by Greg Gutfeld
May 11, 2012
Normally I hate days. Valentine’s Day, St. Patrick’s Day, Doris Day.
Terrible joke, now that I reread this. Ms. Day is probably a nice person.
But Mother’s Day is different, because moms serve the most important function on earth. No matter what men do—fight wars, build bridges, invent nachos—it pales to the one thing that keeps this planet percolating: giving birth.
Men are disposable. Women are vital. That’s not opinion. That’s biology. By reproductive design, women are precious because they’re carrying the cargo. Men just drop it off.
Yes, I know women have come a long way. They even drive in some states, Kimberly.
GUILFOYLE: Yes.
If all they do in life is be a great mom, that’s awesome.
Now, feminists have mocked full-time motherhood as silly and old-fashioned. Maybe they’re right. I mean, what do moms do really? Sure, you carry this thing inside you for nine months. And after you give birth, your body never really is the same.
And, of course, once you’re a mom, all of your personal desires become secondary, as the survival of the child becomes your life’s priority, which leads you to worry each day and every night whether the little one will turn out right.
How easy is that?
Maybe I hate Mother’s Day.
If anything, it’s an affront to all women who think full-time moms have never worked a day in their lives. Which reminds me of a good joke.
What do you call an angry feminist on Mother’s Day? You don’t.
That’s a much better line than the first one—should have led with that, maybe. But let’s ponder this line: “Yes, I know women have come a long way. They even drive in some states, Kimberly.”
I wonder if I could make that kind of ironic joke on TV, now—given that we conflate ironic sarcasm with mean-spirited sincerity. Sadly most people these days couldn’t take a joke if it was given to them intravenously.
May 15, 2012
So, Mother’s Day took on many meanings last Sunday.
For Newsweek’s scribe Michelle Goldberg, it meant comparing Ann Romney to Adolf Hitler and Joseph Stalin. Roll tape, roll tapers!
MICHELLE GOLDBERG, NEWSWEEK: Yes, motherhood is beautiful. I found that phrase a crown of motherhood really kind of creepy, not just because of this, like, somewhat, you know—I mean, it’s usually really authoritarian societies that give out like the cross for motherhood that give awards for big families. Stalin did it. Hitler did it.
Now, the hack received flak for that crap. But look, she really isn’t calling Ann Romney Hitler. All she’s doing is comparing Ann’s beliefs with Hitler’s. See the difference? Michelle learned that at Berkeley.
It’s yet another toxic example of moral relativism—that our values are no better than Nazis’. But Goldberg should know. Hitler and Stalin were both leftists, just like her.
See what I did there? I pulled a Goldberg on a Goldberg! Which is why I love Anita Dunn, Obama’s former communications director. At least she is open to the admiration for mass murderers. Remember this?
ANITA DUNN, FORMER WHITE HOUSE COMMUNICATIONS DIRECTOR: Mao Tse Tung and Mother Teresa, not often coupled with each other, but the two people that I turn to most.
Face the Nation, that is.
So, she gets a wow over Mao but not from Mitt, as she made her case on the “Face.”
DUNN: Mitt Romney has a backward-looking attitude, particularly when it comes to women, that I think will come out.
So feminists laud a man whose great leap forward led to many million deaths, including women, but see Mitt as backward looking. I take Mitt’s backward over Mao’s forward any day.
So, the extremes of the women’s movement now hang a ton of shame around the greatest power women have, which is motherhood. The result? Earth is now an inclusive club, and feminists are the bouncers with a message to the unborn who approach: Get a life.
I know this Romney stuff is old news, but it’s pertinent—all the guff given the Romneys is—once again . . . that’s how we got Trump. Fact: The media was ruthless against Romney in its effort to paint him as some clumsy, cold sexist. Remember the comments about binders full of women? He was talking about all the qualified female candidates he had for jobs, which information was kept in a binder. But the media knew that, and didn’t care—and raked him over the sexist coals.
The targeted smears were so unwarranted that it could only lead to a pushback, in which finally the people also smeared by their connection to Romney had had enough. Electing Trump was a big “Screw you” to the people who trashed Romney. To translate, voting for Trump was this: “So you destroyed a decent, moral man [who let you get away with it], all for the sake of winning an election. Well, I guess we’re done with men like Romney. Guys like that are just too nice to fight back. . . . So get ready for this new guy, because he’s going to be your worst nightmare.” In my opinion, the media’s attack on Mitt Romney and his wife laid some groundwork for a groundswell of popular revolt against those who would try to smear anyone. So you could accuse Trump of sexism. It didn’t matter. No one was listening. You—the media—repeatedly attacked decent men; so we’re giving you the least decent man we know, and we hope to God he wins.
And let’s not forget the double standard in which a media that vociferously defends women against misogynistic commentary seems to go silent when those attacks are targeting Republican or conservative women. It’s pretty consistent and unforgiving: Even some liberal women in the media see no problem attacking the looks of Republican women, because their choices in life have rendered them appropriate targets. A recent example: The bitter gasbag Chelsea Handler, who mocked Sarah Huckabee Sanders’s appearance, only because—well, politically she’s not enough like Chelsea Handler. The good news: Sarah Huckabee Sanders is [so far] doing a great job; I’m not even sure Handler has one.
