An open letter to the Honorable Kamala Harris, Senator for the Women and, if I daresay, the Men of California:
I went to Law School with your husband, Douglas Emhoff. He is, like yourself, an accomplished and well-educated individual.  Like your husband, I am a lawyer and a father.  In particular, my husband and I have two beautiful daughters and one son.  As fathers who have a son, we are shocked and appalled that you -- our representative in the United States Senate -- would post photographs full of misandary on your website.  Specifically, the nonsense that future is female as opposed to belonging to both men and women.

 It is difficult to explain to my son why women have such a bias against men.  In particular, it is difficult to explain to him why women boldly declare the future belongs to them when my son has been sought that the future belongs to him, his two sisters, and all who extol the virtues of Western Civilization and its respect for the individual and, in particular, the Ten Commandments and the Bill of Rights. 

 Indeed, neither of my daughters, who love my son and admire him as they do their two fathers, understand why "the future is female" is a permissible statement without an explanation as to how important the sacrifices men have made to protect women truly are.  My husband, a veteran, can surely attest to that.

 As gay men, my husband and I say shame on you for saying the future belongs only to half of your constitutes.  You and your husband should no better and I actually think you do.  As our former Attorney General, you surely must understand the concept of equality under the law and the need to show fairness, not rank bias against a particular group.

 My son does not understand why he may not fully participate in the future, and he simply cannot fathom why you cannot tell the truth and state the Future is Male -- and Male and Female.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

We have heard many complaints about “diversity” at the Oscars (but, of course, not so much about the generally crappy quality of films today). I assume this is because people hold out hope for perfect “diversity” but have taken a realistic approach to film quality, knowing that artistry and creativity are all but dead but neo-Marxism of “social justice” is alive and well.  I am not here to debate the merits of “diversity” vis a vis paying attention to the actual films and not the identity of those who made it.  We are assuming that the drumbeat for diversity will continue as the quality of film decreases, and we are offering the only real solution to the “diversity” issue:  requiring diversity in the nominations (and the results) according to an agreed formula. As long as we permit the nominees to be based upon the quality of the films themselves, and not the identity of the filmmaker, it will be impossible to achieve true diversity in the nominating process, as the...
Read more

Does Covid-19 have a cruel moralistic (and political) agenda of its own?

As the national lockdown continues to ravage our economy and destroy any vestige of liberty (#EndtheLockdown), we are now hearing more and more advice about how to avoid the contagion of the virus from Wuhan, China (#WuhanVirus) especially in regards to our lifestyle.  On the one hand we have no quarrel with the wisdom of wearing a mask in certain situations, or keeping those who are especially vulnerable as isolated as possible. But we note the advice now appears to have taken a moralistic turn.  We are told to stay indoors, avoid the gym, and indeed, Democratic governors (and socialists around the world) are having people arrested for all sorts of solitary outdoors activities, like dog walking, sitting on a bench, or paddle boarding alone (#CovidNazis). But we are also told obesity is a key risk factor.   So stay indoors and don't exercise by being a dog walker, walking to a bench to sit, or paddling in the ocean.  Just remain slim while you binge watch . ...
Read more