Search Box

Wednesday, July 19, 2017

The most insulting judgment on women, ever

The current doctrine that women who are drunk are incapable of consent is, when you think about it, a pretty damning indictment of women. A few drinks and they no longer even have the judgment to make a simple yes or no decision?

If you take feminist dogma seriously -- and their lackeys on campus and elsewhere certainly seem to -- its implications for public policy are staggering.

It suggests, just for starters, that no woman should ever become President. And a woman like Hillary, who reportedly likes to toss them down with abandon, should never set foot in the Oval Office.

Imagine a President Hillary. At State dinners, it's customary for various dignitaries to propose toasts, and for those present to drink to them. (To abstain would be rude.) Who knows what Hillary might have done after a few toasts.

At a State dinner with Germany, she might have consented to take all of their Syrians.

After a few toasts at a State dinner with France, she might have reversed the Louisiana Purchase.

At a State dinner with England, she might have consented to rescind the results of the Revolutionary War and pledged allegiance to the Queen.

At a meeting with the Governor of Alabama, she might have consented to bring back slavery.

And who knows whom she might have given our nuclear codes to.

This is the Hillary Presidency that the feminists envisioned, anyway.

To take the analogy one step further, Hillary could then have taken all those foreign heads of state to the World Court in the Hague for having taken advantage of her while she was inebriated.

Instead of hearing about "regret rape," we'd hear about "regret pacts."

There are plenty of other implications for the new stance on drinking and consent.

If a bride has more than two glasses of champagne at her own wedding, that could now constitute grounds for annulment.

As for the wedding night, well, forget any plans the groom had for that!

And, really, women shouldn't be prosecuted for DUI's anymore. You see, it's not that they're irresponsible and drive drunk - it's that they were too drunk to be able to make a decision about whether or not to drive. They certainly can't be held responsible for that!

It appears that feminists, for all their big talk, really believe, deep down, that men are adults and women are children. Why else would they say that a woman -- but not a man -- is incapable of consent after a few drinks?

Personally, I have a much higher opinion of women than the feminists do. I think they remain lucid and logical -- as much as they were beforehand, anyway -- after a few beverages. I don't believe that a few toasts turn them into helpless quivering blobs of insentient protoplasm.

It is interesting, though, to know that's how feminists see women.


Dave Moriarty said...

when the Saudis gave HRC $50 million to shut down fracking in the US was she drinking to celebrate that bribe?
i have a feeling the saudis want their dough back since the frackers are on the way to make the us self sufficient energy instead of hostage to these nutjobs countries. Somehow i dont think the saudi's thought their dough was going to "the children".

maybe we have a new motto for the saudi's
instead of "Don't Drink and Drive"
it is no "Don't Drink and Bribe"

Anonymous said...

Right on target. Hillary is the perfect example of this ridiculous premise or excuse being pushed by the stupid. Being drunk or high just loosens your inhibitions not
your judgement. And post the drunken bliss when morals come home then indignation. Though women in general have a lower tolerance to booze, it doesn't mean that they are not responsible for their behavior. I remember the movie 'The Accused' where Jodie Foster is drunk and acts seductively and then is surprised that she was raped.
I could have any sympathy for her as a victim. You can't expect to put your hand in
hot water and get burnt.
Also, as a mother of a son, I am terrified of the consequences of such implications.


John Craig said...

Sherie --
Yes, Hillary IS the kind of feminist who always wants it both ways. (And she's supposed to have a drinking problem, to boot.)

I have a lot of respect for Jodie Foster. As a Yale graduate, a lesbian, and a denizen of hollywood, you'd think she'd subscribe to all of the nonsense that permeates those environs, but she doesn't seem to. And I like the way she stood by her friend Mel Gibson when he was having his troubles.

Yes, I know a young man who always saves screen shots of friendly texts he's exchanged with young women after they've dallied, just in case they change their minds and decide to accuse him or "regret rape." I suggest your son do the same.

Mark Caplan said...

This post reminds me of another great rift between the Dems and the Republicans. The 2012 GOP candidate, Mitt Romney, was a teetotaler. Trump is a teetotaler. Mike Pence, who one can imagine becoming president before 2020, is a near teetotaler: he abstains from alcohol except for a sip of wine at holy communion. Meanwhile, the Democrats lean toward legalizing drugs as a way of reducing mass incarceration. And Hillary, as you noted, was a lush.

John Craig said...

Mark --
All true, though I'm not sure these things apply across the board. Bill Clinton and Barack Obama both had periods where they took a fair amount of cocaine, but George W. Bush at least tried it (he admitted to it, in not quite so many words), and he was a serious alcoholic at one point too. I think Bush the Elder and Reagan and Carter were relatively clean, but Nixon is supposed to have drunk fairly heavily towards the end of his Presidency.

Biden is supposed to be a drinker (he looks like one). I can't think of another VP, going back to the early 60's, who had a reputation for being a drunk. I suppose it's a good thing Trump doesn't drink, I'd hate to see what kind of Tweets we'd get then.

Anonymous said...

You seem to be missing my point again.
I too hold Jodie in high regard, not parading the LGBT nonsense. I'm referring to
her role in the movie 'The Accused' I still remember the feeling when watching the movie where she was seductively drunk dancing, "just stop, are you stupid, you can't behave like that in a bar without consequences." Her acting was fabulous but I felt it gave a wrong message to women that you can incite someone and then expect no repercussion. Maybe I'm old-fashioned!


John Craig said...

Sherie --
I knew you were referring to the plot of the movie and not to Foster personally; I was just making a separate point. (And I wasn't suggesting you were saying anything negative about Foster personally.)

Jokah Macpherson said...

What does Trump (and what did GWB, who was a teetotaler by the time he became president) do for all these toasts with foreign officials? Do they use a nonalcoholic drink or take one for the team?

Weirdly, I can't think of any other president who didn't drink off the top of my head. It's odd as culture becomes more and more tolerant of vice we would see an increase in president who don't drink.

John Craig said...

Jokah --
That's a good question; I'd assume with Trump, they fill his glass with a similarly-colored nonalcoholic drink, so he can at least look as if he's toasting whatever.

I always thought that that time GWB looked into Putin's eyes and "saw the soul of a good man" must have represented some sort of alcoholic relapse on his part. And I always suspected that Putin took advantage of him by "forcing" him to join in on several toasts, knowing that GWB was a reformed alcoholic. (And it would have been harder for GWB's staff to arrange for a nonalcoholic drink while in Russian territory.) But I would guess that at most White House gatherings, he would have also had a nonalcoholic drink available for toasts.

As I said above, I never saw Carter or Reagan or Bush the Elder as big drinkers, but I don't think they were teetotalers either.