Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week


With Impeach-A-Palooza taking a winter break while House Democrats continue to claim President Donald Trump is a national security threat and simultaneously holding the articles of impeachment at arm’s length from the Senate, I decided to take a break from impeachment talk and focus on another topic for a change.

You may not know it, but I am a sports fan. I try to follow trends as closely as I can as a means to avoid thinking about politics 24/7, but lately the two get tangled up in each other, whether it’s ESPN putting on its white knight armor to stump for Leftist causes or athletes like Colin “I’m Still Benched” Kapernick kneeling for the Star Spangled Banner. But none of these situations defy logic and science like transgendered athletes.

To figure out the Venn diagram intersection between Leftist ideology and sports, let’s take a deep dive into the phenomenon.

transgendered athletes

What the Left thinks it means – brave athletes who want to be accepted for their gender identity and their athletic achievements

What it really means – people who prey upon the Left’s good intentions to cheat the system

Annnnnd the calls of “Thomas is a transphobe” will start coming in shortly. Before they do, however, I must point out my opposition to transgendered athletes has nothing to do with them being transgendered. It has everything to do with creating a fair playing field for all.

When you look at the transgendered athletes making the news lately, you should notice two important details. First, these athletes are often breaking records formerly held by genetic women. And, second, the athletes breaking these records tend to be male-to-female transgender. There aren’t a lot of female-to-male transgender athletes getting attention, but when you have a Biff-to-Biffany shattering a record, it’s covered more than a Muslim woman in a burka working in a coal mine.

Why is that, exactly? Well, the short answer is it has everything to do with the Left’s position on gender and gender identity. If you identify as trans, any achievement the Left agrees with becomes a victory for all trans people, regardless of whether it actually is one. The Left has already made it possible to blur the lines of biological gender by inventing more genders than there are people who actually identify as said genders and by advancing the idea gender is fluid. Meaning, it’s whatever you want it to be. It’s the same thinking that gave us the “living Constitution” jazz, only it’s dealing with more than ideas and concepts.

And this is where it gets troublesome for the Left. They are big fans of the transgender movement, but they are also big fans of the feminist movement. Usually, there isn’t much of a quarrel between these two groups, but in this case, there should be. Remember what I said earlier about women’s records being shattered by male-to-female transgendered athletes? When you take a moment to think about it, what is happening is genetic males are using the Left’s permissiveness to undercut the achievements of biological females, and the Left doesn’t see that as a problem. And the Left wants to “smash the Patriarchy”? Well, if they are, they’re outsourcing it to biological men…

And women are starting to realize the downside to the Left’s push for gender identification equality: there are biological differences between men and women that make the transgender athlete issue harder to support. That flies in the face of the Left’s “party of science” designation, as well as their entire argument on gender identity. One of the Left’s favorite lines about gender is that it’s a social construct, not a biological one. Basically, their argument is the doctor assigns you a gender at birth based on perception (like whether the baby has a twig and two berries, if you know what I mean) and his or her parents base how they raise the child from the doctor’s perspective. Pink for girls and blue for boys. Although there might be an iota of a point there, it flies in the face of human physiology. Only in rare cases will you find a biological girl with male plumbing, a biological male without it, or a person with both sets. That means the whole “perception and society create gender” is bogus and should be treated as such.

Especially when it comes to biological men competing against biological women and beating them.

This isn’t to say women will always lose to men. There are times when a woman beats a man at his/her own game by simply being better. The issue, however, is men and women are different and biological gender is real. I could find some nice white robes, a miter hat, and a vehicle with a bulletproof glass dome, but that doesn’t make me the Pope. (Although, to be fair, I think I could a lot better than the current Pope, but that’s neither here nor there.) The point is there are certain characteristics that prevent me from being what I claim to be. And, yes, this applies to transgendered athletes. No matter how much you try to look like a woman or a man, you are still biologically who you are, and male-to-female trans athletes using the attributes they receive by being biological males is nothing short of cheating.

And that’s not transphobic at all. If anything, it’s more feminist than transphobic. Try wrapping your hivemind around that, Leftists.

