State Property

Children have a biological imperative to become rebellious as teenagers. After a childhood of identifying with their parents, teenage behaviors prepare them to separate from their family and begin their independent lives.

Until recently, the state had no interest in promoting the defiance of young people against their family. It seems the government has grown large enough to take an interest. Witness the state sponsorship of the transgender agenda.

In Michigan, the State Board of Education has published guidance that allows "all students, regardless of parental or doctoral input, to choose their gender, name, pronouns, and bathrooms."

"The responsibility for determining a student’s gender identity rests with the student. Outside confirmation from medical or mental health professionals, or documentation of legal changes, is not needed," the Board's draft document says.

Outside confirmation from medical professionals is not needed.

The Board may not be aware that the American College of Pediatricians has flatly stated that Gender Ideology Harms Children. The American College of Pediatricians' statement includes an official position that, "a person’s belief that he or she is something they are not is, at best, a sign of confused thinking."

Confused young people are nothing new. A school board that is reluctant to support parent's autonomy over their children is novel, though. "When contacting the parent/guardian of a transgender or GNC student," the Board advises, "school staff should use the student’s legal name and the pronoun corresponding to the student’s assigned sex at birth, unless the student or parent/guardian has specified otherwise."

The school board retains the right to identify your child.

This issue is a lot deeper than who uses what bathroom or locker room, although there is guidance for that, too. The Board advises that, "a student should not be required to use a locker room that is incongruent with their gender identity." What about students that are bothered by someone of the opposite sex changing clothes near them? They can request "an adjusted changing schedule or use of a private area in the facility."

So, the normies have to adjust their behavior.

This push for "transgender" "rights" is not advocacy for anyone's natural right to be gender confused. It is a flanking maneuver by cultural marxists to destroy the family. Once parents lose the right to raise their children the way they see fit, their children become property of the state.

Homosexual marriage advocates never really wanted gay marriage, they just wanted to redefine marriage to inevitably dissolve it. If any "loving" union can be a marriage, then marriage is no longer an institution concerned with raising the next generation.

The wholesale attenuation of traditional values always begins with colonization of the language. Gender pronouns, problematic. Misgendering someone, a slur. Then the media continues the preference cascade. It's like a poker player's tell. Once you see it, you can't un-see it.

The family has always represented the ultimate bastion of liberty against state encroachment. Now that the walls are really coming down, the collectivization can begin in earnest.

The Shield

It's ridiculous that any faith-based organization needs to have a new law passed to be able to freely exercise their beliefs. The Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution already codifies this right.

Nevertheless, the Georgia State Assembly has passed HB 757, and called it the "Free Exercise Protection Act." The bill is intended "to protect property owners which are faith based organizations against infringement of religious freedom."

The phrase, "faith based" appears in the bill text twenty-three times.

The bill doesn't attempt to shield private property owners against infringement of religious freedom. The word, "private" does not appear in the bill text. Neither does the word, "corporate," except to refer to a "public corporate body created by or under authority of state law."

This law isn't meant to protect a baker from being compelled to prepare a lesbian wedding cake. Would that it did!

That hasn't prevented a moral panic and demands for Georgia's governor not to sign it. ESPN Radio's Kate Fagan said she was alarmed that a baker could refuse to sell a muffin to someone they didn't like. Then her and Sarah Spain giggled like Beavis and Butthead at her clever double entendre. Muffin, uh huh huh huh huh.

Fagan then said that she was proud that the NFL was threatening to punish Georgia by not awarding Atlanta a Super Bowl in 2019. "The NFL has the moral high ground" on this issue, she said.

To Fagan, the moral high ground is occupied by those who endorse marriage between homosexuals. It's frustrating that sincere, principled opposition to homosexual marriage is labelled as superstitious bigotry.

The NFL isn't the only private entity that is threatening Georgia legislators, who have enough votes to override a veto, with loss of commerce.

