The “Equality Act”

In May, 236 Democrats and 8 Republicans in the House of Representatives passed the Equality Act, updating the Civil Rights Act of 1964 by adding “sexual orientation” and “gender identity” to Title II and Title VII.

Among other consequences, should this Bill ever pass the Senate and somehow survive a veto, it’s likely to require females who practice Brazilian Bikini waxing (removal of all pubic hair from the pelvic region, vulva, labia, perineum, and anus) to apply their skills to persons possessing a scrotum and a penis. I.e., trans-women. And, for that matter, cis-males.

See Consequences: logically absurd conclusions where it is noted that the British Columbia Human Rights Commission is already taking similar demands seriously.

As to other consequences, it seems to me that if this had been law a few years ago Dr. Larry Nassar could have avoided a 175 year prison sentence for sexually assaulting hundreds of young female gymnasts simply by identifying as a ‘woman.’

Would have saved Michigan State University half a billion dollars, too.

More on Gillette

Image Update 3:30PM:

Gillette girlsLet me guess. Those skin-tight jump suits didn’t sell enough blades.
H/T Sausagelink from the Althouse comments, originally at Powerline.

I’m seeing defenses – mostly by women – of Gillette’s “toxic masculinity” ad because about half of it consists of scenes where men behave well, as in stopping a fight between boys. It’s proposed that there’s an aspirational aspect to the ad that critics are missing.  Short version?  “Lighten up!”

Where the ad shows men in a good light they are doing things 98% of men would do as a matter of course, and which can be seen as appropriately socializing boys by modelling the present hierarchy of male competence. You need to recall, though, that the existence of a particular male hierarchy is exactly the thing the SJWs are complaining about. Socializing boys in a certain way, to be more like women, is their object. It’s about reconstructing the male hierarchy in a Feminist image.

The male hierarchy being denigrated is said to arise from, among other characteristics; stoicism, competitiveness, dominance, and aggression. All that is true, but every personality trait has two sides. Too little dominance means you’ll get walked on, as does too much agreeablenss. Ambition, daring, insight, protectiveness, and tenacity are also fair trait descriptions of the male hierarchy: And are simply other ways to fill out the full meaning of stoicism, competitiveness, dominance, and aggression. See also, Magnanimous millennial males.

So, do the scenes showing typical positive male behavior balance the scenes which feature the 2% of men who do behave badly? Perhaps. If the ad hadn’t abandoned the word “most” for the word “some” when describing the vast majority. And if it hadn’t started the way it did.

The tone for this ad was set at about the 5 second mark with the heavy, clear enunciation of “TOXIC MASCULINITY!”. Opening with SJW approved misandry colors the entire ad with every imprecation the SJWs have assigned the term. Some words are worth a thousand pictures. James Lileks said it well: “the phrase comes pre-loaded with a cargo-container’s worth of assumptions, preconceptions, and bilious ideas about the entire culture.

If you wanted to encourage men to be ‘better,’ you could easily imagine an ad that didn’t insist so clearly at the beginning that men can only be better if they do what Leftwing Feminists demand – behave like women. If you want men to listen, you don’t start with the definitive anti-male trope.

Sorry, given the amount of care that goes into such an ad, I do not believe this was a mistake. If it wasn’t a mistake, the ad is male bashing and virtue signaling.

“Men have sacrificed and crippled themselves physically and emotionally to feed, house, and protect women and children. None of their pain or achievement is registered in feminist rhetoric, which portrays men as oppressive and callous exploiters.”
-Camille Paglia

That summarizes what’s implied by “toxic masculinity,” which this ad employed deliberately, knowing the baggage it drags with it.

Cutting yourself

Dear Procter & Gamble,

It’s good to see the Gillette Safety Razor Company has returned to its roots by becoming the Gillette Safe Space Razor Company.  Especially so at a time when I own no stock.

There must be a warm glow there in King Gillette’s corner of Forest Lawn Memorial Park Cemetery as he observes your recent attempt to shed even more market share.

