Sunday, February 27, 2005


One of the more mealy-mouthed moderate males, troll-baiting comments to shore up his declining demographic, has reiterated his periodic pedestal placing of web women, disingenuously declaiming distaffers are too delicate for the demands of political blogging:
... the blogosphere, which ought to be an ideal training ground for finding new voices in nontraditional places, is far more vitriolic than any op-ed page in the country, even the Wall Street Journal's, and therefore probably turns off women far more than it attracts them.
When this fatuous flea-bite provoked the flailing tail-swats he masochistically fantasized about, he further fanned the flames:
... the reason I suggested that women are turned off by the "fundamental viciousness" of blogging and opinion writing is because many women have told me this (and have told me the same thing in non-blogging contexts as well). Men are so routinely dismissive of women and so fundamentally dedicated to playground dominance games that many women decide they just don't want to play.
Thanks, but I'll pass on such pacifying pats on the posterior from Kevie. To me this apologetic appeasement of angry Amazons only indicates that he has unnecessary appendages, and I prescribe a radical and total bris, all the way back to the torso. I'm not a certified mohelet, but on childhood visits to my grandmother's farm I did get to castrate a bull calf, so I'll be happy to relieve the white wine and quiche eater of those unused protuberances. If he's too unaccountably shy to submit to surgery by a female, he can hire someone who has first built up his Dutch courage.

However wimpy his sycophantic squeals since his silly sparking of this sororal slaughterfest, I have to point out one source which seems to strip support from his stance. Buried on the back pages of small town Red state journalism, I read that one unlamented former Congressthing, Dick Armey, says women can be far more venomous than men. Speaking for completely getting rid of Social Security [sic] in Longview, Texas, he commented on another part of Our Noble Lame Duck's outreach agenda:
Armey also said Republican ambitions to add amendments banning flag burning and gay marriage to the U.S. Constitution are unlikely to be fulfilled. He said organizations that backed the Equal Rights Amendment, a failed proposal to make it unconstitutional to pay women less for the same work [very sic], were well-organized and politically powerful.

"Sponsors of the ERA were the meanest people I've seen in Congress, and they were unable to do it," he said. "So I don't take amending the Constitution very seriously, quite frankly. It's a big job. It's not likely to happen."
Since that particular meme for comment-whoring has run its course with the close of Estrogen Week, the penile portion of the punditsphere has proposed an even more puerile paradigm, that "Women aren't as funny as men." This idiocy was endorsed by a former philosophy student whose pretentious ponderings were so pointless, suggesting that the first JFK had reversed the benefits of "a Yale degree and a Harvard education", that he was quickly co-opted by beltway blatherers to publish pusillanimousness for pay. Yet, once again, ongoing events provide ammunition for his argument. I confess that, at my most amusing, I could never have devised any comedy as hilarious as this production of a male politician in Maine:
Rep. Brian Duprey (R-Hampden) has submitted a bill to the State Legislature to shield potentially homosexual fetuses from discrimination. LD 908, "An Act to Protect Homosexuals from Discrimination," attempts to protect homosexuals from death because they might carry the gene that could lead to homosexuality.

This bill as drafted would make it a crime to abort an unborn child if that child is determined to be carrying the "homosexual gene." Duprey said that no such genetic marker has yet been discovered. But considering rapid advancements in genetic mapping research, he wants legislation in place should such a breakthrough occur. "If the homosexual gene is ever determined to exist," he said, "I want to ensure that a woman could not abort an unborn child simply because that child is determined to be carrying this gene."

Duprey received the idea for this bill when listening to the Rush Limbaugh radio show. "I heard Rush saying that the day the 'gay gene' is determined to be real, that overnight gays would become pro-life," Duprey said.

"Most people would agree that to kill someone just because that person might be gay would constitute a hate crime," said Duprey. "I have heard from women who told me that if they found out that they were carrying a child with the gay gene, then they would abort. I think this is wrong. Those unborn children should be protected."
Perhaps the closest I've seen to this breathtakingly risible proposal was the idea advocated many years ago by a candidate for the Libertarian Presidential nomination, who promised to mobilize pro-gun and anti-abortion voters by supporting handguns for fetuses. But he was cluelessly male, too, so that won't help demonstrate to Mattie the fallacy of his collectivist calumny.

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?

Weblog Commenting by HaloScan.com