Disney has vowed to boycott the state. Disney receives generous tax incentives to produce media in the state, and is currently producing Guardians of the Galaxy 2 at Pinewood Studios.

"Disney and Marvel are inclusive companies," a Disney spokesperson said. "We will plan to take our business elsewhere should any legislation allowing discriminatory practices be signed into state law."

Is it "inclusive" to force a Christian minister to perform a lesbian wedding?

The loss of business is an effective wedge being employed to force rapid social change. It cuts both ways, though. The NFL enjoys an exemption from U.S. antitrust laws. When challenged in court, the NFL is often found to act conspiratorially to restrain trade and prevent competition. The last time, in 2010, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled 9-0 against the league.

Revoking the NFL's antitrust exemption wouldn't solve Georgia's HB 757 problem, which is that Americans are Constitutionally illiterate. But it would be a good start.

Stereotypes About Women

Thought leaders from around the femisphere are swarming to protect Hillary Clinton. The most risible has to be Amanda Marcotte's tweet from yesterday.

The sad truth is the anti-Clinton narrative relies on ancient stereotypes about women being untrustworthy. https://t.co/lXxEGNVIuL

— Amanda Marcotte (@AmandaMarcotte) March 20, 2016

That is the first time anyone ever heard of this "ancient stereotype." There are lots of commonly accepted female stereotypes: They are bad drivers, they never shut up, they like to shop, and they are attracted to high-status men.

We may never know if Hillary Clinton is a bad driver. She hasn't driven a car herself since 1996. Her car did injure a police officer in 2001 when it breezed past an airport checkpoint, but to be fair, she wasn't driving it at the time.

One stereotype about women getting a lot of hype recently, is that assertive women are "bitchy." There was an effort by Sheryl Sandberg a few years ago to eliminate the word "bossy," from the language. The author of Lean In was concerned that the word "bossy" was having a negative effect on young women. But the same women who protest the word "bossy" are silent about the word "bitchy."

Perhaps "bitchy" is the n-word for women. "Hey, that's our word! You can't use it! Only we can use it!"

Another stereotype about women is that they look horrible when they age. They get droopy and jowly and ugly. Their hair changes from shiny and lustrous to dry and wispy. Their eyes change from bright and clear to dull and cloudy.

Still another adage about women, is that they are not as smart as men. Oh, but ask any woman whether she thinks women are smarter, and they will answer "yes." The fact is, men are distributed farther from the mean intelligence. A man is much more likely to be a genius than a woman.

Yet another cliche is that women are emotionally unstable. Their menstrual cycles affect their moods in ways that men never have to deal with. Does this instability diminish with age? At this point, what difference does it make?

If there is a stereotype about old women being ugly, emotionally unstable bitches, then Hillary wears it as effortlessly as her butch haircut and pantsuit.

But is there a stereotype for women being untrustworthy? That is a purely Clintonian hallmark.

Smile! God Loves You!

What would we do without feminists? We would be totally lost sometimes, not knowing all their little triggers and micro-agressions. Last year there was a mini-hysteria over catcalling women. Interacting with a woman on the street can now be construed as sexual harassment. A thousand slut-walks brought forth ten thousand memes, such as, "Still Not Asking For It," and "My Little Black Dress Doesn't Mean Yes."

It doesn't mean "no," either. For lots of men, a miniskirt says, "perhaps."

One of the things we learned during the catcall mania is that you must never remind a woman to smile. Joe Scarborough "demanded" a smile from Hillary, and received Twitter's explosive rage in response.

Smile. You just had a big night. #PrimaryDay

— Joe Scarborough (@JoeNBC) March 16, 2016

If you click on Joe's tweet, you will see the birth of a hashtag, #SmileForJoe, and images of all stripe of succubi, imps, hellions, hags and goblins.

