As you know, America’s men are under attack these days by the constant barrage of anti-male propaganda known as feminism. Though these misandrists think that they have an answer for everything, there is one question that has so far stumped every feminist I’ve come across: What walks on four legs in the morning, two legs in the afternoon, and three legs at night?
Yes, feminazis, at long last the simple irrationality of your heinous movement will be unmasked. If it really is true that American women make only 77¢ for every dollar earned by a man, then what mysterious creature that is quadrupedal before lunch can suddenly walk upright afterwards? You claim that we live in a patriarchal society that pressures women into specific roles, you say that opportunity of employment and share of child-bearing responsibilities must be egalitarian across gender lines, but the weakness of your logic becomes abundantly clear when you are unable to identify that thing which has different numbers of legs at different times of day.
When you start thinking about it, examples of the total lack of internal reason to the feminist platform are everywhere. If paid maternity leave is so necessary, then how about you put your money where your mouth is and tell us what gets wetter and wetter the more it dries? I simply cannot agree that women, as you claim, deserve easy access to contraception and abortions, without a good explanation for how a man can ride into town on Friday, stay three days, and then leave again on Friday. For all you claim to have rational support for your platform, I doubt that a single member of your movement is prepared to explain what kind of mysterious key opens bananas. Without answers to these simple questions, it’s impossible to believe that society really needs the reforms you demand. I’m just saying, if you want to be taken seriously, you’d better be prepared to demonstrate how it is possible that two fathers and two sons are out fishing, yet only three men are on the boat. Most damning of all, if it’s really true that the mass media perpetuates unrealistic expectations of female beauty, then if the man I met on my way to St. Ives had seven wives, each of whom had seven sacks, each of which had seven cats, then how many were going to St. Ives?
Well, feminists, I’ve said my piece. These simple questions reveal the inherent weakness of your arguments for the necessity of your so-called gender equality movement. Unless you have some magical explanation for the clearly impossible situation of a father rushing his son to the hospital after a bike accident, only for the doctor to say “I cannot operate on this boy — he is my son!” I will be forced to conclude that there is no truth to any of the phenomena you purport to describe.
-NP ’21
