Critics: Keith Urban Song ‘Female’ is Transphobic, Mansplains, and Too Heavy on Biblical References

Last night at the CMA’s, country music singer Keith Urban performed a new song called “Female.”

https://twitter.com/CountryMusic/status/928473236114882560

The singer was inspired to produce and release this song immediately, especially in wake of revelations in Hollywood involving serial creep Harvey Weinstein. Urban was inspired by those speaking out against Weinstein— particularly the females. Urban is married to Academy Award-winning actress and fellow Aussie Nicole Kidman, who has worked closely with Weinstein in the past.

What inspired him to grab onto the song? Him being surrounded by strong women in both his personal and professional life:

“As a husband and a father of two young girls, it affects me in a lot of ways,” Urban told Billboard earlier. “And as a son — my mother is alive. It just speaks to all of the females in my life, particularly. For a guy who grew up with no sisters in a house of boys, it’s incredible how now I’m surrounded by girls. But not only in my house; I employ a huge amount of women in my team. The song just hit me for so many reasons.”

Here’s what he told reporters at the awards ceremony last night:

“When I heard this song, I felt very strong about the spirit in the song,” Urban told Fox News on the red carpet at the 51st Country Music Associated Awards.

“I’m in the middle of making my record but when I heard that song, I just pushed everything to the side,” he told us.

“I said, ‘I really want to record this song right now.”

Take a listen to the song for yourself:

Urban touches upon the various, multifaceted roles women take. As the lyrics note:

“Sister, shoulder, daughter, lover

Healer, broken halo, mother

Nature, fire, suit of armor

Soul survivor, holy water

Secret keeper, fortune teller

Virgin Mary, scarlet letter

technicolor, river wild

Baby girl, woman child/Female.”

I see nothing wrong with this, but many critics assert he’s mansplaining about sexual harassment, is transphobic assigning women with the female gender, and inserting Biblical references.

The Verge thought it was weird for Urban, a practicing Catholic, to reference Adam and Eve in his song “Female”:

When somebody laughs and implies that she asked for it

Just cause she was wearing a skirt

Now is that how it works?

When somebody talks about how it was Adam first

Does that make you second best?

Or did he save the best for last?

There are no annotations on this verse yet, either. I’m not sure what’s stopping people from wading in here. Maybe it’s Keith’s choice to put sexual assault on the same plane as vaguely rude readings of Bible stories? Maybe it’s the insertion of creationism into a song that is otherwise not really about disproved science?

A man who respects women believes they are made in the image of God, but how dare they be told they differ in biology yet play an important role in complementing men? Blasphemous!

One Twitter user suggested Urban keep his mouth shut on women because not all women are females. Huh?

The tweet has since been deleted, but women were rightfully quick to criticize this idiotic tweet.

 

However, the song was generally well-received:

Of all the musical genres out there, country music is the most transcendent and uplifting out there — even with the bro-country and pop-country that has emerged in recent years. Country music hasn’t become tainted like rap or pop has, so many so-called cultural critics who seek to restructure politics are eager to taint good music too. Leave country music alone!

Urban should be applauded for writing a song about true female empowerment. Strong women are usually supported by strong men. Men must be equally uplifted and should be acknowledged when they condemn piggish behavior by other individuals belonging to the same gender.

I, for one, will play “Female” on a regular basis and hope you do too.

Feminist, Terrorist; Potato, Potahto: Day Without a Woman Organizer Rasmea Yousef Odeh Deported

The feminist movement (and a good bit of the transsexual wing of the LGBT movement) has been thoroughly hijacked by terrorists, criminals and virulent Jew-haters. The only difference between the Charlottesville Nazis and Rasmea Yousef Odeh’s marchers is in their haircuts and addition of a vagina hat.

From the Washington Times back in March:

Convicted Palestinian terrorist Rasmea Yousef Odeh, an organizer of a Day Without a Woman, has agreed to leave the country in exchange for no jail time for failing to disclose the conviction on her U.S. visa application.

And the day of her departure finally came Tuesday.

She’s been stripped of her citizenship and put on a plane out of O’Hare for Jordan, where she’ll join convicted terrorist murderer Ahlam Tamimi, the mastermind of the Sbarro Pizzeria Massacre.

(Legal Insurrection)

I won’t include the disgustingly fond farewells and loving sendoff Odeh received from her fellow Jew-hating and Israel-bashing contingent, but you can see it in the link above.