Alpha Harridan Hillary is running for President Of The United States. Her flying monkeys spring into action at the tiniest perceived slight. The week before last, they displayed their fury at Bernie Sanders asking her if he could finish speaking. "Excuse me, I'm talking," Sanders said. And this week, Joe Scarborough practically assaulted her by "telling" her to smile. Maybe the President-In-Waiting and her little monsters could show a little forbearance?

Hillary keeps reminding us of the historic nature of her campaign. The first woman President. As if by merely being a woman she brings capacities unavailable to her male rivals. A woman's smile tells us that she is warm and nurturing.

NPR's Melissa Block doesn't seem to have the answer, but she thinks it is related to "not-so well-intentioned, unsolicited sidewalk advice." Block lamented that this week, Hillary's "smile was also fair game for comment."

Block continues, "I even spent some time this week reading scientific studies that measure the correlation between social power and gender and smiling. Or, as one study defined it, 'how the ideas of license and obligation translate into the micro-reality of facial expression.'"

So she's got nothing. Other than it's just like being harassed on the street.

Hey Melissa? Frown! God Hates You!

Mobbed Up

Donald Trump's event in Chicago last night was cancelled due to safety concerns as paid protesters overwhelmed security. It's hard to find police estimates of the number of people involved. Usually when left wing nut jobs gather to protest something, their allies in the press inflate their numbers.

It's clear this protest was highly organized. Bernie Sanders supporters and organizations allied with MoveOn.org helped bring thousands of people out, outnumbering police, if not Trump supporters. The protesters are thinking along the lines of Melissa Click who declared, "We need some muscle over here," writ large. Click's former sinecure gave her room to say things to people like, "I believe in free speech, but..."

The radicals are in charge now, and they want to shut down speech they don't like. The mayor of Chicago, who left Trump supporters defenseless in the face of intimidation, is patting himself on the back. He said, "For all of us who cherish the ideals upon which our country was founded, the hateful, divisive rhetoric that pits Americans against each other demeans our democratic values and diminishes our democratic process."

Bill Ayers of the Weather Underground, convicted bomber and terrorist, supported the brownshirts. Would anyone think that Bill Ayers supports "our democratic values?" Mayor Emanuel, if you can find one single paid protester who "cherishes the ideals upon which our country was founded," I would be very surprised.

The mayor went on to thank Chicago Police for "protecting people's first amendment rights." Which right is that? The right of people "peaceably to assemble?" Donald Trump's organization had to pull permits to have an event. Did MoveOn.org have to pull permits, or can they just show up ready to fight, er, I mean, peaceably assemble?

Leftist apologists like Cheri Jacobus are pushing back against the notion that the police advised Donald Trump to cancel the rally. This is what they're afraid of. That is what makes this a legitimate First Amendment violation. You no-platform someone you disagree with, contending their speech makes you feel unsafe. Then you send the Sturmabteilung to overwhelm the police. The next time, the city refuses to pull your permit, citing the lack of adequate public safety.

It's clear that Mayor Emanuel is on one side of this. The mayor is on the side of people like Maria Hernandez, a 25-year-old community organizer. She broke out into a dance as the rally was cancelled and said, "I've never been more proud of my city."

Mayor Emanuel should be on the side of Debi Patrick, a 53-year-old Trump supporter who lives outside Chicago. She was quoted as saying, "This is scaring the hell out of me, trying to leave here."

In a normal world, a big-city mayor should be on the same side as a taxpaying citizen, protecting her safety. Instead, he's on the side of the goniff whose actvities are paid for with Debi Patrick's tax dollars. MoveOn.org is a 501c organization. They are organized like a charity, and if you "donate" to them, it's tax deductible. It's money laundering, and while legal, it's also completely immoral. They should permanently end the charitable deduction and let these organizations wither and die.

It's like when the teacher's union and legislators collude during collective bargaining. The taxpayer, the Debi Patrick, is not welcome at the table. Her voice is moot.

