Okay Boys, Call Her a Girl
If they intended to be taken seriously and maybe they didnt they committed a ludicrous gaffe in the opening sentence. To call a 13-year-old girl a woman is to mistake a bicycle for a Porsche. It is insulting to the girl. Whether meant meanly or otherwise, it seeks to deprive her of her right to enjoy her childhood. Only a spineless toady from P. Parenthood would utter this kind of inanity. This formulation is another monstrous linguistic creation of white liberals in the 197-s when they sought to curry favor with the black community. Because boy had been a traditional term of denigration used against black males of all ages, from slavery into modern times, hardline liberals made one of their many compacts with the devil. Announcing that they were speaking for the whole of America, they decreed that never again could a black teenage boy or black teenage girl be referred to as other than man or woman. Loyal Democratic reporters, who form 90 percent of the print and electronic media, have stubbornly hewed to the line that all girls above 12 are women, all boys above 12 are man. In the halcyon days of pre-legal abortion, to call a child a man or a woman would have been a hilarious punchline for a comedian. Liberals decreed you couldnt laugh even if it sounded ludicrous.
A Silent, Barely Noticed Destruction
The abortion of the English language by devious liberals is one of the great literary and cultural disasters of the past 45 years. Slyly, the popular definitions of hundreds, possibly thousands, of words have been surgically altered. Effectively, the sometimes-disguised alterations were devised while you were asleep. Changing the meanings of masses of words takes a giant butcher knife and slashes through the precious fabric of an already fragile society. This vulgar, under-appreciated procedure undermines the moral integrity of a culture. Upside became down before you realized upside had been flipped. By the simplistic gimmick of repetition, liberals have drilled all of the changes they wanted into our passively receptive heads. We respond, as intended, in pavlovian style.
Postscript
Liberals are smart people, which is partially attributable to decades of exceedingly sophisticated propagandizing. From trial and error through the 1970s, 80s and 90s, liberals have developed valuable instincts for knowing when they can be bold in their message and when they need to draw back and be more diversionary. Study the argument that P. Parenthood makes for opposing Prop. 85. They dont say it is wrong to forbid a 13-year-old girl to obtain an abortion until two days after she has told her parents. Instead, they employ the screwiest reasoning I ever have seen. They say Prop. 85 should be rejected because it does not include boys. At P. Parenthood, they truly cant tell, they dont recognize, a difference between boys and girls. Maybe they interned at the Braille Institute. The heart of their message is that any obligation for girls should hold equally for boys. Their objection is not a heroic defense of girls rights. It is a statement of hatred and envy for all males. P.Parenthood, along with most liberals, believes there is no significant distinction between boys and girls. With a straight face, P. Parenthoods argument against 85 is that it is faulty because boys dont have to consult/inform their parents. P.Parenthood leaves out just one crucial phrase. They dont identify the equally radical health alteration for which boys of 13 or 14 should have to notify their families. But by thunder, if girls have to call home, boys also should have to phone in. This is political-cultural egalitarianism with a big dumb ribbon tied around it. May egalitarianism die tomorrow.
