The "politically correct" is that bizarre thing invented by that bizarre nation who not consider uncivilized for have exterminated the Native American Indians and to have enslaved 12 million of Africans, as well as to be the biggest meat eaters in the planet and the largest arms manufacturers in the world and the largest producers of pornographic cinematography of Earth, but that claims that is uncivilized do not build special latrines for a man that he feels a woman.
The "politically correct" is that magic thing for which, if you find that is undernourished a child, son of vegans, in the mass-media will entitles "undernourished child, son of vegans", but if, instead, if you find that is undernourished a child, son of omnivorous, in the mass-media will entitles, simply, "undernourished child".
The "politically correct" is that mysterious thing for which, if a policeman so-called white kills a so-called black, in the mass-media will titles "racially motivated murder" (maybe it is indeed true!), but if, instead, a so-called black he rapes and kills a underage so-called white, in the mass-media will titles, simply, "murder".
The "politically correct" is that smart thing for which, when the newspapers report the news of a murder, they also write "the murderer is being sought" (in the masculine, and never in the feminine).
The "politically correct" is that enigmatic thing for which the same people who believe it's racist any attempt of sociological statistical analysis of the "blacks" as an group, then defend the "blacks" as group against discrimination.
The "politically correct" is that fanciful thing for which, if a man kills a woman or her daughter, you speaks of "femicide", but where if a woman kills a man who speaks of "murder" and if kills the son, you speaks of "infanticide" (it would be interesting see, in percentage, how many murders of child are committed by women, and always in percentage, how many times at the expense of male children).
The "politically correct" is this ingenious thing for which a female chairman wants to be called "chairwoman", but if then she supports the gender theory and if one feels a man, he may expect to be called "chairman", or, if one feels to not belong to any gender in a prevailing way, she might expect to be called "chairperson". So, in order not to be sexist according to these genialoids, you must not only guess what is the biological sex one of your interlocutor, but also what is his psychological sex and if there is a his prevalent sexual psychological identity.
The "politically correct" is this weird thing for which if a 38-year-old female Professor fucks her own 15-year-old student (wich, later, to become the President of the French Republic...), there is talk of "love", but for effect of which, in the same situation with inverted sexes, would exploded a ruckus and the man would have ended right in jail (after having suffered every sort of insult from the feminists and the hard moral contempt from the Media).
The "politically correct" is that hypocritical thing for which one speaks of "Homophobia" but pretending not to understand that is being talked a nonsense. "Homophobia" means letterally "irrational fear and aversion to homosexuality, bisexuality and prejudice-based transsexuality". Now, it is clear even to a moron that no one has "fear" of homosexuality or bisexuality or transexuality. Therefore, excluding the "fear" because practically non-existent in nature, I would like to know who the fuck is able objectively to establish that an "aversion" (the second residual option) towards homosexuality or bisexuality or transsexuality is based on "prejudice": it is obvious that nobody is able to establish it, and that, therefore, whoever refers to this subspecies of alleged "homophobia" reasons himself in virtue of a prejudice.
The "politically correct" is that ridiculous thing for which, if a large part of the public in a stadium give of the "cuckold" to a male referee nobody has anything to say, but if a few individuals give of the "whore" to a female referee all newspapers they writes an infinity of shocked articles.
The "politically correct" is that enigmatic thing for which the same people who believe it's racist any attempt of sociological statistical analysis of the "blacks" as an group, then defend the "blacks" as group against discrimination.
The "politically correct" is that fanciful thing for which, if a man kills a woman or her daughter, you speaks of "femicide", but where if a woman kills a man who speaks of "murder" and if kills the son, you speaks of "infanticide" (it would be interesting see, in percentage, how many murders of child are committed by women, and always in percentage, how many times at the expense of male children).
The "politically correct" is this ingenious thing for which a female chairman wants to be called "chairwoman", but if then she supports the gender theory and if one feels a man, he may expect to be called "chairman", or, if one feels to not belong to any gender in a prevailing way, she might expect to be called "chairperson". So, in order not to be sexist according to these genialoids, you must not only guess what is the biological sex one of your interlocutor, but also what is his psychological sex and if there is a his prevalent sexual psychological identity.
The "politically correct" is this weird thing for which if a 38-year-old female Professor fucks her own 15-year-old student (wich, later, to become the President of the French Republic...), there is talk of "love", but for effect of which, in the same situation with inverted sexes, would exploded a ruckus and the man would have ended right in jail (after having suffered every sort of insult from the feminists and the hard moral contempt from the Media).
The "politically correct" is that hypocritical thing for which one speaks of "Homophobia" but pretending not to understand that is being talked a nonsense. "Homophobia" means letterally "irrational fear and aversion to homosexuality, bisexuality and prejudice-based transsexuality". Now, it is clear even to a moron that no one has "fear" of homosexuality or bisexuality or transexuality. Therefore, excluding the "fear" because practically non-existent in nature, I would like to know who the fuck is able objectively to establish that an "aversion" (the second residual option) towards homosexuality or bisexuality or transsexuality is based on "prejudice": it is obvious that nobody is able to establish it, and that, therefore, whoever refers to this subspecies of alleged "homophobia" reasons himself in virtue of a prejudice.