The blue city model is so interested in the enfranchisement of marginalized communities, they ignore the voice of the taxpayer. That is speech they don't like. And they wouldn't get away with it were it not for the press, who dwell on Trump's "provocative speech."

Debi was asking for it.

Don't Let The Door Hit You On The Way Out

The latest celebrity to announce their relocation plans due to the rise of Donald Trump is none other than Keith Olbermann. He wrote an opinion piece for the Washington Post stating that he was going to move out of his New York City apartment building.

"I’m getting out because of the degree to which the very name 'Trump' has degraded the public discourse and the nation itself," he said.

Olbermann knows about degrading the public discourse. In 2009, he called Michelle Malkin a "big mashed-up bag of meat with lipstick on it."

But hey, at least we're talking about Keith Olbermann again!

Trump Derangement Syndrome hasn't affected just cow college graduates and NRO cuckservatives upset at their rice bowls getting broken. Entertainment icons have signaled to the lesser members of the tribe just how disappointed they are at Trump's popularity.

Samuel L. Jackson said that, "if that motherfucker becomes president, I'm moving my black ass to South Africa." It is for this reason alone that I pray that G-d's will is for Trump to become president. I need to see Jackson virtue-signaling in Soweto, Cape Town, or Pretoria. I have lived a virtuous life and I deserve this.

Cher has announced that if Trump is elected, she's moving to Jupiter. My serene joy is knowing that I will probably outlive Cher, and I get to have the image of her expiring in a puddle of her piss and shit while clasping the hand of the daughter who spackled over her twat.

The "reverend" Al Sharpton said, "I'm also reserving my ticket to get out of here if he wins." I hope Donald Trump sends his weaponized IRS to frog-march Al Sharpton to federal prison for tax evasion as his very first executive act.

Jennifer Lawrence said that Donald Trump winning would be, "the end of the world." She should busy herself with a husband and baby.

Whoopi Goldberg said, "Maybe it's time for me to move." Whoopi seems to understand that physical movement is important for good mental health. It's clear that she doesn't get enough physical exertion, like her ancestors did.

And America's sweetheart, Hannah Montana, said she gon' "move out da country" if Trump is elected. Calgary awaits, Miley!

Stop Big Potato

The California Assembly has passed Senate Bill 7, which would forbid selling tobacco products to persons under 21 years of age. News outlets are describing the bill's passage as having raised the smoking age to 21. I wonder if these esteemed purveyors of news and information understand the difference between purchasing a product and consuming it.

The progressive media reaction to the bill aligns with that of Los Angeles Times' resident nut job George Skelton. His article headline? Lawmakers show surprising courage against Big Tobacco.

According to Assemblyman Jim Wood, the bill would save the medical system millions of dollars. Thus, it would save thousands of lives.

"Adolescent brains are uniquely vulnerable to the effects of nicotine and nicotine addiction. 18-year-olds are much more likely to buy tobacco products for their 14-, 15-, 16-year-old friends," said Wood.

Underscoring the schizophrenic nature of this legal reasoning, members of the military are exempt. It wouldn't be fair that someone under 21 could die for their country but couldn't smoke. We love people who serve in the military, so it wouldn't be fair to deny them this tiny liberty that will kill them?

SB 7 deprives adults of a liberty, and probably won't work. Minors will still be able to get cigarettes. The way to reduce tobacco consumption is to tax it to death. But lawmakers are reluctant to do that, because tobacco taxes fall disproportionately on low- income people. It's a regressive tax.

SB 7 seems even sillier when you realize that you only need to be 18 to qualify for a medical marijuana card. Smoking cigarettes is harmful but smoking marijuana is not?

A government that is big enough to give you everything you want, is big enough to take away everything you have. In this case, citizens receive healthcare from the government, therefore, the government is allowed to take away certain liberties. And make no mistake. These modern day Carrie Nation progressives want to outlaw tobacco use altogether. But why stop there?