The disgusting Chicago Tribune referred to Odeh as a “Palestinian activist.” I guess their brand of activism includes murder (unless they can pin it on a conservative).

As a member of the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine terrorist group, Odeh was involved in the bombing of a Jerusalem supermarket in 1969, in which the 21-year-old Leon Kanner and 22-year-old Edward Joffe were killed and nine others were injured. She was sentenced to life in prison by an Israeli court in 1970, but served 10 years, being released in 1980 as part of a prisoner exchange. 

Life in prison, but got out because other terrorists kidnapped Israelis to bargain for her. But all’s fair in “activism,” huh?

Odeh is headed to her new home, Jordan, which straddles the line between harboring known terrorists and friendly cooperation with Israel. The Hashemite King Abdullah II has few friends in the Middle East and runs a fairly westernized country (Saudi Arabia fears the Hashemite throne the al-Sauds overthrew nearly a century ago, Iraq is under Iran’s spell, Syria is a mess). All that to say that Odeh will live a nice life there, compared to, say, Riyadh or Gaza.

Feminism isn’t on the top of the list of freedoms in Muslim countries however, so her “Day Without a Woman” efforts likely won’t be repeated in her new environs.

If only Linda Sarsour could be deported next (won’t happen). But maybe feminists will begin to wake up to their commitment to “intersectional” causes and how they’re being played by evil forces who have nothing invested in actual women’s rights.

As for Odeh: Good riddance!

Joss Whedon’s Feminism Indulgence




Joss Whedon used to be a fun follow on Twitter.  Oh sure, we all knew he was a lefty and you’d have to put up with the occasional political aside, but for the most part his tweets were a lot like the dialogue he gave to his iconic creations like Buffy Summers and Jayne Cobb:  smart, snarky and laced with the kind of wit that made you wish you’d written them yourself.  Then came Avengers: Age of Ultron, in which Whedon had the temerity to portray Natasha Romanov (aka Black Widow) as emotionally vulnerable, ready for a loving relationship with Bruce Banner and regretful that her Russian handlers from her days as an assassin had rendered her unable to have children.  Of course the feminist trolls descended upon Whedon after that, accusing him of marginalizing a strong woman and making her weak.  In their view, you see, women don’t need men and they sure as hell don’t need kids, and by showing Romanov as wanting those things Whedon might as well have written her as spending the whole movie in the kitchen, barefoot and pregnant.  He had betrayed the cause, and there was no forgiving that.

You see that sort of thing a lot on social media, internet nobodies trying to make a name for themselves by claiming the scalp of a celebrity.  In Whedon’s case, though, the criticism obviously stung.  Disillusioned, he dropped off Twitter completely, another victim of the internet thought police.  Most of his fans thought he was gone for good, and although they were sad nobody could blame him.  After all, if a guy with the progressive bona fides of Joss Whedon could be forced out by the social justice horde, how could anyone be safe?



Well, the self-imposed Twitter exile was only temporary–and when Whedon came back, it really looked like he was out to reclaim his spot among the leftist elite.  His tweets got more and more political, and with that his bitterness only seemed to grow.  It got so bad that at one point, he even cracked a tasteless joke suggesting that some teenage girls who had been photographed meeting with Paul Ryan were “not a 10”–only to find out later that the girls were, in fact, cancer survivors.  He later issued a half-hearted apology for the gaffe, but it never slowed him down.  If there was an opportunity to demonize Republicans for their misogyny or praise Planned Parenthood for elevating women, you could be sure that Whedon would be there with a tweet.  He might as well have taken out a full-page ad in Variety that said, “See?  Look at how much of a woke feminist I am!  Won’t you take me back, pretty please?”

The tactic must have worked, because I haven’t heard much lately about Whedon getting attacked for the way he wrote a Marvel Comics character in a movie that the feminists who came after him probably didn’t see.  But there is another piece of news that suggests that Whedon’s feminist pose actually had another purpose–one far more personal.  Kai Cole, who recently divorced Whedon, felt that it was important enough to make public, and so she took to the pages of The Wrap earlier this week to explain why:

There were times in our relationship that I was uncomfortable with the attention Joss paid other women. He always had a lot of female friends, but he told me it was because his mother raised him as a feminist, so he just liked women better. He said he admired and respected females, he didn’t lust after them. I believed him and trusted him. On the set of “Buffy,” Joss decided to have his first secret affair.

