Thursday, February 21, 2008

Well, He Has a Point. Even If It's a Small One.

It was only a matter of time until some insecure powerful-woman-fearing literalist would come along and make this argument:

"Legally, a woman can't be elected president"

His reasoning?

"The language is clear. The 19th Amendment says: 'The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex.'

We cannot read into the amendment something that is not there. Now, had the amendment said, "The right of citizens of the United States to vote or hold public office shall not be denied," it would have accomplished what the feminists think took place."

We feminists really pulled a fast one on the US of A, right? Thank God(dess) that Dick (yes really) Marple came along and pulled the feminist wool from our eyes to inform us that it's illegal in our nation for a woman to be president.

But wait! The best part follows. Read further down into his expose where he starts speaking in that curious English hybrid of Opine-speak:

"Today's feminists believe the election process is an evolutionary process, legalized by common practice and that someday a woman will be president. They are convinced that since women have run for the office, the male-gendered presidential office has been neutered." [emphasis definitely mine]

The Secret Service really needs to keep an eye out for those pesky feminists who seek to neuter the president! But more importantly, why do wingnuts always have their own really odd and creepy vocab?

The clincher is (aptly-named) Dick's solution to the Woman Problem. He takes his expose a step further and tells us how to save society from the Great Harm (TM) of a woman president (although he never articulated why a woman shouldn't be president, he just authoritatively states that it's against the law):

"[The feminists] will be challenged, and a Supreme Court ruling on the language will be necessary. At the very least a constitutional amendment to change the language will be required."

A constitutional amendment, eh? A move straight from the "I want to try to make inequality permanent" handbook. Why is it that every time we get a little closer to equality, those opposed to equal rights begin proposing rule-changes?

I salute you and your mission, Dick.

No really. I do. Good luck with that.

This looks like a job for Leftist Gender Warrior:


"Watch me trick everyone into thinking the outrageous, preposterous, outlandish notion that women are human beings and deserving of equal rights!! Har har har har!"

No comments: