This is the return of the feature of this blog imparting the wisdom of old movies about dames, sicne men have lsot their way and need reminding. As any hard boiled dick could tell you, by the way, ALL women are dames.
Gabby Hayes ("Sons of the Pioneers"): Women!!! There oughta be a law agin' 'em." (after a women hits him on the head with dishware)
Notice that the headline is a little misleading. It implies, correctly, that men have CHANGED, as we continue to head fruther into the 'chickification" of America. However, the headline might imply that WOMEN have also changed. That is ture ony in a sense. As the Gabby Hayes quote shows, and innumerable other quotes from old movies, women have ALWAYS been the most VICIOUS of creatures: the most dangerous creatures on Earth. It is just that thke velvet glove is now gone. All that is left is the iron fist. Women used to be willing to PRETEND, because men at least made an eFFORT to keep them under control:. Women were not quite sure enough of themselves to assert open contorol, for fear men would rebel. No such fear with the "modern" man. It does not take much to make men HAPPY (simlple lcreatures that we are). Men don't care about reality. We wre happy with the PRETENSE. Fake orgasms? Fine with us. But women no longer PRETEND, and that is what makes the modern "man" such a pitiful, miserable creature. Men have always preferrred fantasy women to real women, and--to a small degree--women used to indulge us. No more. Are women happier? I doubt it. But I KNOW men are not happier, despite women now adopting the sex "ethics" of men. Men were HAPPY with the PRETENSE that we were lords and masters.
Notice how our chick controlled media WRITES OFF "white males"--really males in general--as far as present day America. It is ONLY the "woman's vote" that matters.
Notice, also, the implied INSULT here. The insult is that women are STUPID enough to buy into this absurd "War on Womne" propaganda; and even STUPID enough to be BRIBED merely with "free" contgraception. Women are supposed to be so dumb that they will be willing to have the whole country go down the drain, so long as they are promised 'free contraception", and that they--and only they--will be free to kll a developing human being within them FOREVER.
Although I waver from time to time, this blog has correctly told you that even women are not dumb enough to seell out this country for "free' contraception. There is, really, a War on Men gong on here, and women know they are winning. Why should they SELL OUT a country that they now contgrol? Because they are socialists at heart, or economic fascists, like Obama/ Dream on, leftists. As I have correctly told you, women are the most PRACTICAL of creatures. This may This lack of real principle may cause them to go wildly off of the beam, to their own detriment, but women are aware that: There ain't no such thing as a free lunch." Look at how they DEMEANED tghemselves, and PRETENDED to cater to men all of those years. Who, besides women, better know that a "free lunch' can COST you more than you can ever afford? No. The left is deluded if they think women can be bribed with "free" contraceptin. But I admit that I worry whetghr women really think these things through, or tend to jsut go with the "emotion" of the moment. I know that is a sexist stereotype, but I have been tyrying to get my sexist identity back ever since the left forced me 'out of the closet" as a feminist. The shame of that still overwhelms me, when I think of it.
No. Polls that may show a supposed 25% difference between men voters and women voters go way beyond stupid, into actual, clinical insanity (loss of contact with reality, which is the real definitin of schizophrenia). Even as many males rebel abainst the "chickificatin" of America, and get angry about Obama, the leftisat media, and the rest of the left "writing them off", it really is impossible for the "male vote" and the "female vote" to be THAT different. Media peole who "reort" this as great divide asreal really are clinically insane: no contact with reality at all.
"But, Skip, you say men might rebel? Is it not possible that men are on the verge of a new War of Independence, as they realize that they have LOST this War on men?"
Yep. That is possible. I just see no present indictin that modern "men" have yet gotten their act together, and are prepared--en masse--to return to those days of yore, when men were men. That is why I am returning to my series on "dames": to inspire men to stand up to women and assert that we MATTER. I know that it takes extraordinary bravery, and that there will be casualties, because women are such vicius creatures. But we men have nothing to lose but our cains. Women hae never been "under control". But there was once a time, in those days of yesteryear, when women at least felt that need to PRETEND that is so important to us men. Will we EVER be able to at least make women nervous enough to restore something of that PRETENSE so necessary to the happiness of men? I don't know. It may depend on women--correctly--coming to the conclusin that THEY are not happy with the modern, wimpy species of men.
In the meantime, the left is deluded that women are willing to let the left destoroy the country in the name of a "ar on women". I am more afraid that women, willing to buy into the FALSE "philosophy" of "moderatin", and this idea that you should never be "harsh", will keep us DRIFITING along the path to destruction by continuing to prefer politicians who do not "rock the boat". Even though I have now endoresed Romney, because of Libya and President Obama's willing to treat four Amerian BODIES as a mere political problem, readers of this blog know that I think thre is little chance Romneywill be any better than Obama. Yes. I DO "blame' women for this unwillingness to actauly vote for politicians who are NOT 'politics as usual". Romney is "politics as usual". I believe that it is FEAR (whether justified or not) of the "woman's vote" that keeps giving us candidates like Romney and discourages cowardly politicians from really CAHING DIRECTIN (back to founding principles). I am certainly not talking about all women, as I wouould prefer Sarah Palin to ALLL of the candidates that ran for President this year. But it is not ME who is pushing a STEREOTYPE of ""women's issues", and how women "feel" about those issues. Until we get politic icans, including women poliicians, willing to take on that stereotype, and show women why it is in their interest not to buy into this stereotype of how they are SUPPOSED to think, we may continue to be stuck in this self-destructive path we are on.
P.S. No proofrading or spell checkng (bad eyesight).