Fifteen years later, when he was done with our marriage and finally ready to tell the truth, he wrote me, “When I was running ‘Buffy,’ I was surrounded by beautiful, needy, aggressive young women. It felt like I had a disease, like something from a Greek myth. Suddenly I am a powerful producer and the world is laid out at my feet and I can’t touch it.” But he did touch it. He said he understood, “I would have to lie — or conceal some part of the truth — for the rest of my life,” but he did it anyway, hoping that first affair, “would be ENOUGH, that THEN we could move on and outlast it.”

Joss admitted that for the next decade and a half, he hid multiple affairs and a number of inappropriate emotional ones that he had with his actresses, co-workers, fans and friends, while he stayed married to me. He wrote me a letter when our marriage was falling apart, but I still didn’t know the whole truth, and said, “I’ve never loved anyone or wanted to be with anyone in any real or long-term way except for you ever. And I love our life. I love how you are, how we are, who you are and what we’ve done both separately and together, how much fun we have…” He wanted it all; he didn’t want to choose, so he accepted the duality as a part of his life…

Despite understanding, on some level, that what he was doing was wrong, he never conceded the hypocrisy of being out in the world preaching feminist ideals, while at the same time, taking away my right to make choices for my life and my body based on the truth. He deceived me for 15 years, so he could have everything he wanted. I believed, everyone believed, that he was one of the good guys, committed to fighting for women’s rights, committed to our marriage, and to the women he worked with. But I now see how he used his relationship with me as a shield, both during and after our marriage, so no one would question his relationships with other women or scrutinize his writing as anything other than feminist.

So basically, Whedon’s ex-wife is saying that when it came right down to it, he was no different from any of the casting-couch producers and directors that we’ve heard so much about in Hollywood–men who, because of their influential positions, leverage their power to get sex from beautiful young women who see that as the quickest way to rise to stardom.  That is not the mark of a man who respects women.  No true feminist male would allow a woman to debase herself that way, not even if she’s “needy” and “aggressive” as Whedon describes.  And no true feminist male would humiliate his wife that way, breaking his marriage vows simply because infidelity is there for easy plucking.

In that context, it’s easy to see why Whedon has struck such a radical feminist pose on Twitter.  Centuries ago, sinners would go to the Church to be granted an indulgence:  for a sum of money, they would be forgiven their sin–sometimes in advance–and would thus believe themselves forgiven in the eyes of God, even if there was no repentance.  If what his ex-wife is saying is true, Joss Whedon’s feminism sounds a lot like the same thing.  By professing all the correct beliefs, and proclaiming them loudly at the altar of social media, he buys off responsibility for his own bad behavior.  More than that, he can feel free to continue with that behavior while keeping a clear conscience.

Except that life doesn’t work that way.  When hearts get broken, when love is betrayed, there’s always a reckoning.  With his penchant for drama, Whedon of all people should understand that.

 

Feminists Are Running Out Of Causes To Fight For

The first women’s rights convention was held in 1848 in Seneca Falls, New York. It organized an army of civil rights activists who fought for female suffrage and equality under the law. In 1920, after years of struggle and protest, the 19th Amendment to the Constitution came to fruition. The cause was just and worth fighting for.

In 2017, Buzzfeed featured women who painted pictures using only their menstrual blood. The cause: to break the stigma that periods are gross.

How did we get here?

To start off, the video by Ladylike was completely serious (I will add a link to anyone brave enough to watch it, but I won’t be featuring it in this post). The idea of painting with menstrual blood was first thought up as a way to – you guessed it – protest President Trump. The two interviewers, Chantel and Devin, featured a woman who used her blood painting to protest Trump’s treatment of Megyn Kelly. The women then decided to take the idea and run with it. They collected their painting “material” inside a mason jar and kept in a fridge until it was time. Chantel painted chocolate chip cookies and Devin expressed her creativity by painting a bottle of wine. The article goes into extreme detail about the process – even describing the texture and horrid smell as they underwent the process.

After they were done and displayed their artwork, the girls described the experience as “liberating” and “empowering” …Yes, they felt emancipated by smearing period blood on a white canvass.

How could an act such as this become a symbol of female empowerment?

Gone are the days when Susan B. Anthony lobbied Congress to give every woman the right to vote and have a voice in their government. Her work led to real improvements for the lives of women in the workplace and at home. She fought against real injustices and championed causes that have stood the test of time. Even after her death, leaders after her have also made great strides for women… but what happens when you are finally in equal footing with your male counterparts?

This is what happens when you yearn for a cause to fight for – but you are already allotted every civil right in existence. You start making up rights. In the eyes of the writers at Buzzfeed, that right is to make everyone accept period blood as something totally beautiful.