September 7, 2012
This is a Greg news alert. Liberal celebrities are chuckle buckets.
Boy, I must have been really tired or hungover, beginning a mono like that. Sigh. And yes I hate it when people write “sigh” in a book. It’s like when people write “groan” or “um.”
EVA LONGORIA, ACTRESS: Mitt Romney would raise taxes on middle-class families to cut his own and mine. And that’s not who we are as a nation. Let me tell you why, because the Eva Longoria who worked at Wendy’s flipping burgers, she needed a tax break. But the Eva Longoria who works on movie sets does not.
Yes, Eva Longoria wants you to sacrifice because she is doing the same, offering up an entire class of Americans who aren’t as stinking rich as she is.
Remember, this not so Desperate Housewife makes millions mouthing other people’s words, so it’s easy for her to give away other people’s money.
Sacrifice is easy when whatever the government takes still leaves you with enough cash to buy a small island. There is no difference, lifestyle-wise, between $50 million and $25 million. Even Kimberly Guilfoyle can’t spend all that on shoes.
Yes, she can. That’s why she doesn’t realize some of them are missing.
GUILFOYLE: Yes, I can.
But in Eva’s head, a small family business is just like her. What a fake. I’d call her an actress, but that’s too mean. She is just a cool kid sacrificing the uncool because they didn’t get rich playing make-believe.
Then there is Kerry Washington.
KERRY WASHINGTON, ACTRESS: Today, there are people out there trying to take away rights that our mothers, our grandmothers, and our great-grandmothers fought for, rights that we fought for, our right to vote, our right to choose, our right to affordable quality education, equal pay, access to health care, and we, the people, cannot let that happen.
So, she thinks someone is taking away her right to vote?
Wait . . . maybe . . . she is in character for a role as a crusader for abused women in Afghanistan?
Where do these people live? What America do they inhabit? In the coked-up hell called Holly
wood, Kansas becomes Kabul.
Finally, Scarlett Johansson claims her friends need Planned Parenthood. Wow, some friend you are. You’re worth millions. Why don’t you help them instead of asking me!
Look, no one is trying to take away their pills either, Scarlett.
Frankly, I don’t want Hollywood to reproduce, but I’m not going to pay for that option.
Don’t you see the difference, Scar Jo? Don’t you get it?
If you’d like to discuss it further, I’m free for dinner. And I’ll pay. I know how helpless women can be.
Poor women. These are the standard-bearers?
No matter who the Republican is vying for the presidency, that person will be painted as evil. So even though you might think Hollywood thinks Donald Trump is the very worst creature to ever exist, they also felt that way about Mitt Romney [an obviously meek and decent man compared to Trump], and they also demonized George W before that. So, if you think that a President Rubio or a President Christie, etc., would be treated differently than the eternally triggering Trump, you’re sorely mistaken. Or just mistaken. I don’t know why it has to be “sorely.”
Plus, by invoking such silly loaded phrases as “our right to vote” and “our access to health care,” they only reveal the level of their historic ignorance. Does anyone—even in Hollywood—believe that Romney was looking to take away anyone’s voting rights? Talk like that only trivializes the original battles over voting. Eva, Kerry, Scarlett, let me break it to you: You’re no Jane Addams. You’re not even
Gomez Addams. You’re childish, overpaid, vapid creatures who would contribute more by flipping burgers. Or, at least, by not moralizing to the rest of us.
Also, why do feminists demand an intrusive, patriarchal government that provides for your birth control, but refuse that kind of relationship with individual males? They just replace one kind of dependence with another. I’d rather have a partner I could rely on than some giant bureaucracy—but what do I know. I eat Oreos in the bathtub.
January 7, 2013
Singer Marianne Faithfull just turned sixty-six. She’s now alone, performing for little money. The Daily Mail contrasted this with her ex, the über-rich Mick Jagger.
When the media talks about rock and roll, they hailed the heroic longevity of Jagger, while forgetting those sucked into the lifestyle who cannot endure the hard living.
It’s why the allure of the cool often harms women more than men. The cool life translates into pleasure without principle, which undermines female strength and power.
Dianne Feinstein said women wisely avoid strife through cooperation. Why is that? Well, as a pro-science guy, I know evolutionary science dictates that our behavior ensures survival, for reproductive immortality. That’s why men fight wars. Men are expendable, women aren’t.
But in China and India, it’s reversed; their women are disposable. Time.com reports that the Indian census has 914 females for every 1,000 males. And China possesses as many unmarried young men as the whole population of American men.
These unbalanced sex ratios are linked to female abduction and rape. If you look at the statistics, as the dearth of women deepens, crimes against women increase.
You don’t hear much from feminists on that stuff. How come? Is it because being pro-choice isn’t always pro-women? (In China, the one-child policy meant that child would be a boy.) Anyway, time is only on Mick Jagger’s side because he has the bank account to pay for it. His playthings weren’t so lucky.
