Thursday, March 22, 2012

Women’s History Month…Sacred?

In 1987, the U.S Congress delivered itself of a proclamation making March Women’s History Month. And why not? After all, February, the birth-months of Washington and Lincoln, is Black History Month.

Actually, March is observed as Women’s History Month throughout the world, though not necessarily in March everywhere. To see the same irony as that mentioned in the paragraph above, one notes that Mohammad, who set the tone for making women hardly one step above a mule, was born in the third month of the Islamic calendar, which would correspond to March in the U.S calendar.

The theme of the celebration this year in the U.S. is “Women’s Education – Women’s Empowerment.” There’s a colossal irony connected to this, as well, since women already outnumber men in colleges and universities as well as law schools. They are gradually taking over the courts and probably will soon outnumber men in all judicial systems. According to the Association of American Medical Colleges, 17,672 women applied to attend medical school in the 2003-2004 school year, compared with 17,113 men, the first time more women than men entered the medical profession. This trend has doubtlessly continued, so the ladies are taking over the health industry, too.

This makes one wonder about the theme for this year’s observance since education doesn’t actually seem to be too problematic for women. It would appear that the men are getting the short end of the stick but one would not do well to hold his breath until a Men’s History Month is declared by Congress, especially since men are hanging on to a majority there currently. This is bound to change soon, also, and the wonder will be if the women try to pass a reverse voting amendment and deny men the right to the ballot box, probably marked “so there.”

In a speech the other day at something called the Women in the World Summit (where else would they be?), State Secretary Clinton said, “Why extremists always focus on women remains a mystery to me. But they all seem to. It doesn't matter what country they're in or what religion they claim. They want to control women. They want to control how we dress, they want to control how we act, they even want to control the decisions we make about our own health and bodies.”

And just who are those “extremists,” you ask, who cause such a mystery? MEN, of course, no matter in what country! It’s been a while since Ms. Clinton was in college and law school so she may not have noticed how men have not denied education to the distaff side, and it’s a sure fact that hubby Bill did not deny her all those vacations in foreign countries when she was first lady, courtesy U.S. government. Even current first lady Michele hasn’t caught on sufficiently to that perk yet, though she’s trying, with “his” and “her” Air Force-chauffered transportation and the army of apparatchiks that tag along.

Clinton doubled down on the religion, lumping Baptist men with Muslim men with Jewish men…probably even with “moonie” men. Her main enemy is probably Paul the Apostle, who said something about women being quiet in church; however, he also said men shouldn’t have long hair so he was middling fair. She didn’t say how the Baptists control their women but she probably has a good idea about the Muslims since she spends a lot of time in Arab-land still flying at government expense in perpetual vacation-mode and giving sage opinions such as that Bashir Assad just has to go.

She may or may not have a point about the way women dress. In TV-land, they appear as undressed as possible, especially in the “news-as-commentary” programs. The men are dressed formally from Adam’s apple to Achilles heel, but the ladies do the off-the-shoulder, deep-cleavage, thigh-high number, probably just what some male honcho demanded. Anyone who believes that can buy a bridge for 79 cents right here. The ladies in the “oldest profession” might be envious…or suspect that the glamour-gal pundits/reporters are on the make for some more cash.

When the intrepid secretary (remember those snipers she outwitted in Bosnia in 1996) mentioned health and bodies, she was using code for contraception/birth-control/abortion, as if men have anything to say about the subject with respect to its control, denial, or otherwise.

This works so well in Women’s History Month that fem-dems are blaming the evil repub-men for their declaration of war on women, with POTUS having the exceptional sensitivity and wisdom (grand warm-fuzzy intellectual that he is) to make that famous phone-call to soothe a damsel in distress because condom-expenses were bankrupting lady law-school students, of which crowd she was one, account she had been called a bad name by a radio-guy – almost as bad as one used by a millionaire male-narcissist, who had just contributed a million bucks to the POTUS super-pac, about a former lady-governor. POTUS has not phoned her yet.

Oh well…POTUS by executive order last year declared September to be National Preparedness Month, making one wonder why he didn’t do that in January 2009. Shouldn’t there be a month for children, too? Or…what about left-handed cocktail waitresses on roller-skates? One supposes, since DHS Secretary Napolitano warned a while back that everyone should be on the lookout for potentially dangerous GIs returning from Iraq, that POTUS was taking care of the welfare of the citizens, and thus encouraging them to be prepared to fight the vets off. EGAD!

And so it goes.
Jim Clark

0 Comments:

Post a Comment

<< Home