Make no mistake about it – anything related to blood is unsettling. Most everyone finds it to be unpleasant when it’s outside our bodies. I guess I’m allowed to say that because blood (generally speaking) is identifiable to both men and women. But once we specify menstrual blood, it then becomes a connotation of the female gender – and thus becomes a subject of social injustice.

Protesting for a legitimate social cause is something to be proud of. However, committing a gross act for the simple sake of virtue signaling is just ridiculous. I write this as a man, so I can only speak so much in the name of women, but I personally have a very hard time believing women feel oppressed because society finds menstrual blood icky. I just don’t see the subjugation there.

The writers at Buzzfeed need to get a grip.

 

The Trend Of Sologamy Demonstrates The Despair In The Lives Of Selfish People

Single feminists want to have their cake and eat it too, and this case it’s a wedding cake. Some women who want to put their career first but are tired of others asking them why they are still single are engaging in a totally self-serving act – marrying themselves. It’s called sologamy, and it’s a new trend that’s both laughable and sad.

Take Erika Anderson, for example. Last year, the professional from Brooklyn (surprise, surprise) married herself in a ceremony that resembled a real marriage ceremony:

“I would describe it as women saying yes to themselves,” Anderson said. “It means that we are enough, even if we are not partnered with someone else.”

In many ways, the 37-year-old bride looked like any other on her wedding day. She wore a white dress and had a bouquet. Anderson looked stunning with the Brooklyn bridge and New York City skyline behind her.

Except when she walked down the aisle, no one was waiting for her. That’s just the way she wanted it.

Anderson sees it as “celebrating independence” and saying, “You’re worth it!” She also apparently took the sologamy plunge as a great big “shut up” to the family and friends who kept asking her why she was still single. By the way, she’s still dating and open to a traditional marriage. Does that mean she’s cheating on herself?

Sologamy has become a bit of a cottage industry, with websites springing up selling self-marriage kits (complete with rings and self-affirmation cards) and offering consultation and photography services. Hooray for capitalism, I suppose, but I want to retch at the notion of “micro-moments of positivity [that] add up, creating an upward spiral.”

Maybe it’s because, even though I’m single, I find fulfillment among my family and friends, my ministry team, my job, and – most importantly – through Jesus, but I can’t help but see the concept of sologamy as representative of utter selfishness. I haven’t found the right woman yet, but I don’t need a ring or an attention-drawing ceremony or self-affirmation cards to know my purpose or worth in this world. Through Jesus and healthy relationships with others I’ve learned to be content no matter what stage of life God has me in.

There’s obviously something missing in the life of somebody who sees a totally symbolic ceremony that serves primarily to garner attention as the answer to life’s problems. There are so many ways to feel your worth in this world. Join a church or synagogue. Get involved with a non-profit. Serve people in need. Invite friends over for dinner. Focusing on others draws attention away from the self and creates a healthier outlook on life. Marrying yourself just telegraphs your unhealthiness to the world.

Apparently Capitalism is to Blame for Feminist Business Flops

Feminist-run businesses are largely failing. Why? Because capitalism, friends!

The article’s author, GetBullish founder Jennifer Dziura, describes her company as “an organization that provides career and ladybiz resources from a feminist perspective and offers a feminist web shop.” She focuses and examines the failures of three feminist-run businesses in the last year or so–a scandal at Thinx, the bankruptcy of Nasty Gal (famous for the #GirlBoss mantra), and the sale of Modcloth to Wal-Mart. Although the author favors Scandinavian-style socialism, she doesn’t lay the blame entirely on one company’s fall from grace – Thinx-  on capitalism. She writes:

The charges against Miki Agrawal, former CEO of period underwear company Thinx, are numerous and varied, from not giving enough fully paid maternity leave (more than common at startups, and a problem I think we ought to handle at the national level, like every other developed nation) – to allegedly groping an employee’s breasts, getting naked in the office, and conducting FaceTime meetings from the toilet. These things are not good or normal in any type of workplace.

One writer blamed the whole thing on capitalism, claiming these problems could have been avoided had Agrawal instead started a “workers’ collective.” Le sigh. Really? It seems so tedious for me to even type out the entirely obvious reasons that an entrepreneur wouldn’t invest her entire savings, call in every favor, risk her financial future, work long hours for no pay, etc., to build a workers’ collective. I mean, you can if you want. It would be a lovely thing to do. But no cool and interesting products that I know of are currently produced – much less invented by – workers’ collectives. Let’s not lose sight of the fact that Thinx period panties are great. They work very well for a lot of people. They’re a game changer, a lifestyle enhancer, and even a money saver for some.

