Thanks, Catharine MacKinnon Daily readers

Thanks, Catharine MacKinnon

And yet, dear reader, there are certain elements of so-called Second Wave Feminism (or, as our academic pals call it, Second Wave Feminisms) that really get our dander up. Every once in a great while, we collectively yearn to smack Gloria Steinem.

In fact, perhaps we’ll have one of our female interns—let’s just call her “Chip”—wallop her. We could congratulate her for the pounding with an empowering “You Go, Girl” holler. How’s that for postmodern feminism?

Anyway, dear reader, given our capacious distrust of feminists, it will come as no surprise to you to hear that we particularly detest so-called sexual harassment legislation. As far as we’re concerned, it’s only slightly above Jim Crow in its horridness. And that, friends, is saying something.

Now, dear reader, the females among us—let’s just call them “Chip”—want you to know that the crack young staff is not a passel of budding sex offenders. In fact, “The Hatemonger’s Quarterly” Headquarters is a strikingly anemic, antiseptic place. As far as we can tell—and that’s pretty far—many of the staffers reproduce via fission.

So what, you may or may not be collectively asking yourselves, makes sexual harassment legislation so, in a word, harassing? That’s a darn good question, and it deserves a darn good reply.

Among the sundry contentions attached to the land’s draconian sexual harassment laws is the stipulation that unwanted advances can create something called a “hostile work environment.”

So, let’s get this straight: If you’re a spry lil’ dame working at the local factory and Brad Pitt is your boss, his request for a date is unlikely to cause offense. If your boss happens to be John Madden, however, you are clearly the victim of sexual harassment. In short, Brad Pitt is incapable of sexual harassment; John Madden, on the other hand, is a walking dictionary of the stuff.

Are we, the crack young staff of “The Hatemonger’s Quarterly,” the only people this side of Catharine MacKinnon to conclude that this is a mite unfair? Our feminist friends appear to have made “attempting to date when you’re an ugly man” a heinous crime. Isn’t that a prime example of the cardinal sin of “lookism”?

Why don’t we all agree on one thing, and get all this sexual harassment legislation behind us. No one—and we mean no one—will ever sexually harass Catharine MacKinnon, that wrinkly old prune. Now that she’s “protected” from the indignities of advances by ugly men, can we take those stupid laws off the books?

Or, how about this: To complement our current sexual harassment law, we should add a “No Fat Chicks” clause to the Constitution. That ought to even things out.