One Feminist’s Rant Demonstrates How Feminism Woefully Misunderstands the Male Mind

Feminism, or at least the mainstream version of it, is a sect of humanity that consistently displays a massive amount of ignorance about the society it’s attempting to change. This is demonstrated more often than not by its commentary about men.

The mainstream feminist has many enemies, but hated the most — below the non-feminist female — is the typical man. To the feminist, the standard male is a creature of evil, leading to the suppression of women throughout the ages and setting itself up as the king of a patriarchal society where everything goes our way.

Odd thought, seeing as how men are the ones sent off to war by vastly larger margins, are woefully discriminated against in the courtroom by and large, are assumed guilty the moment a woman accuses one of sexual assault, are doing the vast majority of society’s dirty work, take on most of the financial responsibilities, and are the butt of the vast majority of jokes in the media.

If I’m living in a patriarchal society, then it could do with a little more friendliness to its supposed rulers.

But every now and again I’ll see a feminist break from the crowd to attempt to lure men to feminism by painting them as feminists paint themselves; the all-encompassing victim. This is what feminist Ashly Perez, star of BuzzFeed Violet’s “Unfortunately Ashly,” decided to do on Twitter.

Okay, let me interject here.

Men need no revolution, and no man should strive to be more feminine. Masculinity is a trait men have by their very nature, but today’s society has made masculinity something of a villain. Masculine traits, according to the mainstream feminist, are the reason behind patriarchy, rape, violence, Trump, misogyny, etc, etc, etc. Masculinity is so vilified that the “beta male” has become something of a hero in the mainstream media’s eyes. So much so that Hollywood Reporter featured the Silicone Valley cast with the words “The Triumph of the Beta Male” emblazoned on their cover.

Beta males are a kind of man who finds his place in the safe and secure first world where he doesn’t have to rely on masculine traits to help him survive. Most hardships are taken care of for him, and he can be the nice, simpering, safe, and obedient guy the mainstream feminist has approved. Rest assured, he’s still an evil male in the eyes of the feminist, but at least he does and thinks what he’s told.

Thing is, few really fall for the beta male, even the feminists who helped create him. Women — feminist or no — see him as weak and not suitable to mate with. The instincts within women will cause them to pass him up in favor of a stronger, more suitable candidate. He’s caught between being forced to deny his own natural masculinity because he’s been convinced it’s evil, and needing it to accomplish the tasks that make men happy, such as finding a suitable mate. This is not good for the minds of men.

But Perez seems to define feminine traits as showing emotion such as worrying and crying, and having hopes and dreams. She thinks it’s feminine to want hugs and love.

It’s not. Men are no strangers to emotions. We cry during moments of tragedy, and sometimes in moments of great anger. We’re proud of our hopes and dreams, and are far more open about finding love than too many modern-day women who have been taught that they don’t need a man. Turn on the television or the radio and hear script and songs written by men about how much they love someone or are looking to find love.

Perez’s view on men is awfully short-sighted, but her ignorance laced tweets go on by pinpointing that violence displayed by men is a result of masculinity, and men not embracing feminism.

In a world where your natural tendencies are denied you, and your very nature labeled as evil, many are going to take to lashing out. The answer isn’t feminism, it’s allowing boys and men to be dangerous. This might seem counterproductive to the safe society feminists believe they’re creating, but it’s not.

Masculinity is the force that keeps the proverbial and literal wolves in the hills. It’s a destructive force. That much is true, but we’ve become so resistant to the idea of masculinity that we forget that it and the danger it brings with it is a neutral force. It can, should, and has been shaped into a force of good, and little in society is more relied upon than a good, dangerous man. Feminism seeks to eliminate masculinity as a whole, which it can’t do, however, it does make it seem unappealing to the masses. Men, unable to do away with masculinity, are villains for simply having it. This results in alienation, and alienation results in anger, rage, hatred, and sometimes violence.