Ultimately, women will come to terms with the Left’s decisions and arguments sooner or later. Preferably sooner because the Left sees women not as individuals with different identities and strengths, but as donors and voters that can be easily manipulated by saying the “right” things. In other words, ladies, the Left thinks you’re dumb. Kinda puts their whole “we support women” narrative into perspective, doesn’t it?

There’s a saying, “Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned.” When it comes transgendered athletes, there will be a lot of fury coming the Left’s way, whether it be from the women getting cheated by male-to-female trans athletes or from the female-to-male trans athletes getting ignored.

Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week


In case you missed it (or, like me, you were glad to), we recently had another socially conscious holiday/occasion, this one called National Period Day. Already? And I still have up my National Pronoun Day decorations!

The cause behind National Period Day is to underscore how feminine products cost more than their male counterparts, an idea that’s been nicknamed the “pink tax.” Although this raises a lot of questions, like what happens if the products identify as male, it also shows how the Left can take a legitimate issue and turn it into a freak show Tod Browning would be proud of.

pink tax

What the Left thinks it means – additional costs passed on to female consumers solely because of their gender

What it really means – additional costs passed onto all consumers due to multiple economic factors completely unrelated to anyone’s gender

When it comes to economics, Leftists are masters at oversimplifying concepts and completely missing important details that would ultimately affect their positions. For example, the Left’s favorite trope is women make $0.78 for every dollar a male peer makes. As troubling and unfair as that sounds, it’s not completely accurate because the figure omits a lot of details, like paid time off and career/life choices. Once those factors are taken into consideration, in most cases the “wage gap” disappears or tips in favor of the people allegedly impacted by it.

The pink tax has the same basic problem. Yes, female products cost more and often have the same ingredients as male products, but there’s a big red…err pink flag. And this is going to come as a big surprise to the Left.

Women are different from men.

I know! It shocked me when I found out, too!

Because men and women are different, they will respond to different stimuli. Because of these differences, men and women will be attracted to different products for different reasons. A burly lumberjack type may be the man of many women’s dreams, but it won’t make them want to buy a certain brand of tampons. That means these different products have to be marketed differently, which in the corporate world means more money has to be spent on what are essentially the same products. As a result, the cost of doing business gets passed along to consumers.

Read that last sentence again. I said “consumers.” Not just women, not just men, consumers as a whole. You see, even though the products are marketed differently because of gender, the cost is still the same for those who buy them. I can’t go into a grocery store, buy a package of tampons for my wife, and get a “blue discount” because I’m a male. I may get funny looks from the other customers, but I attribute that to being a weirdo.

Although I’m poking fun at the absurdity of the “pink tax,” I have to admit the Left has a point. If the only difference between men’s and women’s deodorant is the scent, why not price them the same and eliminate the Left’s talking point? Not to mention, the first company to do this for any product men and women use will gain a major foothold in the market and earn corporate brownie points at the same time. Although I’m sure the price difference results in a tidy sum, sometimes you have to cut prices to gain volume, which has a funny way of making up for any lost profits from the price reduction. Yay capitalism!

Now, for the gender-specific items, that’s a little harder to equalize. Men don’t use tampons (yes, not even trans women), so you can’t use the same argument you can with deodorant. However, the same principle regarding buying said items applies. That “pink tax” hits men and women equally, but it’s easily fixed by both genders through doing one of the new great American pastimes: complaining. If you want to get a company to look into their practices quickly and effectively, use their social media to complain because that shit always has the potential to go global virally. If you doubt this, I have four words for you: Wendy’s Spicy Chicken Nuggets.

In the meantime, the “pink tax” should be exposed as the uninformed economic talking point it is. Companies don’t see blue and pink outside of their marketing departments. They prefer green, gold, and silver. (For you Leftists out there worried about the pink tax, I’m talking about money.) In order to affect positive change, you have to hit the companies’ bottom lines, not invent a crisis and turn it into a talking point for politicians. If you’re not willing to engage with the problem honestly, you can take your complaints and stuff them.

