That’s the answer to Billy Beck’s question.

I’ve criticized your religion, certainly your politics, and the inconsistency behind the idea of women’s equality.  Why not criticize your thoughts on homosexuality?

We’re not supposed to talk about it, right?  It’s a taboo subject.  For one thing we’re supposed to shut up out of fear– fear of being ostracized as a ‘gay’ basher or a homophobe.  So when a man sees another man raping a boy, he clams up.  If he’d beat the shit out the rapist as he should have done, he’d be the one charged with a crime and no one would say anything in his defense for fear of being labeled a ‘gay’ basher.  Same as when a black, homosexual, Democrat man in Congress (probably the most protected class of humans, unless you’re talking of a black, lesbian Muslim extremist) running a homosexual prostitution ring in his basement.  What?  I suppose you’re a racist homophobe with a political agenda.  Shut up.  You Suck if you criticize this hard-working American who cares about kids, the poor, race relations, union workers and the environment, you racist homophobe.  Neanderthal!

Sure; the witness should have done the right thing and kicked the rapist’s ass, even if he knew full well that he’d be the one prosecuted.  But our cultural insanity makes doing the right thing just that much more difficult.  And that, I submit, was the whole purpose of what I will call the insanity movement the first place– what’s good is bad and what’s bad is good.  What’s wrong is right and what’s right is wrong.

How else do you get 300 to 400 million people to tolerate being treated like sheep?

I put the word “gay” in scare quotes because it doesn’t mean what most people today think it means.  I try to use the language properly, so using “gay” to mean homosexual requires the quotation marks.  He’s a bit “queer” is of course a euphemism.  Lots of things are queer, but we’ve lost track of the word’s meaning.  “Gay” is the same sort of euphemism, as is “fag”, as applied to a homosexual.  If we’re going to use the terms in their true meanings, or understand them when we encounter them in classic literature, we have to be aware of this, and talk about it.  So there you have it.  Now if you’ll excuse me, I’m going to suck on one of the nice faggots I usually keep with me right now.  And by the way; I suppose I could sue you if you criticize me for smoking.  If it’s an addiction, or a disease, you’d be harassing or “bashing” a person with a disability.  Shut up.  You have no right to talk about it unless you give me lots of money.  Oh, and stop taxing me because of my disease.  Would you propose a tax on “gays” who get AIDS?  Shut up.  Now I’m thinking of closing comments because no one is supposed to talk about any of this stuff.  Shut up.

We’re not even supposed to talk about this, I guess, because it proves we’re sexist.  Too bad.

When the Flappers painted the town red in the 1920s, we were told women had achieved equality.  When women hit the factories during World War Two, we were told women had achieved equality (see the trend yet?).  When women burned their bras in the 1960s, we were told women had achieved equality.  When the pill came out, we were told that women had finally achieved equality.  Women’s suffrage happened somewhere back there too.

A hundred years of non-stop achievement of equality later, we’re being told how sexual harassment is a problem in the workplace, and it’s 99.999% men doing the harassing and women, still, are the victims.  Because they haven’t achieved equality I guess.  What’s the message to men with ambitions?  If you’re going to be running for high office ten or twenty years later, you better keep women out of your workplace so they can’t come back when the time is right and destroy your campaign.  Don’t hire women.  Don’t work with women, because all it takes for a women to destroy you is for her to point a finger at you.

If men and women were equal, there’d be roughly the same number of men complaining about harassment by women as the other way ’round, or at least it wouldn’t be so overwhelmingly one-sided.  A high school aged male I knew was getting rather steamy text message from a far older, married woman employer.  It was fairly apparent that sex was happening between them.  An experienced  lawyer said that maybe he should count himself the luckiest kid in school.

That’s the double standard and it’s everywhere.  At the same time we’re being told that women are strong, that they can not only take care of themselves they’re capable of doing anything a man can do at least as well as he can do it, we are simultaneously asked to believe that the slightest gesture can turn a strong, capable, professional woman into a quivering blob of dysfunctional, sobbing, frightened, victimized jelly that only huge sums of money, or certain political outcomes, or both, can cure.

When I was interviewing a college-age woman for a bookkeeping position at my small business, she asked if there was enough work there to actually keep her busy full time.  Fair question.  In addition to telling her that although the business was small, it was complex, and that furthermore, being small, there were a lot of other things she could do besides keep books.  What I meant, and I expected it to be as obvious as the rather prominent nose on my face (she was a business major after all) was that total specialization is something a small business cannot afford, therefore we all have to pitch in with cleaning, stocking shelves, receiving shipments, answering phones, and hundreds of other tasks that are involved in keeping a business running properly that don’t warrant separate employees.  Her response caught me off guard.  I was accustomed to working in the real world, unaware of just how bat-shit insane the world of leftist political academia had become.  Condition white;

“WELL…just what’s THAT supposed to mean…?!!”  Gawd.  She’d apparently been to one of those “How-to-know-when-you’re-being-sexually-harassed” classes they offer to women on college campi these days as part of the “Women’s Studies” curriculum.  Interview over.  Don’t call us, we’ll (not) call you.  We have enough problems without having to deal with stupid shit like this.

Which is it, then, ladies?  Are you capable of standing up for yourselves, strong, and proud to play a vital and dynamic role in all the action, or are you perpetual victims, bent on being perpetual victims for social, financial and political gain?  Do you want to be taken seriously or do you want to be a poor little victim, ’cause it sure as hell can’t be both.  This bi-polar premise is running rather thin and I for one quit falling for it sometime back in the 1970s.