“He sees you when you’re sleeping; he knows when you’re awake.
He knows if you’ve been bad or good…”
excerpt from “Santa Claus Is Coming to Town”
Well, it isn’t as if we couldn’t see this coming from a mile away. Liberals have gone Santa one better. They know what you are thinking. They know that looking is bad, if the looking is being done by men looking at women. And Liberals want something done about it. Pronto.
Early this week The Daily Caller brought attention to a study published in the December edition of Springer Link. The unambiguous title of the paper is “My Eyes Are Up Here: The Nature of the Objectifying Gaze Toward Women.” The data was compiled by examining 29 women and 36 men from “one Midwestern University.” The Daily Caller was quick to deride this ludicrous push by Progressives to manage human behavior: “This is the kind of study MSNBC commentators can hold up when they’re talking about ‘rape culture’…Pretty soon, looking at a woman’s chest will legally be a ‘hate’ crime instead of a love crime.” Well-deserved snarkiness aside, the last sentence is significant because, for a very long time, Liberals have manufactured an all-out assault to make sexuality a “hate” crime. Unless it is gay sexuality. Heterosexual courtship now requires a “may I?”questionnaire or a male may risk prosecution should the damsel involved later suffer buyer’s remorse. But The Daily Caller missed a key point while crafting their punch line. Looking at other human beings shouldn’t be considered a love crime. It isn’t a crime at all.
The “research” abstract is currently being brandished by the left with its usual, sanctimonious fervor. The abstract states its purpose in its first sentence: “Although objectification theory suggests that women frequently experience the objectifying gaze with many adverse consequences, there is scant research examining the nature and causes of the objectifying gaze for perceivers…” Suggests that “women frequently experience the objectifying gaze with many adverse consequence?” Seriously? And they came to that conclusion by examining 29 female coeds and their 36 male counterparts, all from the same university? The allegation of “adverse consequences” is an assumption of fact but, like everything Liberals insist be true, the assertion is never proven. Just the declaration is enough to make it factual. More important is the phrase that immediately follows: “…there is scant research examining the nature and causes of the objectifying gaze for perceivers…” In short they affirm, with the same wishful thinking, nobody knows why men look at women. But we do know. It’s called genetic coding. Males have sized up females, and vice versa, for as long as there have been mammals with eyes. That’s why we are still around as a species. Studies of several species, including human, prove that females discriminate visually more than males do; but Liberals avoid that inconvenient side of the coin. Liberal doctrine dictates that male sexuality be transmogrified into a punishable offense in order that women become victims. Being a woman I find this an unforgivable insult.
There are no longer any brakes when it comes to Liberals demanding what they want regardless of how far-fetched or egregious. Scheming to regulate as much of human nature as possible, the next logical step for Liberals would be a demand to poke out men’s eyes altogether. Should that happen Santa, being male, had better beware; he would no longer be able see much of anything.