One more note. National Period Day? Just…ewwwww.

Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week


Can you believe it’s been a year since the first Women’s March? I can’t! Why, it seemed like it was only yesterday when women wore knitted pink hats representing a part of the female anatomy and took part in a march partially organized by a known anti-Semite and attended by a former pop star who thought it was a good idea to publicly admit she wanted to blow up the White House. Ah, memories.

A year later and the Women’s March is experiencing a little trouble. Attendance is projected to be down because of lack of interest and complaints by women of color that there are, get this, too many white women involved. This march went from excluding pro-life women from marching with them because they were pro-life to excluding people based on race? And we haven’t even gotten to the anti-Semitic statements made by two of the prominent leaders of the march yet!

Let’s take another look at the Women’s March and see if we can puzzle out where they went wrong.

Women’s March

What the Left thinks it means – a march for women to be heard and respected for taking a stance against the Trump Administration and sexism everywhere

What it really means – a group trying to be all things to a few people

Feminists have a concept called intersectionality that permeates their ideology. Basically, intersectionality posits oppression overlaps. A woman of color might experience sexism and racism simultaneously while a white lesbian might experience sexism and homophobia while a black lesbian lumberjack might experience sexism, racism, and homophobia. On the plus side, she’s a lumberjack and she’s okay. The intersectionality creates a Venn Diagram of oppression in theory, but in practice it creates a hierarchy of oppression. White women can’t be as oppressed as the aforementioned lumberjack, so the latter’s oppression is taken more seriously.

And remember, kids, we’re not dealing with actual oppression in most cases. It’s perceived oppression. I’m not saying women aren’t the victims of oppression because they are. Most of the time, though, it’s not here. Think the women in countries run by radical Muslims give two craps about the wage gap? Nope! They’re too busy living in fear for their lives. Their intersectionality oppression Venn Diagram is a freaking CIRCLE.

And who do we have leading the charge in the Women’s March? One woman, Linda Sarsour, wants us to believe Islam is progressive when it comes to women, even after she wanted women who disagree with her to undergo female genital mutilation. (Pro Tip for you, Linda. Forced FGM isn’t politically or socially progressive.) Then, there’s Tamika Mallory, who not only has said some anti-Semitic things, but also is a fan of and met with Louis Farrakhan. Hmmm…I’m sensing a pattern here…Nah. Nobody with any sense would lead a national organization and have clear and provable ties to a raging anti-Semite like Farrakhan.

Wait. These are two of the organizers of the Women’s March we’re dealing with here. Nevermind!

With this year’s edition of the Women’s March including racism, anti-Semitism, lack of participation in some cities, and a general lack of leadership, we could be seeing the end of the Women’s March as a social construct. That is, assuming it actually was a social construct in the first place. It’s not, of course. The same issues the Women’s March claim to want addressed existed before Donald Trump was elected President (except for the wage gap, which is bullcrap to begin with), but it only became a thing after Trump was elected. Why, it’s almost as if…these women didn’t care about these issues until a Republican became President!

Ah, we’ve hit upon the real motivation behind the Women’s March. It’s not about women’s issues; it’s about women’s votes, especially if those votes swing Left. Looking at the list of sponsors for the Women’s March, down to a one you find Leftists. Even if women overwhelmingly vote Democrat, to wrap yourselves in the cloak of speaking up for women while only listening to one side of the ideological argument is dishonest. Believe it or not, there are conservative women who care about women’s issues, too. But since that doesn’t align with your ideological bent, these women get ignored. Now, white women may be getting the boot, too. What’s next? Only bisexual albino midgets with limps can march? Keep this up and the Women’s March will be a Woman’s March and it will be less crowded than an elevator after someone farts up a triple bean burrito from Chipotle. Or any dish from Chipotle, for that matter.