Perez and her feminist kind don’t understand the shallowness of their solutions, and end up creating the monsters they hate.

*Authors Note: At about this point in my writing this article, Perez privatized her Twitter account making me unable to continue to list her tweets here. I’ll continue regardless by giving you a general idea of what she tweeted.*

Perez continues by offering up that men need their own version of feminism. By this, she means a movement by which we can deny our own masculinity, and engage in embracing something completely unnatural to our sex as the mainstream feminists do. I can already tell you that this won’t end well, and will be rejected en masse by the male population in the same way the majority of the female population rejects mainstream feminism.

Allow me to explain something about men, and put to bed this well-circulated narrative by feminists.

Masculinity is a boon to society. A lot of the problems we’re seeing today are a result of a lack of it, not a surplus. Men should be encouraged to embrace their better angels alongside their nature, not taught to be more feminine. We’re not feminine. That is the domain of women. Men may adopt traits here and there, but it’s merely a shadow of it. We men need to be encouraged to be dangerous, to be the dragon slayers we fantasize about as children, and to be the good guy who fights the bad guy. We should not be pushed or forced to adopt the ways or thinking of women. Boys should not be forced to be more like girls in temperament or method.

The things we learn from masculinity and accomplish by utilizing it is necessary for a well-functioning society.

This denial of men to enjoy and embrace their nature is hurting us, and thus hurting society. Boys need more time being kinetic, doing dangerous things, learning what our strength can accomplish and how it can be used to maximum effect. Men should be appreciated for utilizing their masculinity, instead of being shown derision for it.

Men are a highly valuable resource that feminists are urging society to toss to the side like so much garbage. It’s puzzling why they wonder why they’re seeing an increase in violence like they are.

The post One Feminist’s Rant Demonstrates How Feminism Woefully Misunderstands the Male Mind appeared first on RedState.

Source: Red State

Is the Mainstream Media Slowly and Agonizingly Turning a Political Corner for the Better?

As I was writing my commentary article for Far Cry 5 earlier today it occurred to me that I was seeing a pattern in the mainstream media that, frankly, I didn’t think I’d see for some time.

As time goes on, I feel like I’m seeing more and more examples of Hollywood and other forms of media becoming far more friendly to the right-leaning parts of America. Movies, games, and actors alike have displayed right wing, God fearing, pro-gun tendencies that are either bashed or wholly ignored from the rest of the mainstream media, but are stand out so boldly that they’re hard to deny.

Just to give you a few recent examples…

For one, the recent video game Far Cry 5 was seemingly set up to be one of the most anti-right games to be seen in a long time. However, upon my playing through it for a couple weeks (read my full commentary about the game here) I’m left with the impression that the game is actually giving something of a friendly nod to the right-leaning middle America that is so often spit upon by mainstream media entities.

Sure enough, the game was looked down upon by leftist reviewers who complained that the game didn’t tackle issues like racism, gun control, or most mentioned, gave no negative commentary on Christianity. Instead, the game smiled on God fearing, gun owning, red state Americans. They were the good guys.

Before that, I had gone to the theaters to see the 2018 version of Death Wish. As I say in my review (which you can read here) the movie does a very solid job of pointing out that being an unarmed pacifist won’t save you from violent men. It even shows the negative side of vigilantism, and teaches a solid lesson about how legal gun ownership can save the day and protect your home.

The critics jumped on “Death Wish” like hyenas on a wounded gazelle. They hated it with a passion, calling it “ill timed” due to its release so close to the Parkland school shooting, and a “male fantasy.” As I wrote, however, the timing of the movie was absolutely perfect. It showed that a hard target is a target that is likely too dangerous to attempt to overcome. It showed that guns do solve problems, and that true safety is the kind where you’re just as dangerous, if not more so, than the bad guy. I also pointed out that break ins, robberies, and murders are not at all a “fantasy,” and that many a life has been saved, and much property has gone unmolested thanks to the presence of the good guy with a gun.

