Aerosmith - again?

The awful "hair band" called "Aerosmith" is back in the news again.  We remembered how Mr. Tyler did awful National Anthems at major events that caught those of us who sing.

But this time, one of their songs is in the news.

In Los Angeles, at the StubHub Center complex, the women's track cycling UCI World Masters Championship has drawn the ire of many as a college professor -- a man who claims to be a woman -- won the Women's 35-39 group.  

This time, that awful song from Aerosmith, "Dude (Looks Like a Lady)," rings true.  The winner was a "Dude (looks like a lady)," and the real ladies lost.  This is Obergefell's "right to dignity" at its worst again.  Remember Dale Saran's warning in Jonsson v. CrossFit, which the Dude (Looks Like a Lady) won primarily because of Obergefell and the Exxon Mobil Payback.

"The fundamental, ineluctable fact is that a male competitor who has a sex reassignment procedure still has a genetic makeup that confers a physical and physiological advantage over women."

What gives?  Avery Brundage and Dale Saran were right.  How come a few judges reminiscent of that book in the Bible where they do what feels right in their heart have rights nobody else has?

The odds are against them

A few years ago I wrote a piece called "Is Art a Masculine Thing?", which you can read here. I thought it was a timely piece then, and I think it still is today, so it's no surprise I'd be drawn to Dreher's article from a couple of days ago on why young men of faith are seemingly drawn to the alt-Right. The short answer, and in light of today's culture it shouldn't be surprising, is that these groups offer them the chance for something they aren't getting anywhere else.

It isn't often that I tell you simply to go somewhere and read an article without elaborating on it myself, but that's pretty much what I'm going to do here. It's partly because I don't have enough time to do it justice, but mostly because it's hard to pick and choose when the whole thing makes a unified argument. I'll give you one part of it to go on, then the rest's up to you:

They are boys searching for meaning and purpose. They wish to be warriors, but they see no dragons to slay. They want to be heroes, but they can find no one to save. Instead, they are told that they are the monsters, it is they from whom others must be saved. If they want to do their part, they can kindly walk to a dark corner, sit down, be quiet, and wait to die. If they want a few bonus points, a few nods of approvals from their masters (who are overwhelmingly all women, K-12), they can turn traitor against their sex, and ritually abase themselves and beg penance for the sins of all men. They can read stories and write essays about weak men and strong women. They can write poems about evil men and victimized, and therefore virtuous, women. They can be “allies”, second-class citizens in the righteous war against patriarchy, and seek whatever scraps of meaning they can find from slandering their own fathers and grandfathers

[...]

By contrast, girls are actively encouraged at every opportunity. Girls are constantly told to be more confident, to speak more often and more loudly, to be a leader, to be rebellious. There are camps, scholarships, guest speakers, and STEM workshops, all for girls only. It’s a 24/7 pep rally. Obedient women don’t make history, et cetera. The boys grow more sullen, and the girls grow more contemptuous of boys.

Surely that's provocative enough for you to read more, isn't it?