If you’re a supporter of the Women’s March reading this, do some serious soul-searching and determine if the movement is what you were lead to believe it was. If you still agree with the movement, then be part of it. If you don’t, you don’t need them as much as they need you. Numbers give the Women’s March the perception of power and majority. If enough of you tell the leadership to shove it where the sun don’t shine, maybe they’ll get the hint. Then, either start your own movement or work individually on the issues you find important. Activism only works through honesty and transparency, and the only thing transparent about the Women’s March is the lies needed to keep it going.

Besides, who wants to be associated with Louis Farrakhan?

Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week


If you’ve been living under a rock over the past week, you might have run into Minnesota Senator Al Franken, who found himself in the midst of a sexual misconduct scandal. During a USO tour, Franken was photographed apparently attempting to grope the breasts of former Playboy, Maxim, and FHM model Leeann Tweeden while she appeared to be asleep.

Yeah, not a good look.

As news of this photo went public, people started discussing the situation, usually through a partisan lens. Some Leftists went so far as to suggest (or outright say) Tweeden was to blame for the situation because of her past, her present connections to Roger Stone and Sean Hannity, and other unrelated factors. There is a term for this, one the Left has used multiple times before: victim shaming. Of course, the Leftists attempting to undermine Tweeden deny they’re doing it, so you know they’re not…exactly credible.

So, let’s delve into the weird world of victim shaming.

victim shaming

What the Left believes it means – bringing up a victim’s past as a means to discredit him or her

What it really means – scumbags looking for a way out of taking responsibility for being scumbags

Sexual assault is a touchy enough subject when it comes to the victims. Anything at call could trigger memories of the assault, which can lead to psychological issues. Now, imagine remembering those events and having people not believe you because others have started throwing more mud at you than if you were standing behind a monster truck during a rally.

That’s victim shaming in a nutshell.

Normally, the Left is against victim shaming, mainly because it runs counter to their ideological beliefs. After all, the Left claims to be pro-woman, and any attempts to question a woman who is claiming to be a victim of sexual assault or sexual harassment are considered to be sexist. Even if the accusations themselves are flimsier than a balsa wood couch at Michael Moore’s house. Normally, that’s enough to turn back anybody who questions the word of the victim.

Then, there are the victims that don’t fit the Left’s ideological box. To them, the Left has zero sympathy. They might as well be nymphomaniacs wearing clothes from the Nikki Minaj Collection. These are the people who must be shamed by the Left as a means to protect the ideology and/or those who subscribe to it.

Like Leeann Tweeden.

As horrible as her victim shaming is, she’s not the only one. Juanita Broderick, Paula Jones, Kathleen Wiley, Gennifer Flowers, and many, many more women have been on the receiving end of Leftist victim shaming, and no one within Leftist ranks dared to stand up for them for 20 or more years. Now, some are starting to reconsider their previous positions (at least in Broderick’s case) and voicing their displeasure at Bill Clinton for his sexual assaults.

But Tweeden? Not so much.

There are a couple of lines of thought that might explain it, but the simplest is because Bill Clinton is old news and Al Franken still has some use left to the Left. In that case, Tweeden and any other woman who comes forward to accuse Franken of sexual assault or harassment will be put under the microscope for anything that could sully their reputations and make them non-believable.

Now, some of you may be asking where the feminists are in this situation. After all, aren’t they the ones who scream the loudest whenever a woman is victim shamed? Well, their defense is as spotty as Wifi in Amish country because it is also based on ideology over consistency. As we saw with Bill Clinton, feminists place “women’s rights” (i.e. abortion) above anything else, so anyone who threatens it, male or female, gets heaped with scorn.

Of course, this lead to feminists being distrusted by women because they saw the blatant hypocrisy, but hey. Let’s just say Tweeden et al shouldn’t be waiting by the phone for modern feminists to call them because…reasons.

With friends like these, women don’t need enemies.

The whole concept of victim shaming revolves around intent. If someone is being questioned because a story doesn’t add up, that’s not victim shaming. If it’s being done for anything other reason, it most likely is. Guess what, Leftists? You are victim shaming Leeann Tweeden, either directly with your words, or indirectly with your silence. And all to protect Al Franken.