The "politically correct" is that ridiculous thing for which, if a large part of the public in a stadium give of the "cuckold" to a male referee nobody has anything to say, but if a few individuals give of the "whore" to a female referee all newspapers they writes an infinity of shocked articles.
The "politically correct" is that honesty thing for which, a female Lawyer colleague of mine, a Lawyer, can appear in court before the judge wearing a open blouse and a mini skirt, but I, a male lawyer, cannot show up in shorts and I also have to wear a tie.
The "politically correct" is that infinite idiocy for wich Silvio Berlusconi that defines (moreover face to face) Obama "beautiful and tanned" is "racist", but Barack Obama that defines Sarkozy (well entrenched behind the Atlantic Ocean) "with dark features ... seems straight out of a painting by Toulouse-Lautrec ... like a dwarf" make (perhaps and only maybe ...) of the mere ... "body shaming".
The "politically correct" is that grotesque sexiste stuff for wich, when a parent kill own child, if this parent is a man, he is portrayed by the Media as bad, prevaricating, overbearing, vengeful, the expression of a violent, coarse, macho and archaic culture, while if this parent is the mother who killed her son, she is described by the Media as exhausted, stressed, crazy, psychically weak, depressed, left alone by her husband to manage the weight of her son, etc. ...
The "politically correct" is that cruel thing for which they tell you that it is incorrect to call someone "handicapped" (that is, literally "disadvantaged"), and that, on the contrary, correctness requires you to call that same individual "disabled" (that is, literally "lacking in ability).
The "politically correct" is that crazy thing for which Emanuel Cleaver, a Protestant pastor elected by the U.S. Democratic Party to the "House of Representatives" for the state of Missouri, chose to close his prayer, recited at the opening of the 117th Congress, with the words "Amen ... and awomen".
The "politically correct" is that extravagant thing for which Mazda can call "Laputa" an his car, but we we are accustomed to call every whore "Escort" like if she were a Ford.
* * *
We live in an increasingly era, dominated by the ridiculous yankee mindset.
The "Garbage man" is called "Ecological operator".
The "Cleaning lady" is called the "Sanitary consultant".
The whore is called "Escort".
And the aspiring Journalist (failed and semi-literate) calls itself "Blogger".
And, now, is born nothing less than the "Sensuality coach".
"Mother, mother, you who work do you do?" "The Sensuality coach!"
Or, "I break me my back all the day to make the sensuality coach, while you ...".
* * *
I state that, as per Italian official and state source, life expectancy in Italy, in 2019, was still 81.0 years for males and 85.3 years for females.
Therefore, on the basis of these objective and official data, women should retire with a minimum age higher than that of males and, therefore, paying a higher monetary contribution than that of males.
Well, the Italian national legislation not only does not care about the two data set out above, but think diametrically the other way, and, in fact, provides for an early exit from the work it provides for females, regardless of whether these females have completed the function (undoubtedly of general social value) of motherhood, shameful double favorable treatment for them compared to males: the required age for females is 58 years and for males 62 years, and the years of contribution required for are not 35 females and 38 males.
Now, if this is not grossly discriminatory sexist legislation, what fuck is it???
Why don't leftist and feminist associations, always so sensitive to discrimination on the basis of sex, talk about it???
These are the consequences of leftist progressism in random style and of "politically correct" built solely of slogans (all wisely amplified by Media for the ears of simple minds).
* * *
The most famous private university in Roma invited a famous Italian actress to give a speech on gender inequality, and this woman, taking the stage, gave a long, irritated, scandalized, and supposedly insightful speech on the topic, evoking, as an example of it, Snow White's position towards the Seven Dwarfs, in the Grimm Brothers' fairy tale of the same name.
Snow White was portrayed by this actress as exploited by the Seven Dwarfs and limited to a mere supporting role.
The problem was that, if we were to reason along the lines of that actress's logic, we would have noticed how the seven dwarfs all went to the mine every day to provide Snow White with free food and lodging.
And out of eight characters, the seven male characters are all portrayed as ugly and deformed, while the sole female character is portrayed as quite attractive and healthy.
These would already be two clear sexist representations, unfavorable to males and favorable to females.
But since I shy away from sexism (all of it), I'll limit myself to observing that the Italian (and Western) Left has been silent for decades on Afghan girls who are forbidden to get an education, on Afghan widows who are forbidden to work, on the condition of absolute subordination of tens of millions of Muslim women (forced to celebrate a law that allows them to get a driving license and drive as long as they are accompanied by a male), on the condition of hundreds of millions of Indian girls and women "whose life" (as an Indian friend of mine often says) "is worth less than that of a cow", but it celebrates a master class on the female condition of ... Snow White.
