Timothy Birdnow

I own some wooded property in south-central Missouri - what I affectionately call the Ozark Hilton. The OH is a ramshackled shack I built on the property from odds and ends gleaned from back alleys in st. Louis. It is not cut to fit; everything was jury-rigged, like Frankenstein's monster, or like a picture made from multiple jigsaw puzzles. It works, but it's clearly not a Bob Villa project.

At any rate, when I bought this land there were armadillos all over it. Now, armadillos are native to the southwest, but due to the warming of the '90's they had come up to Missouri and stomped around the state. I say stomped because they had no sense of how to move stealthily in the underbrush of our hardwood forests, and they could be quite loud just by walking. (Sadly I see few of them these days; the temperature downturn since the "global warming" of the '90's has seen many of these funny little critters die off.) But that is neither here nor there. What I want to discuss is the mating ritual of the armadillo.

I saw two of them courting once. The male and female "flirt" back and forth with a series of gutteral croaks, and the female flees from the male, who is forced to pursue her. Now, she has every intention of mating with the male, but she's not going to be easy and she is going to make him work for it. So the two little armored creatures croaked back and forth and chased each-other around playfully until the moment was right, at which point they began clacking their shells together like some sort of percussion instrument.
Now, I'm not trying to be salacious about armadillos, but rather am trying to prove a point. Mating is not just a wham, bam, thank you Ma'am thing with many creatures, but rather there is a courting, a stylized ritual. The male generally has to pursue the female, try to convince her. She, for her part, plays coy, enticing the male. She intends to mate with him but she's not a cheap floozie, after all. So there is a definite courtship ritual involving male pursuit and female flight. It is in our DNA.

Human courtship rituals follow a very similar path. Women like to be chased. It makes them feel desirable and gives them a sense that the man is not just looking for a sexual fling. The man likes to do the chasing; he wants to feel the woman is desirable and doesn't need him, but chooses him in the end. This is so ancient a practice that is is no doubt biological rather than cultural. There are certainly many variations on how this is done but the basics are always the same. Man chases, woman flees, they flirt, they wind up together.

This is how we have done it until the feminists came along. Now they call a playful pursuit sexual assault.

Last year the #meetoo movement (fitting; they want to believe they are mistreated despite a lack of evidence) declared war on the Christmas song "Baby it's cold outside". And, like all leftist crusades, their lack of immediate success only served to get them to double down on their efforts. As Saul Alinsky said, the way to do this sort of thing is to "pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it" and this is exactly what they have done with Baby.

Here is a case in point a Cleveland radio station that plays Christmas music has banned the song as somehow misogynistic, an invitation to sexual violence.

From the article from Fox8 in Cleveland:

"WDOK Christmas 102.1 pulled the song from its around-the-clock rotation of Christmas music this week after receiving a call from a listener who suggested it is inappropriate in 2018.

The call-and-response song written in the 1940’s includes a woman singing that she has to leave a man’s house as he tries to lure her to stay.

In the song, the female sings "I really can’t stay,” to which the man responds, "but baby, it’s cold outside."

End excerpt.

Yes, ONE complaint got the station to pull the song!

Here is how the station defended this action:

"It wasn't really our decision. It's the decision of our listeners,” said WDOK midday host Desiray, noting that the Christmas lineup is decided by the station’s listeners.

The station said it posted a poll about the song on its web site and a clear majority of respondents supported the decision to remove the song from the station’s lineup.

Poll results were not visible on the station's web site. However, a poll on the station's Facebook page showed that among more than 600 votes by Thursday night, 92% of respondents favored playing the song while just 8% felt it was inappropriate.

"People might say, ‘oh, enough with that #MeToo,’ but if you really put that aside and listen to the lyrics, it's not something I would want my daughter to be in that kind of a situation,” Desiray said. "The tune might be catchy, but let's maybe not promote that sort of an idea.”

Cleveland Rape Crisis Center President and CEO Sondra Miller said the organization supports the decision.

"I think it's taking a 2018 lens on a song that was written a very long time ago,” she said, adding that the move reflects evolving values."

End excerpt.

So, no poll results were posted. One wonders if the station management isn't just lying? And even if they aren't, does the poll represent reality? One of the things Liberals do is try to make a minority position appear to be a majority one. Polling is a big part of it; they will use computer algorithms to vote repeatedly, for instance. There may be just one or two people voting to kill the song, but they get a sizable chunk of votes solely by multiple voting. They often do this with e-mails, too; using algorithms that generate new e-mail addresses and reword the same comment to panic politicians or whatnot. It works, too; they did it to Mike Pence, who was going to sign a bill protecting Christian businesses from gay lobby attacks (like Christian bakers). Pence was then Governor of Indiana. After receiving thousands of angry e-mails he caved and asked the bill be pulled. But it turned out ti was just a couple of guys with a computer program who managed to create a Potemkin Village. It happens, and more than we realize.