But Death Wish is just one example of a movie that the right can appreciate as of late. Movies such as 13 Hours, American Sniper, 15:17 to Paris, and 12 Strong are all recent films that touch a pro-military, pro-America heart strings. With the exception of American Sniper, these movies were panned by critics, but mostly loved by paying audiences.

Even in major mainstream movies, conservatism shines through in the form of characters like Marvel’s Captain America, who declares there’s only one God, and expresses his disagreement with government overreach in tandem with libertarian values.

Then there are moments where actors have unabashedly declared their values in public that are either right-leaning, or fall in line with values associated with the right.

Chris Pratt is an America loving country boy who is highly open about his Christian faith. At one point, Pratt called his fans to prayer for the sake of “Clerks” director Kevin Smith who had suffered a horrible heart attack. Many a leftist, atheist, and SJW immediately lashed out at Pratt for daring to suggest the public pray for something.

Normally, this would result in an actor apologizing or backing down. Pratt did not. To make matters better, his friend and Guardians of the Galaxy director James Gunn jumped to his defense, and spoke about how prayer has played a massive role in his life. Kevin Smith, as well, took Pratt’s side despite being an atheist.

Roseanne Barr, like her or not, boldly told Jimmy Kimmel, aka “the conscience of America” that the left went so far over that they left the rest of America behind and vocally told the audience that she supported Trump. Her new Roseanne reboot displays an appreciation for right-leaning middle America, and shows how both sides of the aisle can coexist without hate. While it’s no “Last Man Standing,” it’s not the right-wing bash many a leftist wishes it was.

Also recently were South Park creators Matt Stone and Trey Parker confessing the fact that they’re Republicans to a room full of Hollywood types as they accepted an award for their work. The duo is known for their right-leaning commentary on their show South Park, and even in their movie Team America: World Police, but have never outright confessed their political leanings except to say that their values are libertarian in nature.

But over all of these examples, one really stands out for me personally, and it’s because it was a right-leaning moment that came from a left-leaning show.

The Simpsons had found itself suddenly embroiled in controversy over its Apu character, a stereotypical convenience store owning man from India. The character had been around for years, but with the surge of SJW outrage building over the past few years, their guns had suddenly turned on the longtime left-friendly show.

Normally when this happens a show may issue an apology, and speak on how they regret their unthinking actions. However, The Simpsons put their foot down, and then proceeded to use it to kick dirt at the social justice crowd.

As I cover more thoroughly here, the Simpsons responded to the outrage within the show itself in the form of Marge and Lisa discussing a politically correct bedtime story. Lisa and Marge get into a conversation about how a perfect representation of a politically correct person has no real story value, and somewhat broke the 4th wall to inform their audience that The Simpsons will not be attempting to address or correct their comedic style to fit the social justice agenda…ever.

There was a good deal of outrage from the left about this initially, and then…silence. The Simpsons had done something that the mainstream media should have done to the social justice community a long time ago, and that’s to say “no.” It might not be widely viewed as such, but in my opinion this may be one of the more important moments in TV history. A political line in the sand drawn against the left, by the left.

I’m in no way saying that the right is getting the upper hand in the media. Not yet. Too many actors, actresses, and movies have zero problem insulting and dismissing the right. There is still a long ways to go before the closed-minded bigotry of the mainstream media dissipates enough so that the right can fully share the platform. The leftist Hollywood bubble remains strong, but it is showing signs that it is not impenetrable.

Perhaps this is a result of Hollywood noticing that left-leaning anything doesn’t sell as well. The NFL and award shows are perfect examples of how introducing leftist politics causes audiences to find something better to do. However, audiences will pay to see something that glorifies American values. A free market response is oftentimes the loudest.