Adolescent brains are also uniquely vulnerable to the effects of simple carbohydrates and sugar addiction. Is there anyone who believes underage smoking is a bigger health crisis than underage obesity? Adolescent obesity is what drives Michelle Obama's "Lets Move" campaign, which has even reached into our children's lunchrooms.

If we truly want to prevent obesity in our young people, we should be outlawing potatoes, and encouraging smoking. A pack-a-day habit of Marlboros will keep a 14-year old thin and thinking more clearly.

I can't wait for George Skelton to write an article praising lawmakers' "courage" in standing up to Big Potato.

All hyperbole aside, legislating to save "the medical system millions of dollars" is a dangerous precedent for liberty. If and when Obamacare collapses, America will be persuaded to institute single-payer. The "medical system" will be treating thousands of gunshot victims every year, all at taxpayer expense. Prohibition of firearms can thus be justified as reducing a public health hazard.

And it won't be just guns that will go away. The progressive marxist alliance is trying to classify argumentative speech as "cyberviolence" and "psychological violence." Public resources are squandered responding to allegations of hateful speech and the violence it "incites." Expect the dissolution of the First Amendment as well as the Second.

Sorry Rebecca, Daddy's Broke

Rebecca Traister's new book All Single Ladies has landed, and is garnering adulation from across the femisphere. The subtitle, Unmarried Women and The Rise of An Independent Nation strikes a note of triumphalism. Nobody has a problem with women being equal before the law, but why celebrate the devaluation of the institution of marriage?

Because single women comprise a quarter of the electorate, and they vote left. Encouraging women to eschew marriage is done in service to the marxist progressive will to power.

Curiously, Traister contends that single women have "played as large a part as anyone in saving marriage in America," by "demanding more from men and from marriage."

She's right about women demanding more from men and marriage. Getting married greatly disadvantages men. Why would any man choose marriage when there are plenty of women who will offer themselves sexually and cohabit in exchange for nothing in return? Marriage penalizes men who can be sued for divorce for any reason or no reason. Marriage penalizes fathers by prioritizing mothers in custody disputes. A man who fathers a child can be compelled by the state, under penalty of prison, to support that child, even if the mother leaves the marriage.

Now there is the concept of marital rape, in which any female can allege her husband has committed a felony by having sex with her.

Perhaps Traister is imputing total female agency over the attenuation of marriage. There are millions of women who allow themselves to be used for sex, during their most fertile years, in exchange for nothing. Surely many of them wish to be married. The reason they aren't has more to do with their men understanding the tradeoffs and choosing relative freedom.

Predictably, Traister appends her book with an index of policy proposals to improve the lives of single women. As Traister notes, "Conservatives have long feared that if women became more independent, men would become less central to economic security, social standing, sexual life and, as it turned out, to parenthood."

That's not what conservatives fear. Women can turn away from men, but they can't live without daddy. As men become less central, the government becomes more central to economic security, sexual life, and parenthood. A universal mandatory paid maternity leave will have to be subsidized by the taxpayers.

Rebecca Traister just wants the taxpayer to be her daddy.

Rebecca, daddy's broke. He doesn't have the money that you think he has. You're going to have to cut back your expectations a little bit, ok?

All The Cat Ladies

Rebecca Traister's book All The Single Ladies is coming out. She retweeted an excerpt from the book, remembering how she hated the part of Little House On The Prairie where Laura gets married.

"Laura's story was coming to a close. The tale that was worth telling about her was finished once she married."

This brings to mind the righteous feminist rage after Adele declared, "When I became a parent, I felt like I was truly living. I had a purpose, where before I didn’t."

Traister's new book puts her in the pantheon of feminists right up there with Gloria Steinem. The premise of All The Single Ladies is that men are unnecessary for feminine fulfillment. The presence of mood hormones in semen puts the lie to that.

Women who never marry condemn themselves to lives that are nasty, brutish, and short.

