Last week Wildrose candidate Rick Strankman came under fire after a BYWP event was held in his riding.
What's a BYWP? Obviously, if you're even asking, you're an ignorant culturally imperialist urbanite. BWYP stands for Bring Your Wife's Pie, a form of social gathering-potluck event that typically comes with more than a few top-notch pies. Everybody gets together, eats pie, and assumably when politics come up you'll be able to hobnob with the man who wants your vote.
Unfortunately, the far-left lunatics got a hold of it, and started an immediate backlash about the "1950s" mindset of..people getting together with food. There's nothing actually wrong with a "BWYP" event, and those who got most outraged over it were the same ones who were completely incapable of backing it up with any sort of argument against it. They mostly just pointed to it, screamed feminist outrage, and thought they had scored some sort of political point.
The argument, such as it could be discerned from the sort of mental midget who was busy making it (hint, guys, when the queen of Simplistic Outrage Memes thinks you're out to lunch, you're out to lunch), goes something like this.
- All political events are to be "inclusive".
- "Bring Your Wife's Pie" excludes uranists, who don't have wives.
- Because "Bring Your Wife's Pie" is implicitly directed to men, it therefore also excludes women and is obviously sexist.
- By directing a political ad towards men, Strankman and therefore Wildrose are only interested in the vote of men, meaning women shouldn't vote for them.
- The kind of men whose wives make pies are exclusively "living in the 1950s" and therefore their votes shouldn't count
- Nobody else should vote for the same party as the target audience of a "BYWP" event
- By courting the audience who would like a BYWP event, Wildrose isn't deserving of votes from people who wouldn't like a BYWP event.
- Not all political events are inclusive.
Actually, I could probably end this debunking right here. But really, I'm just getting started.
On Friday, Rachel Notley visited the convention of a known hate group, the "Alberta Federation of Labour", a group dedicated to destroying private enterprise in the province. Was this an "inclusive" event? Was it "inclusive" when David Swann visited the Calgary Rehab Centre? Of course not, nor is anybody reasonably expecting it to be.
- Sure, BWOP isn't intended for faggots in fake marriages to bring the man they sodomize and whatever baked good he makes while dreaming he had a vagina so his body aligned better with his mental illness. In Drumheller-Stettler, that basically excludes all of three people. One of which I know personally, by the way, and if he objects maybe we can ask him about that nephew he's not allowed to be left alone with. That should end that objection soon enough.
- While the target audience of "BYWP" is quite possibly men (as per Debunking #1, there's nothing wrong with that) there's nothing stopping the wife from coming along. Based on personal experience, there aren't many pie-making wives who wouldn't tag along if they wanted to anyways, if for no other reason for the fact that men suck at transporting pies. When my Mom wants to transfer a pie from Point A to Point B, she stacks them in Tupperware that looks either like this or like this, depending on how big the pies are and how many of them she's packing somewhere. When I'm left in charge of transporting pies, I tend to wrap them in a single sheet of saran-wrap (which doesn't even cover the pie), throw it in a used Safeway bag along with the other stuff I intend to take without regard of whether or not they will roll around in transport and damage the pie (ie. jars or cans) or whether they have a risk of crushing the pie (books, or becoming soiled if they land in the pie (magazines)
The point is that the women who are making the pies are still more than welcome to come if they want to, even though they tend not to be nearly as interested in politics and typically come with either a single issue to get mad at the candidate about, or else end up gossiping in the corner with the other pie-making ladies while it's discussed whether the corporate tax structure as is will accommodate future oilsands-related growth once the boom returns in who-the-hell-knows how many years.
Not to mention, as so many others have, that as a practical matter nobody wants to eat pies made by men. I've made a few pies in my time, and the only way I can get people to eat one is by lying and telling them that somebody else (by which I mean, obviously, a woman) has made it. Whether it's "reverse sexism" or unconscious biases or the fact that I don't wash my hands after I use the bathroom or whatever fancy buzzwords the urban left have seized themselves upon this week, women's pies are more popular than mine are. A "bring-your-own-pie" event would have way too many people saying "hey that pie that Donald brought looks delicious but there's no way in hell I'm eating it unless Rosey was the chef and Donald is just the sort of person to take BYOP literally". But bring your wife's pie? No, good, that's safe.
- If the intended audience for this event is men, of course, so what? Rachel Notley sent out mailers at the start of the election saying that the NDP would stick up "for families". Strictly speaking, the intended audience for this pamphlet was parents with families. Are single people abandoning the NDP in droves because Notley spoke to a group that wasn't them? Of course not: a political party is allowed to do targeted ads to round up support from specific groups. In fact, non-Wildrose parties regularly do so to little fanfare.