If that doesn’t prove the Left is dumber than a bag of hammers, nothing does.

Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week


The news out of Hollywood these days reads like an Anthony Weiner fanfic. Celebrities, producers, and directors are being slapped with accusations of sexual misconduct at a rate that boggles the mind, but keeps tabloids and their online contemporaries very happy.

Now, what does any of this have to do with politics, you might ask. The answer can be found in three little words: listen and believe. The judges would have also accepted “bat shit crazy.” To give a bit of context, modern feminists developed the concept of listen and believe as a means to help women come forward with allegations of sexual misconduct against men. With the current situation in Hollywood, however, it may not be a good time for feminists to mention it.

Which means it’s the perfect time for us to talk about it.

listen and believe

What the Left believes it means – taking a woman’s allegations of rape, sexual assault, and sexual misconduct seriously by paying attention and accepting what she says as true

What it really means – Screw due process! The allegation is more important than the facts!

As serious as allegations of sexual assault/misconduct and rape are, it should be common sense to take our time and sift through the evidence to verify the validity of the allegations. Unfortunately, the Left isn’t on speaking terms with common sense these days. Hence, listen and believe.

On the surface, it’s easy to grasp the need to listen to sexual assault victims. These men and women are fragile and may be frightened out of their minds at the prospect of having to open up to anyone about what amounts to the worst possible violation of one’s self. It’s important we do listen. But believing them without a second thought? That’s a little dangerous in today’s society where lying is acceptable to more and more people and narcissism is at an all time high.

And there is no better way to get positive attention for yourself than to be a victim, or pretend to be one.

That’s where listen and believe comes into play. It feeds into a person’s ego to not just be heard, but to automatically be seen as credible without having to go through the efforts to build credibility. After all, there’s Tweeting about celebrities to do, and that’s soooooo much more important than the truth!

That brings us back around to Hollyweird. The Left has it on lockdown, and it is safe to say they would agree with the concept of listen and believe as a means to fight the patriarchy or some such. Ah, but now…well, let’s just say there might be a few more Leftists who are rethinking whether it’s a good idea to be believed merely by making an allegation. It might lead to the need for a SuperMax prison in Beverly Hills otherwise.

Wait. If accusations would be enough to get someone thrown in jail, I could prevent Michael Bay from ever making another movie! And wouldn’t that be a win-win for everyone?

Seriously, the current situation in Hollywood reveals the main problem with listen and believe: it seems to be ideologically driven. The end goal of modern feminists isn’t equality, as they claim ad nauseum. Their end goal is the marginalization of men, even men who support modern feminism, and listen and believe helps bring about that end goal. If all you need to do to make men look like Bill Clinton on Spanish Fly and Viagra is to get enough people to believe it by playing on their emotions, modern feminists will jump at that chance every single time.

Except when it comes to powerful allies like…oh, I don’t know…Hollywood big wigs. Modern feminists beat the drum of an epidemic of campus rape more than Neil Peart during a solo, but not many have come forward to denounce the Hollywood Left when there’s more actual evidence of sexual misconduct there than there is on college campuses today.

Waiting for modern feminists to be vocal and consistent on a matter like this is like waiting for Hillary Clinton to blame herself for her 2016 Presidential loss. It may happen, but I wouldn’t hold my breath waiting for it to happen.

In the meantime, we can put our time to good use by insisting on following the rule of law instead of the rule of an emotional mob. Once anyone is accused of sexual assault/misconduct, there is often irreparable damage to that person’s reputation, so it’s vital we get the facts right the first time. When we deviate from that standard, it doesn’t end well.

Just ask Rolling Stone.

Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week


Summer is here, and with it comes summer blockbusters coming to a theater or drive-in near you. One of the early offerings is “Wonder Woman” based on the comic book character of the same name. So far, reviews have been overwhelmingly positive, and more than one modern feminist has seen the film as a statement of female empowerment. After all, it’s rare to see a strong female character in films (provided, of course, you ignore all of the strong female characters prior to Wonder Woman, but I digress). As a result, there have been a number of women-only showings of the film.