King was a man who really got the idea of planned obsolescence; selling rapidly consumed replacement parts at exorbitant margins. A tradition you’ve followed.  This predatory capitalist practice must have been weighing on his soul… since he was a Utopian Socialist.  Your commercial ridiculing male stereotypes as defined by a small number of Leftist identity group theorists, is a great start on redeeming his hypocrisy.  One thing he didn’t do though, is treat his customers as easily replaceable.

So, I’m not sure you’ve gone quite far enough to corner the #MeToo market, from whence you must expect your replacement customers to come. Pluralizing your time-tested slogan with “The Best Men Can Be!,” is strange when your point is that the natural tendency of men is to be ‘worst’?

Half the things you show as toxic masculinity (stopping bullying and fighting) are things 98% of men would do as a matter of course. Others (groping, speaking over/for women) are practiced by very few men (who already would get called out for it).  Besides, both sexes have their assholes.

Yet other male transgression you illustrate (ogling) is also practiced by women, if more subtly.  As is sabotage gossip, a type of bullying in which men generally do not engage (despite your use of that as one of men’s failings).  Women “do not use their fists, they use their mouths”. Still, no tampon manufacturer, for example, has called all women out for being vicious to each other. Or to men, for that matter.

I’m convinced you didn’t go as woke as you needed to. The slogan opportunity was staring you in the face.  To help get the virtue signaling juices flowing I offer the following suggestion for a truly woke motto: “The Pest Men Can Be!

Though maybe the word “men” should not be capitalized, or even used. “XY Homosapiens,” however, interrupts the pithiness so necessary to a slogan. Take “Our Blades are F**** Great,” from Dollar Shave Club, as a model.

In closing, I must thank you for interrupting my procrastination. I’ve choked on the price of your blades every time I’ve bought any, but I only shave about twice a week around the edges of my beard, so your outrageous pricing has been more irritating than enraging.

In the past, usually just after a Gillette purchase, I’ve visited Dollar Shave Club and Harry’s, who (horrors) don’t even target market women, though the gentler-sex is allowed to buy Harry’s products without being subject to charges of Feminine Toxicity.

I never pulled the trigger, if that’s not too masculine a cliche. Today, I did. I’m gonna be the best ex-customer I can be.

Sarsour on Sharia

Sarsour on Sharia

You can check out those details here: Brunei Adopts Islamic Sharia Law; Flogging, Amputation and Stoning to Death to be Brought in Gradually …and can decide if it’s reasonable and sensible yourself:

“Today… I place my faith in and am grateful to Allah the almighty to announce that tomorrow, Thursday May 1, 2014, will see the enforcement of Sharia law phase one, to be followed by the other phases,” Sultan Hassanal Bolkiah said in a speech.

In the first phase, fines and jail terms will be given for pregnancies outside marriage or failure to attend Friday prayers. During the second phase, which will come into effect later this year, whipping and amputation of limbs will be awarded for crimes such as theft and alcohol consumption.

Once the final phase is implemented, offenders will face the death penalty – most likely by stoning – if they insult Koran or Prophet Mohammad.

About 70 percent of the country’s 400,000-strong population is Muslim but most of the punishments under the sharia law are applicable to the non-Muslims as well.

Crimes such as adultery, propagation and practice of religions other than Islam and even failure to perform Friday prayers attract harsh punishments under the sharia law.

That’s “basics” in at least one jurisdiction, and since Islam is as much political as religious – the church and state cannot, by definition, be separated – there’s absolutely nothing to prevent these rules in ANY Sharia jurisdiction.

Even in a, shall we say… more lenient suzerainty, Sharia elevates the rule of man (and “man” is not used here in its “all humans” sense) over the rule of law. Universally to the detriment of females.

Linda Sarsour is a leader of The Women’s March.  It is puzzling that she is held up as a defender of women’s rights while defending a legal system which, in some places, calls for the death by stoning for any woman found in the company of a man other than a close family member. Sexual activity is assumed to have happened.

#MeToo takes on a whole new meaning.

