Fat Ugly Chicks Win One

What happens when natural biology is weaponized . . .

If ever there was a compelling arugument for tort reform, the recent and ongoing drama at Fox News would come up as Exhibit A.  And the genesis for that drama is the illogical and insane adherence to political correct feminist dogma.  

Here's the rub.  Television, and especially cable TV, is a visual medium, and producers have come a long way in market savvy since news anchors were exclusively old white men.  Think Dan Rather, Walter Cronkite, Chet Huntley.  TV back then was in black and white, so all that was needed was a talking head.  With great hair.

Today we have high definition, mega-pixels television in vivid color, and news management knows its customer base wants to see pretty.  And cable delivers on pretty.  Does it ever.  So nowadays we get babes.  Hot babes.  Beautiful, voluptuous, buxom hotties with great legs.  And yes, we viewers get to see legs. Sculpted, shapely and long legs.  Remember Megyn Kelly's glass desktop?  Yeah, me, too.  Bear with me here, I'm not going soft core on you. There's a point to this.

In light of modern news technology, we now have a plethora of hot babes reading the evening news to us.  In vivid and high def color.  Consequently, downstairs at human resources, female job applicants get the unmistakable message that fat, ugly chicks need not apply.  Not for on-air talent positions, anyway.  It's simply a fact of life.

So then let's say we have a universe of hot babes wandering around the offices and studios, interacting with male counterparts in all departments.  And as males will, they notice that there's a sea of very attractive ladies milling about.  The copy boy, who has all of $17 in his checking account, may greet one of the hotties and admiringly say, "If I told you had a fabulous body, would you hold it against me?"  What do you think would happen? He'd get the extended middle finger, or a curt but to-the-point castrating rebuff, and that would be the end of it.  Yet let a famous man who is also a news anchor, and who earns $20 million a year, leer or possibly lick his lips or engage in some other demonstration of appreciation of a particular woman's appearance, what do you think would happen in that case?  Right.  Lawsuit.  And that severe legal assault on a completely innocent and normal biological reaction is wrong on so many levels.  And we have the fat, ugly feminists to thank for it. 

Here's the natural biology of men and women.  Normal women want to be attractive to men.  Normal men want women to be attractive.  But the fat, ugly feminists want everyone to suffer as they believe they have suffered.  They believe they've been left out of the accessibility pool of desirable females.  They probably have been, but for reasons other than lack of physical attractiveness.  No matter, they want to wreck the natural biological process.  End attractiveness.  End male response to attractiveness.  So to that end, to court we will go.

The definition of "tort" for the purposes of this discussion is a civil wrong or wrongful act, whether intentional or accidental, from which injury occurs to another.  Now in the context of torts, an "injury" describes the invasion of a legal right, as opposed to "harm," which describes a loss or detriment in fact that an individual suffers.  But what right is assailed?  What injury is sustained?

What this means is that feminists have essentially weaponized the natural act of a man noticing a woman and commenting on it.  It's unlikely that any real sexual assault occurred, like the guy grabbing her in the hall and having his way with her.  Nope, this is simply verbal commentary - no touching - we're talking about.  But insurance companies and defendants' attorney teams don't want to go to court and fight, citing court battle costs may exceed any settlement awards.  So they settle.  Worse, if the accused does settle the case, he is still guilty - not because he did it - but because, being male, he simply could have.  Think about that.  Legalized extortion is still alive and well.  Just like the scams the racist shakedown clowns Sharpton and Jackson still try to pull off.

What is the inevitable outcome of the fat and ugly harpy feminists winning this battle in the so called war of the sexes?  For one, sleazy attorneys like Gloria Allred and her ilk getting rich beyond their courtroom abilities.  For another, it sets a troubling cultural precedent.  And it only punishes men.  Women still show lots of skin, cleavage and leg to attract a man's interest.  But men are not supposed to notice, let alone comment.  But far beyond that, we're seeing a cultural reaction backlash to this feminist bullying.  Ever heard of MGTOW?  Follow that link.  A seismic shift in male-female relationships is under way, and it ain't good.

And for this unnatural extortion we can thank the fat and ugly harpies who brought us modern feminism.