ESPN to Men: ‘No Man, No Problem’
ESPN is the new Democratic Party, and female privilege is the new equality.
January 22, 2011 - 12:04 am
The rampant decline both of society and our personal liberties can be partially explained by O’Sullivan’s First Law. Named after conservative luminary John O’Sullivan, it states: “All organizations that are not actually right-wing will over time become left-wing.” In regards to an organization like ESPN, recent events have confirmed the validity of his hypothesis. The network was not formed with politics in mind. Perhaps that explains why a cable channel, supposedly devoted to activities that predominantly appeal to men, over time became a wayward cauldron of political correctness. While absurd, this fact would come as no surprise to Andrew Carnegie and Henry Ford. The foundations that the two deceased capitalists created have morphed into institutions that pander and fund radicalism. Similarly, the news concerning the Entertainment and Sports Programming Network has gone from ugly to Behar in just a few short years.
That most men love sports is common knowledge. It is also common knowledge that most males do not feel affection for political correctness. Therefore, like SpikeTV, ESPN should have either no relationship or an adversarial relationship with the totalitarian virus known as cultural Marxism. Sadly, they do not.
ESPN is as cozy with PC as feminists are with the WNBA. Since the autumn of 2003, when the network set up and humiliated Rush Limbaugh, watching the 24/7 sports channel has been a conflicted pleasure for conservatives.
This was stated without a Wasserman’s worth of evidence. However, that reporter still appears on Sundays though history proved Limbaugh’s assessment of Donovan McNabb correct and the racist correspondent’s wrong.
A few years later, ESPN utilized Rule Number One of Political Correctness, “a woman is never wrong,” as justification for expelling baseball commentator Harold Reynolds. The infraction he committed was hugging an intern in a hallway. Seriously. Three weeks later she complained about the event, so aloha meant goodbye for Mr. Reynolds.
You see, a central tenet of PC is that women are oppressed. Thus, should one of them become disgruntled or allegedly disgruntled, some man, somewhere, must pay. Fortunately, Reynolds sued and ESPN settled. American courts have yet to codify the cultural edict “all men are helots.”
Shortly thereafter, the cable channel followed up on its previous egregious treatment of Reynolds by terminating the contract of another baseball analyst, Steve Phillips. Mr. Phillips cheated on his wife with a psycho production assistant. Admittedly, his decision-making and choice of concubines was far from sound, but the weirdness that occurred post-coitus had nothing to do with him.
Why was Phillips fired for having an extramarital affair? Divorce is a predictable outcome, but why would an employer purge an adulterer from its rolls? The plot would have played out differently were he a woman. I cannot think of a situation in which a wife was fired for cheating on her husband. Most likely none ever occur.
Holding men to a higher standard — while trumpeting the manufactured illusion of female superiority — is an integral component of PC. Its philosophical line: women good, men bad. It must be that way … in the name of equality.
In the advent of a dispute between a particular man and woman, presumption favors the woman. Despite society’s blatant tilting of the gender playing field, articles consistently announce how superfluous men are to society. Indeed, we approach “the end of men.” Alas, no end to female privilege is in sight.
Interestingly enough, no misandrists in the press attribute the recent successes of women to predatory anti-male sexual harassment laws or state-sponsored employment discrimination against men. In 2011, a sane man who asks women out at work or verbally spars with them is a man who won the lotto the day before.
If women are humanity’s “sacred band,” it’s rather puzzling that the Leviathan automatically caters to feminists’ every demand. Gods do not normally require federal assistance … for nearly everything.