Well, it finally looks like we are going to get a definitive answer to the question that seems to be of supreme importance to the world’s leading intellectuals. That question is, what is a woman? My mother was a woman to my father, and somehow it worked without either one digging deep into the issue.
I’ve got an idea that could save the wokester world a lot of time and effort. Let’s ask Barack Obama to define a woman and, while he’s at it, a man. He recently scolded black men for being reluctant to support Kamala Harris because she’s a woman. He’s got the definitions in mind, so let’s hear them. Bingo, problem solved. He knows the difference.
We will soon get an answer to that question in November, if we aren’t watching skies around the world filled with ICBMs screaming across continents filled with nukes.
In about one month, Court One of the Supreme Court in Britain is to hear presentations. These will guide the five judges to use their infinite wisdom to decide on a definition. I guess the other courts – 2, 3, 4 and 5 – are the JV squads not good enough for the varsity.
Apparently, the guidance from various theologies around the world isn’t good enough for the elite thinkers of our age. How can a master thinker like a judge resign a decision of what is a woman to such childish doctrine written thousands of years ago? Pshaw! Such thoughts.
Today’s elite appear to be satisfied with pond scum evolving into men and women over billions of years. This is a much more plausible process that led to a TV show, “The View,” sustained by creatures that are manifesting as women.
It would be a fascinating discussion to hear the ladies of “The View” define why they were chosen to be members of the panel. It’s a show for women, so they must know what a woman is. They could take a break from blaming hurricanes, earthquakes, pandemics and every disaster on Trump and his deplorable supporters. Someone should ask this question: “Whoopi Goldberg, what is there about you that makes you a woman?” Oh my gosh. You know what, on second thought perhaps the world doesn’t need to hear that answer.
Genesis 2 has an answer to our question of womanhood. It has sufficed for centuries without much confusion. The creator of all things took some dust of the earth and formed a “man.” Then he made a garden for the man to tend to, but darn it, the creator forgot to give us a definition of a man or a woman.
God put the man to work naming created animals. It was decided that Adam needed a helper so he was put to sleep. While asleep, God took one of the man’s ribs and formed a helper. And when Adam awoke, he saw his helper and was astonished. He gasped with joy and shouted, “Whoa, man, that’s nice!”
So, for about 6,000 years, that seems to have worked – but now, we wait anxiously for Court One of Britain to screw things up even more so.
Here are a few suggestions from me and my vast research team.
For example, Court One should come to a conclusion like this. “A woman is any individual who carries a handbag like the late Queen Elizabeth.”
The court’s decision No. 2 could be, “Anyone who does not leave the seat in the loo in the vertical and upright position is a woman.”
How about court decision No. 3 is a woman is anybody who says, “That color sweater doesn’t go with those pants you have on.”
Or, perhaps the court could settle for this: “A woman is anyone who wears a pantsuit and says ‘they’ was raised in a middle class family.”
As you can see, my staff and I are ready for membership in Court One.