However, it’s my — possibly ludicrous — hope that there is an ebbing to the bigotry of the mainstream. That the closed mindedness of Hollywood is beginning to soften thanks to the arrival of different voices and values that are proving to be wise. These voices show that the populace they make these movies for aren’t the mindless yokels they thought, and that differing ideologies do not have to equal hate. That different thinking does not mean evil.

It could be both of those things. It could be neither. It could be that I’m being more hopeful than I am realistic. However, the pattern is there, and I’ll be excited to see if it develops further.

The post Is the Mainstream Media Slowly and Agonizingly Turning a Political Corner for the Better? appeared first on RedState.

Source: Red State

Judicial Watch Has Filed a FOIA Lawsuit Against the DOJ for Information on the Clinton/Uranium One Scandal

The investigation into the Uranium One scandal, which has been woefully under-reported, is going into overdrive as the organization Judicial Watch has filed a lawsuit under the Freedom of Information Act against the U.S. Department of Justice and the U.S. Department of State in order to attain information about Uranium One.

The Uranium One scandal involved a 2010 acquisition deal with a state-owned Russian nuclear firm and a Canadian mining company that owned 20 percent of America’s uranium production. The sale went through after nine members of the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States approved the sale. One of these members was then Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.

Interestingly enough, Uranium One interests contributed $140 million to the Clinton Foundation.

According to Judicial Watch, Uranium One and the Clintons have a long history of helping one another:

In January 2008, Judicial Watch revealed that Bill Clinton had helped Vancouver mining mogul Frank Giustra secure tens of millions of dollars’ worth of uranium. Guistra built a company that became part of Uranium One. The Clinton Foundation later received a $31.3 million donation, as well as a future pledge of $100 million. In July 2014, Judicial Watch released more than 200 Clinton conflict-of interest documents, including a record of a speech in Moscow in June 2010 sponsored by the investment bank Renaissance Capital by Bill Clinton addressing the theme of “Russia and the Commonwealth of Independent States: Going Global.” The document notes that “Renaissance Capital is an investment bank focused on the emerging markets of Russia, Ukraine, Kazakhstan, and sub-Saharan Africa.” Renaissance Capital has also been linked to Russia efforts to gain control of Uranium One.

Both the New York Times and the FBI have noted flows of cash occurring between the Clinton’s and Russian entities before the deal took place. As such, Judicial Watch has now filed for information from various departments within the DOJ and DOS during the January 20, 2009 through December 31, 2013 time frame.

“It is simply remarkable that Judicial Watch had to sue the State and Justice Departments in federal court for basic information about the shady Uranium One deal,” said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton. “It seems Judicial Watch has done more to investigate the Clinton-Russia connections than the Justice Department, even as DOJ resources are spent on supporting Mueller’s massive investigation into the fanciful Clinton Dossier-inspired Trump-Russia conspiracy theory. We hope the Uranium One cover-up ends thanks to these lawsuits.”


The post Judicial Watch Has Filed a FOIA Lawsuit Against the DOJ for Information on the Clinton/Uranium One Scandal appeared first on RedState.

Source: Red State

Woman Dances Behind Trump as He Signs Anti-Sex Trafficking Bill

Some moments are worth giving a mention to, and this is definitely one of them.

The website “Backpage” has been known to engage in sex trafficking children but has avoided lawsuits due to legal protections such as not claiming themselves responsible for posts others make.

A bill removing that protection passed overwhelmingly through Congress, and the bill arrived on Trump’s desk for signing on Wednesday.

During the signing, one woman going by “MA” stood behind Trump and was one of the first people to sue back page in 2010.

“I am not a survivor. I am MA. It’s about damn time,” she said before doing a dab.

Then as Trump signed the bill, MA was apparently so happy that she began dancing.

Watch below:


The post Woman Dances Behind Trump as He Signs Anti-Sex Trafficking Bill appeared first on RedState.