It must have been very hard for this feminist to admit that free enterprise isn’t always to blame for a company’s failure. (At least we’ll give credit where credit is due.)

However, it’s important to note why feminist-minded businesses are failing. First, they are niche-markets without much global appeal. (Harvard Business Review noted in 2014 that exploiting feminism in marketing can be a major turn-off.) Second, companies with overt political agendas alienate consumers most. And third, market forces will root out poorly-run companies who boast a bad business model. Bad news for these companies: feminism–particularly third-wave feminism– is still largely unpopular.

I have no qualms with women-run businesses. (I’m a self-employed female in the process of launching my own business very soon.) However, basing your company on an impractical business model–a la a feminist one–is largely doomed to fail. (This also happens in companies dominated by men.) Businesses aren’t immune to disaster nor should they be, which is why government should never get fully entangled in them.

Perhaps from their failures, these women will learn that “sticking it to the man” doesn’t come without consequences. Stop making business political–plain and simple.

 

Feminism Is Bullcrap and Chelsea Clinton is Proof

Feminism, I thought, meant that men and women would receive equal treatment and through hard work and merit both men and women can succeed.

I’m beginning to think this is a load of crap, given the feminist celebration of Chelsea Clinton.

I’m sure Chelsea is a wonderful person. She seems kind and caring and a good mother and loyal, loving daughter. But her singular accomplishment is being in the lucky sperm club.

Her father was President of the United States and her mother was a First Lady who rode her husband’s coat tails into the United States Senate before trying to ride her own accomplishments into the White House and failing spectacularly.

Now that Hillary Clinton has cratered and just as some Democrats are starting to admit her campaign was terrible, her speeches were terrible, her staff was terrible, and her strategy was terrible, the left is trotting out Chelsea Clinton as some sort of feminist hero to distract everyone no longer bitterly clinging to Russian conspiracy theories.

She has a book out for girls that liberals are falling all over themselves to buy.

She is now on the cover of Variety’s “Power of Women NY.”

This is not feminism, but aristocracy and cult. Chelsea Clinton has done nothing of her own merit. Even her hiring by NBC was more about her last name than her talent. She received ample critical reviews, but NBC renewed her contract and was paying her $600,000.00 in salary.

If Chelsea Clinton is some sort of feminist role model or hero, which she is being touted as, then feminism really is superficial victimology, readily worshipping at the door of the lucky sperm club so long as the right egg is fertilized and does not get aborted.

Now We Know Why So Many Feminists Are Humorless, Bitter, and Ugly Hearted

While I was on vacation last week, it became apparent that we now have the answer for why so many American feminists are humorless, bitter, and ugly hearted. The nasty reaction of so many shrill single women who cannot get dates and the beta male footstools for the few who can to Mike Pence prioritizing the sanctity of his marriage explains it all.

Conservative women, it seems, can get ahead without having to take the boss out one on one for drinks, but feminists apparently are incapable of getting ahead in the office without trying to seduce their married male boss at a one-on-one drink fest.

That is the accusation — that women are at a disadvantage in Mike Pence’s office because he won’t go drinking one on one with them. Pay no attention to the fact that this is not true. Pence has always had a number of high profile female employees. On top of that, Pence does not go out with the guys either.

But cue the outrage over Pence valuing fidelity to his wife over letting feminists embarrass themselves.

The thing that made the outrage so spectacular is that the most outraged people are people who do not even respect marriage. The outrage came from a bunch of single, divorced, and adulterous liberals. People who really value their marriage and marital integrity barely batted an eyelash.

In fact, a lot of what is going on here is that the adulterers and feminists outraged by Mike Pence’s private behavior loathe him and his behavior because his behavior shames them. Let’s not kid ourselves. A number of the most outraged are people who have publicly been exposed for adultery.

As a friend of mine noted, “in under six months, the American left has pivoted effortlessly from denouncing a man for being a bad husband to denouncing a man for being a good one.”

Again though, now we see why the feminists are so upset. They presume they have to have one on one drinking time with their married boss to get ahead. I’d probably be a shrill, humorless, ugly hearted person too if I thought I had to sleep my way into a better job because otherwise no one would recognize my talent.

Lucky for the women of America, our present Vice President recognizing the talents of his male and female staffers through their work product, not through their private dining.