With the troglodytic comments that the nominee to SCOTUS could underperform when menstruating. Hard to defend.
It's here:
The Reaction: Craziest Conservative of the Day: G. Gordon Liddy
But it's funny male banter. I think there used to be a lot more of it in the 1950s and 1960s. Now we all monitor our speech in a way that's unthinkable just a couple of generations ago. And who knows, there may be a measure of truth to it:
SpringerLink - Journal Article It concerns social scientists enough that there have been multiple studies on it.
I remember hearing in some news source a couple of years ago that menstruating women were more apt to have accidents. Vicious stereotype? I've long since accommodated to the realization that most stereotypes are based on at least some measure of truth.
My wife hated it when I could spot hers solely by her changed behavior. Pun intended. I suspect women are more apt to consider this possible than men, however.
Larger question: Why should biology follow egalitarian beliefs?
Yet, have we become men without chests, so politically correct that we can't engage in "free, sharp, or violently worded expressions of public discontent" (Winston Churchill's words quoted recently in a BBC interview with talk show host Michael Savage)? Quote can be sourced here:
Winston Churchill - Kourosh Tari
People today have no idea how risky it was for our strongly worded Declaration of Independence, when it directly criticized the king in strong language. It was heady stuff by our Founding Fathers.
The First Amendment is there to protect unpopular speech. Rather than call people names, why not call and confront them? Take on their odious ideas?
Liddy is far more formidable, even at 78, than most on the Left would like to give him credit for. He's on the air for three hours every weekday. One can call tollfree.
But the lefty bloggers may not come off as well as they would like. It's much easier to name call from afar. You can listen to him yourself if you want:
G. Gordon Liddy Podcast