Archives for posts with tag: gender

The whole Teabagger Meltdown over Caitlyn Jenner is just the most recent example of hypocritical moralizers with their own secretly amoral lives: for instance, the many-times-married, closeted gay foghorn Rush Limbaugh lambasted her for, well, being a her. Mike Huckabee responded to the Vanity Fair photo of Ms. Jenner by extolling the joys of showering with underaged girls. And so on. And on. AND on.

Every time a politico excoriates an opponent for conduct unbecoming, we come to find out that they have a related skeleton in their own closet. Like “pro-lifer” Scott DesJarlais, who pressured his own wife and mistress to get abortions. Or David Vitter, who hates all sex offenders except himself? Or the crew of Congressional Sluts (Hastert, Hyde, Gingrich, et. al.) who prosecuted Bubba in Blowjobgate?

Sometimes, a fiscal hawk can indeed be a good money manager. And some defense critics actually have served in combat. But never will you see a preachy poltico or pundit rant and rail about dah gay, or women’s healthcare, or anything related to sexual morality who doesn’t have his or her own little secret sex life. Usually one that they are pretending to hate.

Put another way,Orin Kerr recently said these few pithy words:

“If I understand the history correctly, in the late 1990s, the President was impeached for lying about a sexual affair by a House of Representatives led by a man who was also then hiding a sexual affair, who was supposed to be replaced by another Congressman who stepped down when forced to reveal that he too was having a sexual affair, which led to the election of a new Speaker of the House who now has been indicted for lying about payments covering up his sexual contact with a boy.”

Cranky’s First Law has been proven. NEVER trust a politico, pundit, or plutocrat who claims to hate ANY sort of sex or gender-related activity. Sure as eggs is eggs, they are down with some serious private (and mayhap illegal) naughtiness of their own.

Mr. Blunt and Cranky

As Hillary Clinton starts her run for the White House, some on the Left and in the Center are tut-tutting over whether her endorsements from feminist organizations will “hurt her” during the campaign. After all, lots of Millenials, some Boomers, and ALL the Right Wingnuts dislke the term “feminist”. The Leery Lefties and Simpering Centrists worryworryworry about HRC and her supporters seeming too, well…brash. Forward. Aggressive. Insufficiently deferential. Not “ladylike” enough.

Put another way, they worry that she will act like she has an equal right to run for President. They worry that Hillary will act like women are just as qualified to hold high office as are men. They worry that the dread word “feminist” will doom her campaign, because the notion of gender equality will turn people off.

That’s a steaming load of elephant turds, Gentle Reader. Here’s why:

Number A: Not too long ago, politicos were urged to avoid talking about equality for non-Whites. Civil Rights were a “third rail” in American politics, touch it and watch your bid for office die. So the “mainstream” politicos soft-pedaled the issue, danced around it, vacillated, and as time went on, lost. Because the average American was, as they often are, ahead of the politicians and pundits on the issue. Eventually, candidates who grew a pair and started talking about equality won their races and changed the law of the land to reflect the will of the people and the meaning of the Constitution.

Letter 2: Not too long ago (and in some places, still), politicos were urged to avoid talking about equality for Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgendered people (LGBT) . Gay rights were a “third rail” in American politics, touch it and watch your bid for office die. So the “mainstream” politicos soft-pedaled the issue, danced around it, vacillated, and as time went on, lost their elections. Because the average American was, as they often are, ahead of the politicians and pundits on the issue. Eventually, candidates who grew a pair and started talking about equality have been winning their races and are changing the law of the land to reflect the will of the people and the meaning of the Constitution.

So now it’s Feminism that Nervous Normans and Nellies are scared to embrace. Why yes, they PERSONALLY support equality for women, yesyesyesofcourse THEY do, but others might take offense, so let’s be quiet and timid so as not to offend…F*** THAT F***ING S***. It’s time to recognize that equality for all means just that: for all. People of all colors, all orientations, all genders, and so on. All means all.

Hillary Clinton has already gotten flak for her hairstyles; for her wardrobe; for her age; for just being a woman. She can’t win the votes of the MRAs, the Teabaggers, the woman-haters, the Teabaggers, or the “Republicans”, so why even bother trying? F*** it, she should be what she is and be proud of it.

Since Barack Obama ran for, won, and has been the President, we’ve seen skin color come back up in the national conversation. And we’ve seen some serious progression on the issue, BECAUSE it was right in America’s face: Black Man = President. Only a few eedjits still dare spout their KKK bulls*** in public these days.

If HRC does the same, we can hope for some progress toward equality for women as well. Having feminism in America’s face can only help make that happen.

Mr. Blunt and Cranky

Young men of color are not treated equally by cops, but they pay the same taxes as old white farts like this author, who gets very good service from the cops. So we can either treat POC as equal citizens, or cut their taxes (& raise taxes on white folks). Anything else would be unfair and thus, un-American.

LGBT Americans are not treated equally by the courts, but they pay the same taxes as old heterosexual farts like this author, who gets very good service from the courts when he gets married or pays taxes on inheritances. So we can either treat LGBT people as equal citizens, or cut their taxes (& raise taxes on straight folks). Anything else would be unfair and thus, un-American.

Women are not treated equally by courts OR the cops, but they pay the same taxes as old male farts like this author, who gets very good service from the courts and the cops. So we can either treat women as equal citizens, or cut their taxes (& raise taxes on dudes). Anything else would be unfair and thus, un-American.

Taxation without representation was one of the reasons we formed this country in the first place. The ideas that people paying taxes should have some say in how they are taxed, and should receive some benefit from taxation, are fundamental to fairness and justice.

Don’t believe it? Let some fast food joint overcharge you for a cheeseburger, but charge the next customer the correct price. Would you be hacked off? Oh hellz yeah, you’d be all up in that restaurant’s face, demanding a refund and decrying the discriminatory way they treated you.

The government is ripping off millions of taxpayers, and has been doing so for decades. We can either:
*condone this extortion and theft,
*rectify the inequalities, or
*cut taxes on those who are being overcharged (thus raising taxes on the white, straight, male population to balance the budget).

Even if you hate POC, gays, and women, even if you support discriminatory laws against them…or maybe ESPECIALLY if you feel that way, you should be willing to support fairness in our tax code.

Mr. Blunt and Cranky