I doubt there is any there here.

And as for the argument of this rape counselor, she really needs to learn the difference between rape and flirtation. The song clearly does not advocate some sort of violence against the girl, who wants to be persuaded to stay. She needs reasons. And, in the 1940's when this was written, we are just ASSUMING he was trying to keep her there for sex. It may come as a shock to modern morons, but a lot of women did NOT indulge in pleasures of the flesh back then, and a lot of men didn't either - especially men interested in more than just a one night stand. That doesn't mean he wouldn't try; it was a test of her virtue, something important in a bride to many back then. But she would rebuff anything more than a kiss or snuggle. Not all, surely; a lot of gals did it. But a lot didn't, too.

In other words, the rape counselor has a dirty mind. It's HER problem, not the songs.

I would like to point out that, given the beginning of this blog post, the chase is a biological imperative and if we are going to start defining the chase as sexual assault we've got real problems in this country. That is the cornerstone of male/female relationships.

But of course that would suit the feminists just fine. They aren't people looking for a fair shake for women, but rather ultimately want to be in a position of ultimate power. Just read what many feminists say; "all sex is rape", "toxic masculinity", "our rape culture", etc. These are people suffering from a kind of mental illness, and they want to project their emotional disturbances on the entire nation. Destroying the normal interplay between the sexes (and the word is sexes, not gender, which is a function of language). It should come as no surprise that the homosexual movement, the demand for gay marriage, and now the transsexual movement, coincided with the rise of radical feminism; many of the feminists are lesbian, and they want to break any and all sexual roles, particularly where men are concerned. Men dressing as women, for instance, provides a powerful tool in that regard. Oh, some feminists are unhappy with the way the transvestites have stolen their thunder, but the intellectuals in the movement understand that anything that helps destroy the traditional sex roles is something that serves their purposes. That purpose is a complete revolution in the human condition, a total rejection of Nature and Nature's God.

And this dovetails with the war on Christianity and Christmas. They have already won by driving the religious carols out off the airwaves; you have to look long and hard to find religious Christmas music these days. They did it by promoting a misunderstanding of the First Amendment, the so-called "separation of Church and State" to say we cannot promote religion in the public square, even when it is done privately. Here the atheists join the feminists (who, truth be told ARE atheists too, but their emphasis is a sexual revolution rather than just a rebellion against God) in an attempt to drive God and Nature out of our psyche.

So, having rid us of the evils of religious Christmas songs, they are now starting to move against the secular music as well. This is just an opening salvo. And they will not stop until they kill this song. Mark my words; it's how the left works. Like a pack of wolves they key in on one unlucky straggler and attack until they take it down.

Here is a bit more from the article:

"While some might view the song and its lyrics as a playful, coy back-and-forth from another time, Miller said it may have a different meaning to a rape survivor.

"It really pushed the line of consent,” Miller said. "The character in the song is saying ‘no,’ and they're saying well, ‘does no really mean yes?’ and I think in 2018 what we know is consent is ‘yes’ and if you get a ‘no,’ it means ‘no’ and you should stop right there.”

Miller said the song is an example of the rape culture in which we live, and the first step to preventing sexual violence is to change that."

End excerpt.

So, playful pursuit is part of a "rape culture"?

Strange; so many of these feminist types ignore real rape cultures, like in the Islamic world, while condemning America for what it does not and did not have. I hate to tell this harpies, but Christians tried very hard to stop the sexual revolution of the sixties to avoid that very thing. The feminists demanded the right to indulge in any form of recreational sex (and that was a long-term effort, going back to the "free love movement" going back to the Victorian era. Feminists demanded this. The social norms in America favored chastity and that was absolutely unacceptable to the Left. Now that they have what they themselves wanted they condemn men and America in general as having a "rape culture". Well, if you legalize, say, shoplifting, what do you expect but a lot of shoplifters?

If there is a "rape culture" it is the creation of the feminists in the first place. They should look in a mirror.

Instead they condemn a song from the forties involving an innocent flirtation between the sexes. They do this not because they think it wrong but as a tool to advance their own power.

So the feminists and other leftists don't even have the sense of armadillos. Armadillos know what they know, and they live by it. Sadly, humans can talk themselves into anything, no matter how insane.

Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at 12:08 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 2058 words, total size 13 kb.