…women should not be able to defend themselves against men. It makes sense to me!
Semi-automatics are an affront to both Darwin and dimorphism. Think of the evolutionary chaos when firearms allow petite women to defeat burly males in physical combat. Genes are hereditary; handgun training is not. Ergo, the survival of our species requires that any female who cannot defend herself with a muscle-powered revolver must submit to any male wishing to take her.
This is all obvious, you don’t need to be Swift to figure it out. But there’s also an astonishing implication: Chris Matthews is more repulsive in person than he is on T.V.
I say “astonishing”, but until this moment would have claimed “impossible”. The error is both acknowledged and regretted. It is also incomprehensible. How can it be that not one woman on Earth would willingly couple with a rich, famous, well-connected celebrity?! Yes, he’s the stupid wimpy kid no one likes, the witless blowhard too trivial to be squashed, a uniquely hideous splotch with Rudolph’s glowing snozz after radical nose surgery, and the only male whose fervent desire is to be impregnated by a slightly less pathetic male.
My sole defense is to remind you that he is a rich, famous, well-connected, world-travelling celebrity. And with a pool of several billion women, I assumed that even Chris Matthews could find a willing paramour.
I was wrong.
Given the hypergamous nature of females and Matthews’ utterly ridiculous social advantages, the only reason to be rape-friendly is because he’s the most repulsive creature that could ever exist. His flabby bulk is his only hope of trapping an unwary female into an intimate relationship, and semi-automatic weapons always win over flabby, easy-to-perforate bulk.
The best analogy is Rock/Paper/Scissors, where Paper wets itself at the thought of confronting Scissors because semi-automatic Scissors cuts Paper every single time, so Paper begs Rock (a third group comprised of neither semi-automatic-toting females nor Paper, and which would also obliterate Paper in combat because this Rock/Paper/Scissors analogy isn’t perfect) to protect Paper from Scissors–
(IMPORTANT AND NOT INCONGRUOUS NOTE: Any statistically significant group of human males will always defeat a comparably-sized group of identically armed females in physical combat, due to sexual dimorphism.)
–which Rock could easily do, but which rightfully rejects Paper’s pitiful mewling because everybody hates Paper, and so Paper crawls into a corner and consoles itself that it would totally beat Scissors if Rock would only dull Scissor’s edges–
(IMPORTANT AND CONGRUOUS NOTE: If Chris Matthews and Michelle Malkin ever do engage in mortal combat with semi-automatic weapons…or letter openers…bet on the Asian chick.)
(NO, WAIT, ESSENTIAL NOTE: I’m betting on the Asian chick, you bet on Paper to maximize my payoff.)
–but Paper is…as always…wrong.
Chris Matthew’s modest proposal is that we can’t let technology make women the physical equals of men. Whether that’s true or not–and you see that I consider even the most outlandish arguments–it still doesn’t do Chris Matthews any good.
There is no theoretical advantage that would make Chris Matthews the equal of any woman.
Maybe Chris Matthews can marry that other fella on msnbc. You know the guy with the girly name, Rachel Maddow. No doubt they’d be all for same sex marriage.
I know it’s totally sexist, but I can’t bring myself to mock women as I do men. Er, I meant males. Very few of the leftist males we savage ever attain manhood, at least by Flyover America’s standards.
This reluctance even extends to poor “transgendered” souls. Until science can remake the entire body with X/Y substitutions at the genetic level, “sex change operations” are a sad fiction. But while I don’t pretend that sexual transmogrification has occurred, I do relax my expectations for males who simply give up on trying to be men. As for the female-to-male crowd, I don’t hold them to Y chromosome standards but do expect more from them than their counterparts who gave up on being manly.
Again, admittedly, this is textbook sexism. It’s not better/worse sexism, it’s Mars/Venus sexism. Distaff behavior is so freakin’ alien that I simply can’t hold gals to the stark, simple, rational principles of manhood…
…hmmm. Thinking about this for the first time, I realize that real American women (Malkin, Sarah Palin, “nooneofanyimport” Lin) are vastly more “manly” to me than the simpering hordes of urban metrosexual males. If Lin sees this she’ll chide me for calling her a dude. She’ll do it in amusement and without feeling threatened or insulted in the slightest.
And that, to me, is infinitely more manly than anything Matthews or Piers Morgan will do in the rest of their benighted lives. Lawrence O’Donnell’s huffing and puffing and pathetic failures at intimidation is utterly unmanly; Ms. Malkin’s wry humor as she shares her latest batch of death-and-rape threats conforms to the highest standards of manhood.
Wow, this response really got wordy, huh? But it brought up stuff I’ve never considered before, which is pretty rare. Since most of this reply will probably be put up as a later post, thank you very much for your cattle prod of a comment.
And of course you’re right; the behavior of Maddow and her ilk is indistinguishable from unmanly males. And a search of the archives would no doubt turn up some extremely ungallant remarks I’ve made about the fairer sex…
…and Rachel Maddow. ba-dump-bump!