Source: Red State

Who Will Be Programming Mark Zuckerberg’s “Hate Speech” Killing AI Should Be a Massive Concern

During Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg’s Q&A with Congress, there was one thing he had said that really caught my ear, and it worried me.

Zuck began talking about AI catching hate speech, noting that at this time we’re not at a point where the AI is smart enough to detect nuance that could accurately identify hate speech and eliminate it before it’s even posted

“So, that’s a success in terms of rolling out AI tools that can proactively police and enforce safety across the community. Hate speech, I’m optimistic that over a five to ten-year period we will have AI tools that can get into some of the nuances, the linguistic nuances of different types of content to be more accurate in flagging things for our systems, but today we’re just not there on that.”

“So, a lot of this is still reactive, people flag it to us,” Zuckerberg stated. “We have people look at it. We have policies to try to make it as not subjective as possible, but until we get it more automated, there is a higher error rate than I’m happy with.”

An immediate question comes to mind about an AI’s ability to detect and censor hate speech before it’s posted. Artificial intelligence is an amoral being. In order to combat hate speech, the AI has to have a sense of right and wrong given to it by its creator.

So who’s telling it what’s right and what’s wrong?

Zuck already told Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) that Silicone Valley is filthy with leftists, and that the right’s concerns that we’re being targeted by these leftists is completely valid. As Cruz highlighted to Zuck, they’re all but confirmed.

It didn’t help that Zuck couldn’t even tell Sen. Ben Sasse (R-Neb.) whether or not anti-abortion arguments were for sure not hate speech. Instead, he stuttered about how he doesn’t think it fits, and moved on into how it’s a conversation we need to have as a country. The answer should have been “No, disagreements on abortion are not hate speech.”

It’s a legitimate fear that the programmers behind the AI will give Censorbot 5000 the wrong kind of idea about what is and isn’t wrong to say. Violence is, of course, wrong to post and social media platforms have every right and reason to ban that kind of language from their platform. However, I’ve seen a friend of mine get banned for bringing up a hypothetical situation where an abortion activist was aborted, and a man who photoshopped NRA spokeswoman Dana Loesch killing herself with a gun receive no punishment at all.

I’ve watched conservatives get shadowbanned for their views, while I consistently see anti-male hashtags pop up and spread like wildfire.

This AI isn’t going to be an impersonal entity. It will define hate speech based on what those leftists in Silicone Valley tell it to define it by. An AI capable of silencing censorship at the speed of thought is in no way going to help this ideological stranglehold being put on conservatives; it’s only going to make it worse.

Zuckerberg has every right to do what he wants with his company, but it doesn’t make the silencing of conservatives any more correct. The ideological bigotry has gone too far already, and there need to be more than just leftists calling the shots.

The post Who Will Be Programming Mark Zuckerberg’s “Hate Speech” Killing AI Should Be a Massive Concern appeared first on RedState.

Source: Red State

LA is Spending Gobs of Taxpayer Money to Paint Streets White in Order to Combat Climate Change

The city of Los Angeles is taking going to combat global warming, and now they’re taking it to the streets, and I mean literally.

According to Fox News, LA found that applying a coat of sealant to the road, and giving it a white hue reduces the temperature of the roads:

The LA Street Services began rolling out the project last May, which preliminary testing shows has reduced the temperature of roadways by up to 10 degrees. The project involves applying a light gray coating of the product CoolSeal, made by the company GuardTop.

“CoolSeal is applied like conventional sealcoats to asphalt surfaces to protect and maintain the quality and longevity of the surface,” according to the company website. “While most cool pavements on the market are polymer based, CoolSeal is a water-based, asphalt emulsion.”

This reportedly reduces climate change…somehow.

Fox News reports that the heat from roads elevates temperatures in neighborhoods, forming “heat islands” that are hotter than their surrounding area due to surfaces like roofs and roadways being 50 to 90 degrees hotter than the surrounding air.

Somehow, the road being 10 degrees cooler because it’s white is somehow going to combat that.