Enter conservative commentator Stephen Miller. He heard about a women-only showing of the film at a local Alamo Drafthouse and bought a ticket. As you might expect, modern feminists were so empowered as to publicly criticize him for doing it (even though ticket sales to the event would be going to Planned Parenthood). These feminists said they needed a safe space to enjoy Wonder Woman away from men.

Boy, this is confusing. If there were only someone committed to helping people understand the Leftist mindset and their use of certain buzzwords…oh, wait!


What the Left thinks it means – strength derived from feeling the ability to take action

What it really means – allowing Leftists to play both victim and victimizer when it suits their needs

The funny thing about power is everyone has some degree of it in certain situations. You may be a successful Wall Street banker living in a mansion, but when you have plumbing problems, you might need to cede power over addressing the problems to some guy who barely got out of high school, but has a knack for fixing pipes. If you wanted to invest in stocks, however, Mr. Wall Street is the guy you’d want to contact. Not that the plumber wouldn’t be a stock wizard on the side, but it’s as likely as David Duke getting a BET Award.

Leftists don’t think of power in that way. They see power as being limited to a certain person (usually a white man) or group of people (usually white men), so in order for them to feel empowered, they have to take a swipe at what they see as the power structure to take back their power. To put it another way, Leftists use the power they have to take back power they never had from people who weren’t denying them power in the first place. And all in the name of “empowerment.”

Excuse me, but I’m going to need a drink or twelve to make sense of this.

The victim mentality is prevalent in Leftist circles because it is a blanket excuse for everything. Are you a member of antifa trying to get out of taking responsibility for burning cars and beating up alleged Nazis? You’re a victim of a fascist power structure! Are you a member of Black Lives Matter looking for an excuse to burn and loot? You’re a victim of a racist power structure! Are you a woman wanting to got to a women-only showing of a popular movie? You’re the victim of the patriarchy! If you’re a minority (or in the case of Leftist women, a majority with an inferiority complex), you are automatically entered into the victimhood sweepstakes where first prize is a free ride in life! And there is a political party that will make sure you get everything you think you deserve for sticking it to “The Man”! All you need to do is give up any idea you have power and vote for that party’s candidates unerringly!

Meanwhile in the real world, these “victims” are only victims of their own stupidity because they fail to recognize they already have the power to act, think, feel, and make their own decisions. As tempting as it is to let someone else worry about the details of your life, there is security in autonomy. Sure, you’ll have to put on your big boy pants and take responsibility for yourself, but you have more of a chance of calling the shots than if you were an overgrown ward of the state. Any political party or ideology where you have to give up your autonomy isn’t empowering; it’s enslaving.

True empowerment comes from recognizing what we bring to the table and being unafraid to gamble on ourselves. Granted, a man going to a women-only showing of a movie isn’t exactly D-Day, but it’s still a step in the right direction of personal empowerment. And note the word “personal.” Empowerment starts and ends with you. No politician can give it to you, nor can any government program subsidize it. You are the Alpha and Omega of your own power, so use it, for the love of Pete!

As for the modern feminists offended by Miller’s actions, here’s a pro tip. If you need a safe space to cope with someone else being empowered, you’re not empowered. You’re a wimp that makes Pee Wee Herman look like Chuck Norris. Plus, you really need to figure out what empowerment actually is because what you’re doing isn’t it.

And if you’re a modern feminist reading this and getting upset that a white man is calling you out, go ahead and vent. I am empowered enough to let you vent and not listen to a thing you say.

Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week


Are you a man (or play one on TV)? Then, you might be guilty of…toxic masculinity! Which is…well, I don’t actually know, but it has to be bad. I mean, it has the word “toxic” in it, and there aren’t that many good things that are toxic. So, naturally, we should be against toxic masculinity.

Wellllll…let’s just do a bit of digging and find out, shall we?

toxic masculinity
What the Left thinks it means: when men act like sexist, ignorant jerks

What it really means: assuming men are sexist ignorant jerks, even when they aren’t

As you might have guessed, toxic masculinity comes from the wonderful world of modern feminism. And, as you might have guessed, it’s as full of crap as modern feminism is.