- Is it a "1950s" attitude that women bake pies? Hardly. Liberals always throw out 1950 when they have no argument, forgetting that their own political philosophies are all from about 1867. Complaints about "living in the past" is rich coming from people doomed to forget everything from the Soviet Gulags to the Gates of Vienna. Beyond that, they don't say what's actually wrong about the 1950s. It's not that women couldn't work, they just en masse decided not to primarily because the rapid advancement in western standards of living provided avarice far beyond pre-war levels using only a single income. As with most things with the left, they don't like what people thought about sex, but that's usually all they can come up with. A strong nuclear family unit was developed, nurtured, and in America reached its zenith in the 1950s at the same time as television was mass-portraying culture in a way literally never before seen. When they use "stuck in the 1950s" as a pejorative when "stuck in the 1930s" depicts them far more accurately, it's a joke.
In reality, the notion that women did the household tasks in a household is basically as old as households themselves. In fact, it's rooted far far far earlier than that, it's in Genesis Chapter 27 for example.
5 And Rebekah heard when Isaac spake to Esau his son. And Esau went to the field to hunt for venison, and to bring it.The woman making a pie isn't a new thing invented by the 1950s patriarchy, it's literally an aspect of the mammalian maternal instinct. To paraphrase Ted Byfield's old line, men didn't get together and decide that women would be the ones instinctively doing the cooking: God did.
6 And Rebekah spake unto Jacob her son, saying, Behold, I heard thy father speak unto Esau thy brother, saying,
7 Bring me venison, and make me savoury meat, that I may eat, and bless thee before the LORD before my death.
8 Now therefore, my son, obey my voice according to that which I command thee.
9 Go now to the flock, and fetch me from thence two good kids of the goats; and I will make them savoury meat for thy father, such as he loveth
As for the attempt to disenfranchise men who think their wife should do the baking, ignore for a moment the fact that implicit in this argument against BYWP is a belief that anybody who votes further to the right of Greg Clark shouldn't be allowed a voice in Alberta or in this election. The mindset of opponents to the "BYWP" are bleating about Wildrose not being "inclusive" with the poster at the same time as actively trying to demonize and exclude a cultural group that they disagree with the politics of. For a bunch of urban political hipsters, you'd think irony would be more up their alley. I'm sure if pushed, the same feminazi wankers who are opposed to BYWP attendees voting on the theory that they'll pressure their wives to vote the same way. Of course, bitchy NDP voters tend do to the same thing to their cuckolded partners, so don't think for a second that argument holds any sway.
- The theory that a cultural group with a particular voting mindset precludes anybody from a different (even opposing) cultural group from voting for the same party is a relatively new one, and from what I can determine using it to denounce right-wingers is the only time this theory is ever applied: with the single exception of Jews. No matter where in the world you are from Washington State to Islamabad, being opposed to "Zionism" is considered critical if you're going to woo the votes of people also opposed to Jews not being killed en masse. Once upon a time, the sort of people who opposed BYWP would have balked at being reminded that the only other people who share their views are antisemites. Today, that's less damning to the left than it once was.
Regardless of the mindset behind it, the reality isn't necessarily true. The eleven people who share 6447 Twitter accounts who call themselves Alberta Party, for example, are always talking about their "big tent". Having a "big tent" was of course the hallmark for the Liberal Party of Canada for generations from Jew-hating coward Heidi Fry to that same "Zionist" community discussed above. If you like the Wildrose economic plan, for example, why should it bother you that people who think wives belong in the kitchen baking pies also like that economic policy. Particularly with the Wildrose abandonment of social (read: real) conservatives, it's crazy to think that a party pushing economic plan that various different groups have determined to be in their best interests would garner the support of various different groups. Some of these newfound NDP supporters, one imagines, oppose murdering Jews -- whoops, I meant bankers -- despite a segment of the NDP voting class that cannot be ignored who are totally okay with it. [though the sentiment is more widely distributed across the spectrum than you might think. -ed]. Yet nobody thinks that by courting a certain class of voter (again, Notley attended a forum at the Alberta Federation of Labour even though they are a well-known hate group) the NDP have therefore shown they cannot possibly garner the support of others. It simply isn't true.
- Once upon a time, it would be easy to assume that political parties are to be judged on what they offer and what they can do in power. Unfortunately, that time isn't now, where the outrage machine is quick to enforce the sort of ruthless ideological uniformity that Kathy Shaidle famously warned us all about. Yet it doesn't make it untrue: Wildrose deserves (or doesn't deserve) votes based on what they do, what they promise, whether you think that they can deliver those promises, and what they provide that the further-left-wing parties (from NDP to PC) cannot. To believe otherwise is to reduce politics from the issues of the day being discussed by the citizens of the nation to a sort of pussified shirking sphere where whoever can come up with the simplistic memes gets their will enforced by angry uneducated mobs. Right now the outrage machine is on the side of the far-left, and it suits them well since they cannot provide an argument for their beliefs (hence, this entire post). But it's a fickle mistress, and the moderate-left might be wary about signing onto this for short-term gain.
We're the Albertans who made Alberta great. BYWP is opposed by the fake imports who are making it miserable.
On May 5th, make sure you aren't voting for the political scortched earthers.