Problem is, it only costs the low, low price of $40,000 a mile.

While I’m all about new and innovative ways to make our roads better, and even cooler, something that expensive better pay off.

There’s been on word yet on how many miles the city of LA is going to be painted, but you can bet that regardless, it’s going to be expensive. I just hope the residents of LA enjoy their possibly 10 degrees cooler roads achieved with an overabundance of taxpayer dollar spending.

The post LA is Spending Gobs of Taxpayer Money to Paint Streets White in Order to Combat Climate Change appeared first on RedState.

Source: Red State

Ted Cruz’s Democratic Challenger Beto O’Rourke Is the Best Player on Cruz’s Team

Texas Democrats are a sad breed of politician. They start out with so much hope and promise, and swiftly devolve into a laughingstock of bad campaign choices and exposed lies.

El Paso Democrat Beto O’Rourke, Sen. Ted Cruz’s senatorial challenger in Texas is setting up to the be the next Wendy Davis. A candidate that the left considers something of a Democratic redeemer in the reddest of the red states, but only ends up being side-show in the political circus.

Yes, the Democrats are the bearded lady of Texas politics, and O’Rourke seems to be looking to keep it that way.

Case in point, according to The Hill, O’Rourke recently said that he’s seen enough evidence that he’d vote to impeach Trump if he were elected:

“I’ve seen an attempt, no matter how ham-handed, to collude with a foreign government in our national election. I’ve seen an effort to obstruct justice in the investigation of what happened in the 2016 election,” O’Rourke said on KFYO radio in Lubbock when asked if he thought there was enough evidence to call for the impeachment of the president.

The Democratic lawmaker blasted Trump as lacking the “fitness, or competence or judgment” to serve as president.

First off, it’s the House that votes to impeach a president, not the Senate. The Senate votes to try the impeachment.

Even then, the problem is that despite consistent attempts to link Trump to Russian election interference, there has been little evidence to suggest he was involved, and Mueller isn’t considering Trump a suspect at this point. While the investigation is ongoing, and the question of whether or not Trump interfered in the investigation into collusion is still up in the air.

Furthermore, O’Rourke is currently playing an unpopular instrument. Impeaching Trump is usually something the more radical, media facing Democrats like to shout about. Maxine Waters can’t get enough of it and shouts “impeachment!” when Trump so much as sneezes. This has caused her to become an eye-roll-worthy figure on the left alongside Texas Rep. Al Green who is much the same.

Impeachment is so unpopular among the populace, that Republicans are using it as an issue to campaign on. This is not an iron that is at all hot for Democrats to strike on, but O’Rourke is hammering away like it’ll become the knife that will pierce the red heart of Texas. So not only is O’Rourke not demonstrating a working knowledge of the job he’s going for, he’s playing with a losing issue to a radical base that is so minimal in Texas that they hardly make the scale dip. It’s Abortion Barbie all over again.

O’Rourke had little chance to start with. He’s a Soros approved bulb that burned very bright and is now fizzling out even as I write this. These ignorance-laced calls for Trump’s impeachment only put Cruz further ahead.

If I didn’t know any better, I’d say O’Rourke is to Cruz what Obama was to guns. The Democrat challenger is Cruz’s best salesman.

The post Ted Cruz’s Democratic Challenger Beto O’Rourke Is the Best Player on Cruz’s Team appeared first on RedState.

Source: Red State

The March for Our Lives Event Wasn’t Actually Packed With America’s Youth as Advertised

We already knew that the “student-led” March for Our Lives wasn’t the grassroots anti-gun violence march the media made it out to be.

For one, the march wasn’t organized by the kids. As we learned, the march was put together by a who’s who list of leftist organizations ranging from Everytown to Planned Parenthood. Then we learned the march organizers deplatformed students or family members of students who didn’t go along with the call for restricting guns.”