It’s something I think about a lot. What happened to all the women who partied with the rock stars, but don’t have the rock star’s deep pockets and connections to get them out of trouble when they’re stoned, alone, and broke? Young women flock to these men and are used up like living pornography. And the media accepts it. It’s the one area where the “unequal power structure” is ignored, as well as the often garish misogyny expressed in rock bands’ memoirs. Musicians get a free pass for their abusive behavior, because they are “artists.” Perhaps that is why they became artists in the first place. Take a minute and google the phrase “baby groupies,” a phrase that described the VERY underage groupies who populated rock clubs in New York and Los Angeles in the late sixties and the seventies. Movies glamorized them, and rockers boasted about such conquests. But when you look back at it, these were teenage girls, some not even old enough to drive. One of them recently died of cancer, alone, in Nevada. We’ll remember the famous names of everyone she pleasured; no one remembers her [including me—I can’t remember her name].
January 24, 2013
The Pentagon is lifting its ban on women in combat. Hooray. I guess. If curbing combat roles had curbed your ability to move up the military ladder, then this shatters this camouflage glass ceiling.
So, it’s a step toward total equality, but also elevated risk for a woman in combat, as her risk of death becomes the same as that of the man beside her or possibly higher. God bless her, that woman is a better man than I am.
If she wants to fight, far be it from me to say no. Chances are, she could take me. And chances are, I would enjoy it.
Clearly a joke, but does it pass muster, now? In these sensitive times?
The only thing I ever served was a volleyball. But Senator McCain notes that women must still meet the same physical standards as men. You can’t become a SEAL unless you can do what a SEAL does.
But if you lower standards, putting equality before victory, that’s pointless and deadly. A win for equality must not come at the expense of the brutal, vicious killing machine that is the awesome American military.
Do not forget it’s about killing better than everyone else.
And we mustn’t also deny the bigger truth, that the one thing most important to mankind is not taking a life, but actually making one. Men fought the wars so women didn’t have to. Women had the bigger job—giving birth—making men like me way more expendable. That’s science. One man can populate a city, but you need tons of women to do the same. Even if a woman gave birth after nine months and immediately got pregnant again, she’d make maybe forty kids over a lifetime.
Men are Doritos and women are diamonds. Denying that just to avoid mockery at cocktail parties doesn’t help the war effort, unless it’s a war on common sense.
It’s weird how science is now considered offensive! If you bring up the differences in sexual reproduction strategies between men and women, you’d better duck quickly afterward. It’s kind of interesting how the party of the left is now the party of nonscience. They dismiss the many provable elements of biology—specifically sex differences—as proof of some patriarchal construct. Seriously, it’s getting tough to be a progressive, as society becomes more and more science-based. Evolution underlines the obvious, factual sex differences, which then trigger modern feminists who maintain [without any science] that there cannot be any differences between men and women. It’s why they’re waging war on biologists, whose work exposes the postmodern feminists’ own dishonest, anti-intellectual ideology.
That’s why I always implore my conservative friends to become scholars on natural selection. It puts you on the right path to a greater understanding of our human origins, and forces the left to stew in their own hypocrisy, as they deny biological realities in favor of antiscience babble—otherwise known as gender studies.
As for the military, like it or not, it discriminates. Each volunteer is graded as cost-effective. Would it cost them more to take you than it would benefit the team? In war, such cold reasoning is the only math that matters. If the military were grading me as cost-effective, my fat, slow middle-age ass would fall firmly in the negative.
April 9, 2014
Being a Hollywood actress is pretty cool until you say something uncool. Take Kirsten Dunst, who upset some feminists, which is easy to do.
Oxygen angers them.
In Harper’s Bazaar U.K., she said, quote, “The feminine has been a little undervalued. We all have to get our own jobs and make our own money, but stay
ing at home nurturing, being the mother, cooking, it’s a valuable thing my mom created, and sometimes you need your knight in shining armor. I’m sorry. You need a man to be a man and a woman to be a woman.”
That’s disgusting!
A top feminist blog chauvinistically dismissed Dunst as, quote, “an actress and blonde who looks good in clothes,” adding, “Kirsten Dunst is not paid to write gender theory. So it shouldn’t surprise anyone that she’s kind of dumb about it.”
Of course, they’d feel different if she had said “gender is fluid” or “death to patriarchy” instead.
See, to them, it’s dumb not to see relationships through the prism of anger, that love is really about power and ideology, that forbids traditional old-fashioned gender roles. So why not marry yourself instead?
You never need to get out of sweatpants.
Gender theory isn’t a theory so much as it is a therapy, replacing loneliness with rage. Their brainwashed conclusion: If you don’t get gender theory, you are a dumb chick. But if you’ve ever met a gender theorist, you realize they only know gender theory, which is why when they graduate, all they can do is teach you the stuff, or get you a tall latte.
This line says it all: “Kirsten Dunst is not paid to write gender theory.” As if someone should or could actually be paid to write gender theory. Sorry, if you write gender theory, you should pay us for having to read it.
July 8, 2014
Women’s bodies are under assault. Victimized under the guise of evil tradition. I speak not of honor killings or lashings for adultery, but of shaving armpits. Thank heaven for feminists.