In the aftermath of the Virginia gubernatorial election, one thing stands out. The onetime ‘Mona Lisa’ of the website. I love women. I wouldn’t be here without one special individual, and life would be terrible without another one. I feel empowered (to use some ‘issues’ speech) in the current climate to speak of political gender issues, the invitation having been extended by those women who believe that a cabal of men like myself are intriguing against them politically. Peace to you all. I declare an armistice in the ‘War on Women’. I’m taking down my war maps in the situation room and considering the face that once graced the miserable, comic, and concrete embodiment of Obamacare in all its ineffective culture warping fuzzy-headedness.

My first impression when I visited that site and saw Adriana smiling at me as if to say ‘It’s okay! We are all safe now!’ , was that I was seeing a composite of the notional modern female issues voter. Finally, women could relax in the public space because their particular needs regarding security were being addressed by a sensitive male. No, I’m not talking about a husband, I’m talking about a President. Adriana was smiling at me from the cozy front porch of her new house; the federal government. Of course later her image was associated with failure, big government hubris coupled with, yes, I’ll say it – impotence. It turns out that the new daddy has a certain dysfunction when trying to erect a monument to female care. The real woman behind the picture has now been revealed as she came forward to decry ‘bullying’; yet another female fear. Sadly, she was never paid for the picture, even though she works as a professional model, being discarded after she served her purpose. Further, she is actually married, yet appeared single on the government’s polyamoric website. She is a Colombian national, married to a U.S. citizen and has a 21 month old son – also not pictured. None of this national ridicule of her face is her fault. She is the victim of the type of cads and opportunists that prey on women for political gain, and in this case figuratively interposed themselves between her and her rightful protector and family.

In Virginia, Terry McAuliffe, another of these gender issue cads, won a very narrow victory in a once traditional state that now includes more single women requiring a government husband. He won by constantly painting his conservative opponent as one who would expose women to the cold winds of fate, effectively throwing them into the streets where once they lounged on the cushions of the federal harem. McAuliffe campaigned on his steadfast faith in the Obamacare regime, and even though it has exploded on the launch pad, the titanic flaccidity of this ideology was not enough to cause single women to seek real men. Why? Real men are in short supply due to this constant opportunism exerted by political engineers. The less men are needed as protectors, the less they become those protectors. They no longer rise to the occasion.

The original Women’s Issue was of course suffrage, which was extended in the right to vote in the 19th constitutional amendment of 1920. Another Women’s Issue erupted that year however, which is not celebrated. The Volstead Act and the 18th amendment producing prohibition was the first large scale Women’s Issue political movement. Men, accustomed to losing arguments with women, would perhaps be wise to avoid bringing this up, but here safely alone behind my keyboard I will venture a reminder. It seems that men of the time, which was the flowering of the industrial age, would often hit the saloon on the way home from manufacturing buggy whips, spats and monocles. This was understandable due to long hours and boring repetitive tasks necessary to bring home the bacon. Those men would come home inebriated and harmful to the harmony of the home, which at that time was ruled over by women. Do we see a pattern here? Men don’t behave well, and women take action, which causes them to become vulnerable to more men who exploit them, which causes them to take action, and so on. Men, please do what you should, and quit living in perpetual adolescence.

During prohibition, men formed separate societies of lawlessness in order to circumvent the rule of the ladies’ temperance leagues. This happens in homes, where they still exist, when boys that aren’t medicated for being rowdy concoct elaborate schemes to get around the order imposed by their mothers. Fathers are there to enforce these edicts, and in the old days they usually did it with punitive strokes applied to wayward backsides. The message was; Mom rules the house and you should like that, because out in the world things get rough, like this (WHACK). Now, Mom continually tries to turn the world into a household, obviating the actual family and accidentally swallowing all of the roughness of the ‘outside’ into the proposed domicile. Politicians know this.
Hillary Clinton’s recent admonishment to a heckler; “We want to be willing to come together as citizens to focus on the kind of future we want, which doesn’t include yelling,” sounds kind of polite until you wonder what she is going to do to all the yellers. Healthcare, sexual behavior and what is accepted as polite speech all form the ambit of the issues once confined to the house. The caddish ones exploit it with impunity and no one gets spanked, only occasionally jailed.

Now in the middle of a political disaster like Obamacare, I’m reminded of the implications of Women’s Suffrage, Prohibition, and the meaning of an irrational electoral event like the one in Virginia. The collective mentality is born of the idea that by hanging together in a familial relationship we are all safe and happy. The dark side of the family relationship found in codependent situations is amplified in the social herd. It is this dysfunction that allows sexual abuse and exploitation in bad families. When cads who will lie to women to gain their trust propose a federal family, as do the modern Democrats, this same thing occurs causing victims like Adriana the Obamacare Mona Lisa to feel the shame of the morning after.

My humble and chastened wish is that families formed around noble women and protected by vigilant fathers would thrive, and that the cads would return to the saloons where they could bounce their social theories like their social strumpets around with no political impact.