Recently, a YouTuber named Jonathan McIntosh put out a video explaining toxic masculinity and how pop culture pushes it. What were two of examples? Biff from “Back to the Future” and James Bond. Let’s see…a fictional character in a movie set in the 1950s…and a fictional character in a movie set in the 1960s…and on these, we’re to make a correlation with life in the 2010s…yep, seems legit!

Now, we should be fair to Mr. McIntosh and give his position the thoughtful consideration it deserves. Okay, now that we’re done with that, let’s continue with the mocking.

In the video, many of the characteristics of toxic masculinity could apply to women. Let’s take competitiveness, for example. In McIntosh’s view, men compete with each other out of fear of not being seen as masculine enough. After all, if you don’t win, you’re a sissypants. Then again, Tom Brady is a winner and he’s definitely a sissypants.

Here’s the thing. Women compete, too. The Rio Olympics going on right now are a great example of women showing off their competitive nature, but you don’t have to go to Rio to see this. All you need to do is go out on a weekend. Women squeeze into the tightest dresses, the highest high heels, and the skimpiest outfits just to try to land the hottest guys in the bar. And when another woman tarts herself out like that, the claws come out.

If you think that’s sexist, you’re only partially right. Not all women do this, but there are enough who do that would skew the results just a tad. Women compete with each other all the time, especially when they’re young. The same applies to men, especially when they’re young, old, or drunk. Yet, we’re supposed to believe the masculine version is toxic while the feminine version is okay? Sorry, Jonathan, but I’m not buying it.

But surely that’s not his only point, right? Nope! He also includes emotional detachment as a trait of toxic masculinity. Apparently, he’s never dated some of my ex-girlfriends.

The rest of McIntosh’s list isn’t much better. Additional traits include aggression, intimidation, violence, sexual objectification, and predatory sexuality. Or as most college students call it, the weekend.

Now, what do all of these traits have in common. If you answered “they were compiled by a dumbass,” you’d be right, but that’s not the answer we’re looking for now. The common thread is they’re practiced by both genders. (And, yes, I mean both genders, meaning two. Got it Tumblr Toddlers?) Aggressive? Ronda Rousey comes to mind. Intimidation? See Ronda Rousey. Sexual objectification? Magic Mike. Predatory sexuality? Isn’t that what “Sex In the City” was?

So, if the traits of toxic masculinity can apply to both genders, why is it only considered toxic masculinity? That’s the way current feminism works. When a man does it, it’s horrible, but when a woman does it, it’s empowering. And if we had a way to turn all that BS into energy, we’d be energy independent in microseconds.

Look, being masculine isn’t perfect, but it’s a hell of a lot better than hating yourself for being male. And, no, it’s not toxic, at least not until you drink enough beer and eat enough beans.

This Is Why We Can’t Have Nice Things


Earlier this week, Twitter permanently banned Milo Yiannopoulos due to alleged Terms of Service violations. For those of you who haven’t been following along because you have a life, Milo has run afoul of Twitter before, but somehow this was the last straw.

And what was his crime? To hear Twitter describe it, it was harassing Leslie Jones, a star of the recent “Ghostbusters” reboot. In reviewing the Tweet logs, however, Milo didn’t really break the Terms of Service, but many of his supporters did by posting pictures of apes to Jones. There was also a possibly Photoshopped Tweet of something Jones allegedly posted, but didn’t.

Granted, I’m not on Twitter. (Too many twits on there, you know.) But what I do understand is Twitter is a private company, so the calls that Twitter are denying Milo his First Amendment right of freedom of speech to prevail in this case are not really applicable. Twitter, like any other online service, can make up their own rules and apply them as they see fit. Of course, that begs the question of how they apply their own rules.

Not very well.