Pussy Hats and Hijabs

This video has been “unlisted” on YouTube. Which, since you can still watch it, I take to mean you can’t find it with a search. So I post it here for a bit wider exposure than Google deems appropriate. 18:39

Barbara Kay – How to Launder a Hijab
https://www.youtube-nocookie.com/embed/dEviH0Kz5-Y
Nth-wave Feminists support a female dress code, invented in 1970 by an Iranian mullah, and now enforced by males.

The only point of agreement between Feminism and Islamism I can detect here is that men are evil, though that’s offset from the current Western feminist dogma by the fact that sharia makes females entirely responsible for controlling men’s sexual behavior. More succinctly, “If you are raped, it’s your fault.”

Not so long ago, when feminists were called upon to condemn clitorectomies, honor killings, murder of young girls for attempting to get an education, inability to be seen in public unless accompanied by a male, and other aspects of Islamic totalitarian patriarchy, they demurred that they couldn’t be expected to denounce another culture. But, American Feminists weren’t really afraid to criticize other cultures, they were afraid their own complaints would be revealed as trivial.

Tiring of squirming on the charge of hypocrisy, accurately leveled, Feminists found themselves needing defenses against the realities of Sharia Law. They enlisted Islamic, Marxist activist Linda Sarsour to carry the water. Sarsour was co-chairman of the 2017 Day Without a Woman strike and protest where, as always, she wore her hijab. While consorting with women in pussy hats.

Here’s some Linda Sarsour tweets to ponder:

Happy birthday to the revolutionary #AssataShakur!” read the tweet, which featured a “#SignOfResistance, in Assata’s honor

Assata Shakur, aka Joanne Chesimard. is a convicted cop-killer living in Cuba, and is on the F.B.I.’s list of most wanted terrorists.

You’ll know when you’re living under Sharia Law if suddenly all your loans & credit cards become interest free. Sound nice, doesn’t it?

There’s that. Then, if you’re female, there’s ‘your educational opportunites will be entirely decided by the State Patriarchy.’

shariah law is reasonable and once u read into the details it makes a lot of sense. People just know the basics

Like being hung for self-defense against a rapist. Like risking a public flogging for participating in a public demonstration (maybe wearing an odd shaped pink toque) without your male guardian.

10 weeks of PAID maternity leave in Saudi Arabia. Yes PAID. And ur worrying about women driving. Puts us to shame.

And now, Sarsour has an even better point. Women have recently been granted the right to drive in Saudi Arabia so we don’t even need to worry about THAT anymore. This amazing privilege is somewhat tempered by the fact that they still need male permission to leave the house. But they get 10 weeks of paid maternity leave. Both of these privileges are granted by, and dependent upon, the whim of an absolute monarch. Where in the world, after all, are social conditions closest to Margaret Atwood’s The Handmaid’s Tail?

Sarsour is notably silent on how many Saudi women are CEOs or on corporate boards, never mind that only about 15% of women (a tripling since 1992) in Saudi Arabia are even employed “outside the home,” and the female unemployment rate is around 30%. Saudi women don’t need to drive to get to jobs they don’t have, or to schools they can’t attend (emphasis mine):

“The Ministry of Higher Education was established in 1975 to provide higher education to all students based on Islamic laws and to supervise its process [27]. The goal of education for women was for them to be successful housewives and good mothers, with knowledge suitable to their nature such as teaching, nursing or giving medical treatment…

…it is very difficult for women to attend university since they need a male guardian [7-40][7]”

Saudi Arabia ranks 138th out of 144 on the 2017 Global Gender Gap Index published by the World Economic Forum. You may know of them from their annual meeting in Davos. The US ranks 49th, down 4 points due “to a significant decrease in gender parity in ministerial level positions,” so take it with a grain of salt. Even ranked by elite EU leftists, though, the discrepancy is notable – if incomprehensible to a desperately self-promoting Islamofeminist. It’s comical.

We can agree that as a stand up comic Linda Sarsour is in a class with Sandra Fluke. But there’s hope for Sarsour. Even the Saudis are moving away from Sharia. The cultural peeks in that link are worth reading, and are a bit chilling. Stand up comedy clubs are now permissible, if you have a license and don’t say the wrong thing. It reminds me of Jerry Seinfeld’s remark, “Don’t go near colleges. They’re so PC.”

