Whether it’s economics, biology, or criminology, the Left is permanently at war with reality. Some of its most militant combatants are radical feminists, who refuse to accept the fact that there’s more to the difference between men and women than our plumbing. Unfortunately, as the recent insane decision by the Obama administration to lift the ban on women in direct combat shows, feminists have been very successful at infecting our society with their ridiculous, wrongheaded and destructive view of gender differences. Oh wait …there aren’t any gender differences. That’s what the New York Times, Time magazine, and every other irrelevant Lame Stream Media rag has been telling us for at least 40 years.
It’s not enough that feminists have managed to convince at least one, and probably two, generations of women that the ultimate in liberation is to hit the sheets with as many guys as possible, comfortable that their state-mandated contraception will eliminate any unpleasant, style-cramping consequences, or knowing that in a worse case scenario, in which they find themselves in what we used to call “a family way,” they can quickly and easily get rid of that inconvenient tissue mass and move on as if it never happened. It’s also not enough that they have practically made it a crime for little boys to be boys in public schools. It’s not even enough that they have forced the government to recognize their “right” to weaken the U.S. Military and threaten our national security. Now they want our panties.
Sarah Fentem, who is identified as “a writer based in Chicago,” writes in the Atlantic:
Every month or so, I receive a glossy coupon from Victoria’s Secret in my mailbox. “Free panty!” it beckons. “No purchase necessary!”
Reading those words, I cringe a little bit. Not because I hate underwear—I’m an ardent lover of underwear. It’s because I hate the word “panty.” I hate the plural form of “panty” as well. “Panties” creeps me out.
And apparently I’m not alone. In addition to a slew of blog posts and message boards denouncing the word, The Huffington Post’s Zoë Triska named it “the worst word ever.” Cracked.com included “panties” in its list of the “Five Words That Need To Be Banned From English.”
Why does the word “panties” bother so many people?
Oh, she is so right. Anti-panty fever is obviously sweeping the nation!
I do agree with her, in part. “Panties” creeps me out, too, but only because so often while watching some of our alleged male leaders, I ask myself “Gee, I wonder what color panties he’s wearing?”
It’s easy to dismiss Ms. Fentem’s column as absurd, which it is, but it is also an insight into the rat’s nest of intellectual confusion that is the liberal mind in general, and the feminist’s in particular. To understand how anyone can even write the sentence “Why does the word “panties” bother so many people?” you need to think (and I use the word “think” loosely) like someone who has had every ounce of common sense wrung out of her by years of feminist indoctrination, someone who buys into all the “gender is a cultural construct” baloney that they bleat incessantly. Why do feminists hate the word “panties?” It’s simple. “Panties” are something innately feminine, as in something worn by women, who are distinctly different from men, and happily so. It’s a word that conjures up visions of lace, underwire bras, nylon stockings, and sexually-alluring females, desired by and pursued by men. Yikes! If any feminists read that last sentence, it’s probably all they can do to keep from falling out of their combat boots, and there lies the real kernel of truth in this silly, anti-panty idea. Feminists despise the basic biological fact that men are attracted to good-looking women. I will leave it to you decide why that is so, although I might suggest that a Google images search of the names of some prominent radical feminists might provide some insight.
I’m sorry, my chunky, short-haired sisters, it’s true. Attractive women are desirable to men, and men chase them, buy them jewelry and want to be with them. And, because alluring women are desirable, they can be selective. Consider the research from Notre Dame sociologist Elizabeth McClintock, as reported in the Wall Street Journal.
The better-looking a man is, the more lifetime sexual partners he reports; the better-looking a woman, the fewer. Good-looking men are more likely to have had sex soon after meeting a partner; good-looking women, less likely. Good-looking women are likelier to describe their relationships as “committed”; good-looking men, less likely.
That’s what the feminists really hate. Pretty girls can choose the men they want, and get them to not only buy them dinner, but marry them, and support their children. It’s actually nature’s way, and I for one, love it.
There I said it. I enjoy being a girl. I dare you, Feminists. Try coming for my panties.