probably valid - but at least those Obama hating crypto-racists had actual goals in mind. They wanted three concrete things: less taxes, less federal debt and no Obamacare. Those aren't invisible social constructs like "sexism" or "misogyny." They are actual pieces of public policy that can be changed over and over again. 

So, again, Women Marchers, I have to ask: what legal right that you do not have that men do ARE you fighting for? What specific federal law are you trying to get rid of or substantially alter? Which federal laws are you trying to bring to fruition? 

That's the problem with you dames. You honestly have no clue what you're marching for, you're just pissed your candidate didn't win and you have no idea how to handle electoral defeat

And you know what the really ironic thing about this is? Gals, this is PRECISELY the reason you lost the election in the first place. You're literally parading about your schismatic identity politics before everybody in America, in an attempt to divide instead of unite. You ovulators totally forgot that it was Donald Trump who managed to win over what could've been Hillary Clinton supporters instead of the other way around. Sure, 750,000 women in the L.A. area may have attended one of your rallies, but you completely forget that another 5.5 million women in that very M.S.A. stayed at home. A good 42 percent of ALL WOMEN in the U.S. voted for Donald Trump, and instead of doing something constructive to win them over to your side, you've doubled down on trying to ostracize, alienate, ridicule and demonize them (i.e., the pro-life women's groups that were disinvited from the "festivities" in D.C.)

Although politics tends to make people pretty damn oblivious to the real world and trifles like logic and common sense, there are some things that even the staunchest of partisans has to shake his or her head at - even when it's being perpetrated by people on "their side." And really, these women's protests - perhaps the first protests in history without anything corporeal actually being protested - are doing a remarkable job of driving middle of the road Democrats over to the G.O.P (hey, they don't call it the "red pill" for nothing.)

For starters, it's hard to not pick up on the brazen hypocrisy of the "movement" (which, to be perfectly honest, is much more of the bowel variety than the civil rights arrangement.) OK, so these twats are furious that women's rights in these United States are somehow being eroded, but when it comes the subject of maltreatment of women in the ultimate patriarchal culture (HINT: it rhymes with "Islam"), they're not doing (or even saying) a damn thing. Why? Because doing so would violate the feminists' intersectionalist Axis Powers compact with the Muslims,who they need as electoral backup against the Republicans. That one of the key organizers of the "movement" is a woman who went on live TV and said Muslim children were being executed en masse in the U.S. before complaining about 22 states trying to pass anti-Sharia law legislation just makes it all the more cringe-tastic.

But the Patriarchy is totally OK if everybody worships Allah, you guys!

But ultimately, the thing that's going to sink the Women's March hashtag/wannabe political phenomenon is the same fundamental flaw of the Black Lives Matter movement (and how weird is it that we haven't heard shit from them since Trump got elected?) Instead of marching for real empowerment, these skanks and scags and senior citizens are literally broadcasting their self-victimization to the whole world. Instead of positing themselves as principled, determined individuals courageously fighting an uphill battle for what's rightly theirs - i.e., that shit Malcolm X and MLK and Susan B. Anthony did - these womenfolks keep trying to drudge up new ways they're being oppressed and marginalized. Pulling a page out of the LGBT handbook, their strategy is to appear as beat up and de-powered as possible, with the endgame of weaponizing the pitiable charity anybody stupid enough to fall for the ruse showers upon them.

Unfortunately, menstruaters, Americans aren't the kind of peoples who celebrate pity, and we especially don't celebrate people who are clearly the beneficiaries of untold riches and privileges (like, I don't know, not having to go to war and shit) PRETENDING to be persecuted. Take a look at pretty much any gallery of Women's March protesters and you can see for yourself that practically none of them are hurting economically. And if they truly are being tyrannized, it's the first fascistic regime in history where the state sponsored subjugation comes with Starbucks and ample opportunities for selfies.

The alt-left doesn't have the foggiest notion of what Middle Americans stand for - as evident by the fact Democratic Senators are now having to take courses to learn how to have conversations with people who shop at Walmart. One look at the 2016 electoral map lets you know that those who think more like Trump than Clinton are more widely dispersed throughout the country, and if there is ONE thing the outcome of last year's general election demonstrated, it's that Red State America does not appreciate those who make virtue out of their weaknesses. 

And ultimately, what are these Women's March protests but people parading about their self-vaunted vulnerabilities and insecurities in a desperate scramble for sympathy?

That's the problem with your mighty union of hussies, floozies and trollops right there. You can aim for respect or you can aim for pity, but you can never be pitied and respected at the same time.

And trust me, all these demonstrations - the glorified penis envy festivals and traveling showcases of mental illness worship they are ain't doing a damn thing to earn you EITHER the admiration or sorrow of real Americans.


Post a Comment

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.