The fact ISIS/ISIL and Black Lives Matter both retain their Twitter statuses for doing and saying far worse than Milo has is telling. Maybe if he starts beheading people or calling for the death of police officers Twitter will let him back on…

Seriously, what Twitter has done is egregious, but well within their rights to do. The Twitterverse has already established a couple of hashtags to protest Twitter’s decision, one of the hashtags being #FreeMilo. Twitter, being the social media geniuses they are, shut down the #FreeMilo hashtag. I guess the time they removed Milo’s verified status on Twitter didn’t teach them anything after many of his followers changed their profile pictures to ones of Milo himself.

But the icing on this crap cake comes in the form of Leftist Tweeters applauding Twitter’s decision, citing “hate speech” as their justification. Well, that’s a problem because when you start banning hate speech, it always goes underground until such time as it becomes acceptable again. By leaving it in the open, you can see the true hatred and act accordingly. For example, I tend to avoid Leftists altogether in online forums because inevitably their high-minded rhetoric will turn into the very hate they claim resides only on the Right. Need proof? Talk to Alan Keyes, Herman Caine, and other black Republicans/conservatives about how they’re treated by the “tolerant” Left.

Twitter’s double standards about their standards isn’t a good look for them, and it’s going to hurt them more than they think. That’s, of course, assuming they do think, which given their recent track record with Milo alone is suspect. Personally, I think Milo is better off without Twitter, but Twitter needs people like him to justify their draconian double standard.

Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week


Greetings one and all, and welcome to the inaugural edition of the Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week!

If you’re like me (and if you are, I’m sorry), you go big or you go home. Or you go big and go home. Or maybe you go to Big’s home…oh, you get the idea! This week’s dip into the Leftist Lexicon is one of the Big Kahunas of the Leftist world.

The f-word. (No, not that f-word, you naughty little monkeys!) This f-word:


What the Left says it means: economic, social, and political equality between men and women (Essentially, a definition so vanilla it is poisonous to humans in its pure form.)

What it really means: a movement that believes men suck, but should still have to pay for everything

Yes, ladies and gentlemen, current feminist dogma believes all men (including the men who support current feminist dogma) are scum. In fact, SCUM (the Society for Cutting Up Men) happens to be a real group that some feminists agree with! Wow. We’ve gone from burning bras to burning men over an open spit within a few decades.

But surely not all feminists are that extreme, right? Nah. The ones who want to cut up men are few and far between. Of course, there are feminists who want to kill, enslave, or put men in camps away from women. Whew! And I was afraid we wouldn’t find any reasonable feminists!

Granted, these are extreme examples. Most current feminists, especially those who believe in what is called “Third Wave Feminism”, don’t go as far as SCUM does. They do, however, find men to be as useful as Cliff’s Notes for a drug test. Oh, sure, they’ll use men to get ahead, but they don’t actually consider them to be equals or anything! That would be sexist because it would give in to the patriarchy!

Let that sink in for a moment. Considering men to be equals is sexist because it gives men power, which according to current feminist dogma they already have all of to start with. That’s like…oh, I don’t know…saying Black Lives Matter isn’t racist, but saying All Lives Matter is. Good thing we don’t have anybody who believes that, right?

(Don’t worry. I plan to tackle patriarchy in a future edition of the Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week.)

A facet of modern feminism is a desire to control everything so the truth doesn’t get out about just how screwed up feminism has become. Not to mention, if they control everything, they get to dictate how others should live their lives. Of course, they would need to get a handle on what they actually believe outside of “We want to control everything.”

Two great examples of just how screwed up current feminist dogma is can be found in two seemingly unrelated subjects: Slut Walks and video games. The former is a movement supported by feminists to take back “slut” and make it empowering instead of insulting. The latter has many of the same feminists who support Slut Walks howling in disgust at how women are portrayed in video games. Often this disgust is boiled down to video game women being scantily-dressed or without any real defining characteristics to make them seem real.

In other words, feminists love sluts marching in public, but not scrolling across television screens in video games (which, by the way, I’m sure they don’t really play that much). And nobody within the feminist movement today sees the contradiction. But that’s what feminism has become: one mass of man-disdaining contradictions.

Kinda reminds me of a couple of old girlfriends I had…