Now, from the Washington Post, we learn that the vast majority of the march’s attendees weren’t students either, but people much older:

Contrary to what’s been reported in many media accounts, the D.C. March for Our Lives crowd was not primarily made up of teenagers. Only about 10 percent of the participants were under 18. The average age of the adults in the crowd was just under 49 years old, which is older than participants at the other marches I’ve surveyed but similar to the age of the average participant at the Million Moms March in 2000, which was also about gun control.

This should neither be shocking or surprising. Despite all the media attention being put on students who are against firearms, and are calling for either bans or restrictions, most youngsters feel that guns make us safer according to various polls.

This includes Gallup, Pew, and Harvard, who found that the younger Americans are, the more they believe firearms — specifically of the concealed variety — keep people safe.

But that’s not all WaPo reported. According to those polled at the march, 60 percent of those protesting were experienced protesters. Furthermore, many who were there weren’t really even there to protest for gun control:

Even more interesting, the new protesters were less motivated by the issue of gun control. In fact, only 12 percent of the people who were new to protesting reported that they were motivated to join the march because of the gun-control issue, compared with 60 percent of the participants with experience protesting.

Instead, new protesters reported being motivated by the issues of peace (56 percent) and Trump (42 percent), who has been a galvanizing force for many protests.

And as many would have already guessed, the march attendees were ideologically slanted to the left, with 79 percent identifying as “left-leaning” and 89 percent reported having voted for Hillary Clinton.

So the March for Our Lives wasn’t the groundbreaking youth movement on gun control it’s being made out to be. While there were some interesting firsts, this truthfully amounted to nothing more than another cookie-cutter leftist protest with a different brand of sprinkles on it.

The post The March for Our Lives Event Wasn’t Actually Packed With America’s Youth as Advertised appeared first on RedState.

Source: Red State

Dear Transgender Guy From Buzzfeed, No One Owes You a Thing

I have a pretty consistent attitude for when it comes to transgendered individuals, and it’s more or less the same outlook I take about a lot of things.

I don’t care how you dress, what you identify as, or if you call yourself “Karen” when your name is actually Todd. You disagree with my take on transgenderism, and I disagree with yours. However, this does not mean that I hate you, or think less of you in any way. For me, a difference of opinion with zero impact on my life is just a difference of opinion. I’m not going to look down on you because you like your steak medium rare, while I like it rare.

I will deduct points if you like it well done, but I digress.

The problem with the loudest members of the transgender community is that simple disagreement cannot be tolerated. You have to agree. Nay! You have to respect.

NAY! You must be reverent!

There is nothing in transgenderism that I find worthy of reverence any more than I should find reverence in someone’s decision to wear a sports team’s jersey. I get it. You’re really into that team, but I don’t even like like that sport and have little interest in learning about it. You do you, though.

However, too many members of the transgender community believe that by saying they’re something they biologically aren’t, we’re supposed to engage in the same level of enthusiasm with no questions asked. Furthermore, they believe that by identifying as something they’re not and dressing in a way that society would find abnormal they’ve done something extraordinary and awe inspiring. And for that, they should be celebrated for their bravery and the hardships they face.

I first think of all the people who battle cancer and pull through with sheer will, or the soldiers who fight through impossible odds to bring their fellows back alive. I think of firefighters who run into burning buildings for the sake of others, and people who go from nothing to world changing entities. These people are extraordinary and awe inspiring. Stuffing a bra and putting on a shade of lipstick does not fall into that category.

However, this is exactly what Buzzfeed contributor Jacob Tobia thinks, and he wanted to remind everyone how much respect he is owed in his latest article.

Overall, the article Tobia has written concerns how parents could use their children’s obviously confused reactions to his obviously uncommon appearance to educate their children about transgenderism and sexuality.

Everyone and their dog will obviously correct Tobia in their own way about why this is a ridiculous notion, and why talking to kids about sex and sexuality at such a young age is ridiculous in any way.

