Feminists worry 'pussy hats' marginalize men disguised as women

A feminist with three names, Phoebe Maltz Bovy (I pity Mr. Bovy), writing in the WaPo, worried that the use of "pussy hats" in anti-Trump demonstrations marginalizes men disguised as women, since men disguised as women do not have vaginas, and "pussy hats" are symbols of vaginas, as well as many feminists' secret desire to be groped by a man as wealthy as Donald Trump.

This confuses me, because if a man believes he is a woman, even if he isn't, why can't he also believe he has a vagina, even if he doesn't?  Nevertheless, feminists see this as a serious problem:

If women couldn't agree on a moderate Democrat [Hillary, moderate, heh-heh] to become the nation's first female president, what was left? Well, there were vaginas.

With Hillary gone, all they were left with was their vaginas.

The obvious problem with vagina-motif protest is that it leaves out some women – namely, trans women. Not all women have vaginas, and not all vagina-havers identify as women. 

You know, I had never considered the second half of that.  Not only are there men disguised as women who don't have vaginas, but there are also women disguised as men who do have vaginas.  This whole discussion reminds me of a confusing foreign film; I desperately need subtitles to keep up.

The vast majority of women do indeed have vaginas, but they aren't preoccupied by that fact day to day.  Vagina possession doesn't explain why Mary voices an idea in a meeting but the boss listens only when Jim repeats it. When Kate does the dishes again, it isn't because Bob's genitalia prevented him from loading the dishwasher.

Really?  Because I thought Bob's genitalia prevented him from doing precisely that.

Subversive though it can be, vagina protest reinforces the very phenomenon it's meant to mock.

Oh, here's an original thought on the left!

The claim that women voting for Clinton were voting with their vaginas was off-putting because it implied that preferring a female candidate wasn't a political choice, but rather an irrational animalistic imperative.

You think?

Sending the president protest letters housed in a vagina-shaped envelope doesn't change the terms of the debate.

What?  President Trump got thousand of vagina letters?  Do you think they should at least have waited until Valentine's Day to send them?

This is so fascinating.  Feminists embrace men disguised as women but now are starting to realize that by embracing them the term "women" doesn't mean a whole lot.  It reminds me of how the word "Oriental" became forbidden and we had to start using the word "Asian," but because that could mean Japanese, Chinese, Pakistani, or Iranian, the word means very little.  The same is starting to happen with "women," and feminists don't like it.

Ed Straker is the senior writer at NewsMachete.com.

A feminist with three names, Phoebe Maltz Bovy (I pity Mr. Bovy), writing in the WaPo, worried that the use of "pussy hats" in anti-Trump demonstrations marginalizes men disguised as women, since men disguised as women do not have vaginas, and "pussy hats" are symbols of vaginas, as well as many feminists' secret desire to be groped by a man as wealthy as Donald Trump.

This confuses me, because if a man believes he is a woman, even if he isn't, why can't he also believe he has a vagina, even if he doesn't?  Nevertheless, feminists see this as a serious problem:

If women couldn't agree on a moderate Democrat [Hillary, moderate, heh-heh] to become the nation's first female president, what was left? Well, there were vaginas.

With Hillary gone, all they were left with was their vaginas.

The obvious problem with vagina-motif protest is that it leaves out some women – namely, trans women. Not all women have vaginas, and not all vagina-havers identify as women. 

You know, I had never considered the second half of that.  Not only are there men disguised as women who don't have vaginas, but there are also women disguised as men who do have vaginas.  This whole discussion reminds me of a confusing foreign film; I desperately need subtitles to keep up.

The vast majority of women do indeed have vaginas, but they aren't preoccupied by that fact day to day.  Vagina possession doesn't explain why Mary voices an idea in a meeting but the boss listens only when Jim repeats it. When Kate does the dishes again, it isn't because Bob's genitalia prevented him from loading the dishwasher.

Really?  Because I thought Bob's genitalia prevented him from doing precisely that.

Subversive though it can be, vagina protest reinforces the very phenomenon it's meant to mock.

Oh, here's an original thought on the left!

The claim that women voting for Clinton were voting with their vaginas was off-putting because it implied that preferring a female candidate wasn't a political choice, but rather an irrational animalistic imperative.

You think?

Sending the president protest letters housed in a vagina-shaped envelope doesn't change the terms of the debate.

What?  President Trump got thousand of vagina letters?  Do you think they should at least have waited until Valentine's Day to send them?

This is so fascinating.  Feminists embrace men disguised as women but now are starting to realize that by embracing them the term "women" doesn't mean a whole lot.  It reminds me of how the word "Oriental" became forbidden and we had to start using the word "Asian," but because that could mean Japanese, Chinese, Pakistani, or Iranian, the word means very little.  The same is starting to happen with "women," and feminists don't like it.

Ed Straker is the senior writer at NewsMachete.com.

RECENT VIDEOS