That’s cultural appropriation by campus Lefties.

Victiming the blame

Thirty years ago Roman Polanski was a 43-year-old movie director in Hollywood. He drugged and then raped – vaginally and rectally – a 13-year-old girl. He plea bargained into lesser charges, but fled the country before he could be sentenced. In a 1979 interview, Mr. Polanski defended himself thusly

“If I had killed somebody, it wouldn’t have had so much appeal to the press, you see? But … f—ing, you see, and the young girls. Judges want to f— young girls. Juries want to f— young girls. Everyone wants to f— young girls!”

Not so much, thanks. I’d rather see Mr. Polanski f__ed. And maybe he finally will be. He has just been arrested in Switzerland, and is now awaiting extradition to the United States.

His arrest at a film festival, where free speech is greatly admired as long as it does not involve cartoons of Mohammed, praise of capitalism or speculation that George Bush was not the progeny of a Mengele experiment involving Hitler and a chimpanzee, has upset well over 100 Hollywood “movers and shakers.” We know this because they have signed a petition protesting his arrest.

Among these tinseltown ethicists are Woody Allen, who married his own adopted daughter, the quintuply married director Martin Scorsese, and producer Harvey Weinstein, described by LA Weekly as “one of the most successful yet psycho movie producers of modern times.”

More surprising perhaps, are the feminist women rallying to support Polanski’s patriarchal right not to be inconvenienced by the criminal sexual exploitation of a minor who, by the way, possessed two X chromosomes.

Debra Winger complains “the whole art world suffers” in such arrests. Millionaire film maker, unrestricted abortion advocate, and founder of the Feminist Majority Foundation, Peg Yorkin, says,

“My personal thoughts are let the guy go. It’s bad a person was raped. But that was so many years ago. The guy has been through so much in his life. It’s crazy to arrest him now. Let it go. The government could spend its money on other things.”

“It’s bad a person was raped.” Indeed. And even worse than person, Polanski’s victim was a 13-year-old female who is apparently ineligible to be a member, or a concern, of the Feminist Majority Foundation – insofar as she didn’t need any government funds for an abortion.

Then there is Whoopi Goldberg, who explained that Polanski hadn’t really committed the crime he was charged with. The LA Police and the most of the rest of us have been calling it rape all these years, but Goldberg apparently knows it as “rape-rape.” Real rape, I guess she means. Mere rape is nothing that justifies arresting him while he’s attending a sacred film festival.

“Whoopi Goldberg has said that Roman Polanski was not guilty of “rape-rape” following his arrest in Switzerland over his conviction for unlawful sex with a minor.In 1977, Polanski was charged with rape by use of drugs, perversion, sodomy, lewd and lascivious act upon a child under 14 and furnishing a controlled substance to a minor.

These charges were dropped as part of a plea bargain that saw the director admit to the lesser charge of unlawful sex with a minor, while he later fled the US on the eve of sentencing.

Of Polanski’s crime, Goldberg told The View: “I know it wasn’t rape-rape. It was something else but I don’t believe it was rape-rape.

“He went to jail and when they let him out he was like, ‘You know what, this guy’s going to give me a hundred years in jail. I’m not staying’. So that’s why he left.”

She added: “We’re a different kind of society, we see things differently. Would I want my 14-year-old having sex with somebody? Not necessarily, no.””

[H]aving sex?” “Not necessarily?” “Different kind of society?”

Whoopi, you provoke this question; “Under what conditions is the rape, which you call having sex, of your 14-year-old child considered necessary?” I don’t need an answer, it just does prove you live in some different place.

It sounds like these moguls and celebs are taking their direction from ACORN, an organization that considers 13-year-olds “assets” on the “sex-slave” balance-sheet.

If you acknowledge the fact that by watching the movies made by this cadre you are financing a moral cesspool, then you are culpable if you do not boycott everything they touch.

They are entitled to express their opinions, and the rest of us are entitled to react. So while we’re mocking celebrities, here’s a mocking critique of another aspect of Hollywood’s moral preening. Same group of people, similar message: “We are advanced thinkers and your moral superiors. So we made this commercial.”