But it was one part of his ridiculous article about how to raise your own children that really caught my eye:

“Parents, I’ve decided that we need to have a little chat, because you can do better than that,” wrote Tobia. “You have to do better. You owe it to me, to the trans community, and to your kids’ emotional development to do better.”

I don’t have children, but I know that a kid’s emotional development does not hinge on whether or not they know anything about the trans community, or Tobia’s choice in hose. I’d rather have my kid concerned about who is going to be available to play hide and seek with him that day, or what shape a square is.

But what my eyes zeroed in on is Tobia’s claim that we owe him something. That we owe the trans community.

Let me be very clear to both Tobia and the trans community.

No one owes you a damn thing.

No one is entitled to anyone’s respect, nor are they subject to anyone’s wishes. Just because someone has gone through cripplingly awful moments, it does not entitle that person to obedience.

Everyone has gone through hard times in some way shape or form, and rest assured there are many out there who WISH they had the problems a transgender person faces. Here in the first world where transgenderism is celebrated by the media to the point where a man can literally beat the tar out of a woman to applause, the transgender community is far from the most oppressed group featured on Earth’s surface.

What I’m saying may sound rude, but I see this sentiment too often from the activist members of the transgender community. I’m more than willing to be your friend. I’ve yet to meet a transgendered individual in person that I don’t get along with. However, the moment you start demanding I give you a level of respect because you feel you deserve it for something I don’t agree with you on in the first place, you lost me.

And this goes for the vast majority of people.

You cannot demand respect and get it. You can inspire respect through being a person worthy of it. However, making yourself a social sacred cow and considering yourself something akin to 14th century nobility will only make people laugh, or despise you. It’s the current year. Get on board.

If you’re trying to make the transgender community something to be respected, Tobia’s method is not the way to go.

The post Dear Transgender Guy From Buzzfeed, No One Owes You a Thing appeared first on RedState.

Source: Red State

Joy Behar Thinks Melania Deserves Little Respect Despite Her Plight Because She Was an Obama Birther

Joy Behar can’t not say something completely absurd when it comes to anything remotely friendly to the right. Be it Mike Pence, Christianity, or in this recent case, First Lady Melania Trump.

The ladies of The View decided to discuss how Melania must feel in the wake of the media’s current obsession, Stormy Daniels’ affair with President Donald Trump. The panel all agreed that Melania was a lovely lady, but of course, Behar couldn’t let any Republican go without taking a swat at them, no matter how ill timed.

“We can’t really like her 100 percent because she is a birther like her husband,” Behar bemoaned. “I interviewed her on my HLN show and we made news on that because I asked her, ‘Do you think Obama was born in this country?’”

Melania confirmed that Obama “was not born in this country,” according to Behar.

“So she’s on the same page as him on a lot of issues, so she’s not off the hook.”

The birther movement was something that became big during the 2012 presidential elections, with Donald Trump leading the charge. Melania was, of course, in support of her husband.

In the midst of all the hoopla revolving around supporting women who are being misused by male figures, it’s odd that Behar seems to think it’s okay to swat Melania aside, despite the sad situation she’s in, simply because at one point in time she publicly agreed with her husband about a point he was hammering on during his presidential campaign.

If Behar’s husband was doing something similar, I’m sure Behar would be supporting him in the same fashion no matter how ridiculous the strategy. I wouldn’t put it past Behar. She’s known for saying and doing ridiculous things.

Regardless, Melania is clearly going through something no wife ever does. Her husband’s fidelity is not only being called into question, but it’s done so on a national stage. Whether you believe Daniels or not, saying that Melania deserves to be put in front of the firing line alongside her husband just because she supported him is ludicrous.

But ludicrous hatred against Republicans or right-leaning anything is what Behar does.

The post Joy Behar Thinks Melania Deserves Little Respect Despite Her Plight Because She Was an Obama Birther appeared first on RedState.

Source: Red State