One out of three unmarried mothers live in poverty.

A child growing up in a two-parent home has much better chances than a single-parent home. A single mother is the biggest predictor of a child's future poverty.

Unmarried women have a twenty-three percent higher mortality risk than married women. Single women die earlier.

And unmarried women are unhappy. Since Andrea Dworkin and Catharine MacKinnon ushered in the era of sanctioned misandry, women's happiness has been declining, both in absolute terms and relative to men. For thirty-five years now, women have been buying a bill of goods and all we have to show for it is generations of them wearing hostile resting face.

I'm sure Rebecca Traister has the answers. More government programs for women and unmarried mothers, right? Paid family leave, paid maternity leave, etc. This won't alleviate anyone's suffering. All it will do is encourage more women to become single mothers. If you want more of something, subsidize it.

Rebecca, how can you call yourself a feminist if you advocate lifestyles that make them poor and miserable?

Nobody wants to take WIC out of a baby's mouth. But the price we're paying is erosion of social cohesion. America used to have informal institutions to take care of poor people and unmarried mothers. Now all those civic institutions are being replaced with a government program.

Progressives won't volunteer at a soup kitchen because they contribute with their taxes. Which they like because it's not true compassion unless a bureaucrat gets to wet his beak.

Oscars and the Overton Window

The Academy Awards serve primarily to shift the Overton Window, or Window of Discourse, to the left. The winner of the Best Picture award went to a movie that nobody saw. Who would want to see a depressing movie about sex abuse under color of authority?

But the subject matter satisfies the marxist dialectic, where the Catholic Church's claim to moral authority is illegitimate.

Best Picture winners like Spotlight are one reason ratings are down. Another reason is that the biggest movie of all time wasn't even nominated. And still another reason is that everybody knew they were in for a hectoring by Chris Rock about racism, along with the usual sermons about sexism, homophobia, and the environment.

There was a running gag about Suge Knight that went nowhere. If they wanted to make racially-themed jokes, why didn't they trot out some sure-fire O.J. Simpson bits? Better yet, a running gag about Kanye West and how he likes a finger in the butt. They could have mixed in some zingers about Kim Kardashian. The whole Kardashian family is begging to be satirized. They could have mixed in a a few O.J. jokes while they were at it. One big reason O.J. was acquitted was because of Kim's father, Robert. Dead white women? Funny, funny stuff!

But they would have had to avoid the biggest joke of 2015, Caitlyn Jenner. Joking about Caitlyn has moved beyond the Overton Comedy Window. In fact, it would appear the Overton Comedy Window has been reduced to a peephole in a door. That is a needle nearly impossible to thread.

Not that they didn't try. The funniest thing last night was when Stacy Dash lasciviously walked onstage and proclaimed "Happy Black History Month!" Many people in the audience were aware that Dash goes on Fox News and criticizes Black Lives Matter and Black History Month. This crowd didn't know whether it was even permissible to laugh.

Best Actor went to Leonardo DiCaprio. He used his acceptance speech to diatribe about climate change. "Our production needed to move to the southern tip of this planet just to be able to find snow. Climate change is real, it is happening right now. It is the most urgent threat facing our entire species," he said.

If DiCaprio truly believed that climate change was going to destroy "our entire species," then he would be too traumatized to ever again board his private jet to fly to his private island in Belize.

The most truly absurd moment of the show was when Vice President Joe Biden talked about sexual assault. "We must and we can change the culture. So that no abused womam or man, like the survivors you will see tonight, ever feel they ever have to ask themselves 'what did i do?' They did nothing wrong."

By "change the culture," Ol' Joe means let's teach men not to rape. Rape jokes are now totally outside the Overton Window. Unless a woman makes one. And by saying, "they did nothing wrong," Joe means that women possess total agency over their sexuality, unless they experience regret.

The juxtaposition of a segment honoring sexual assault "survivors," with Whoopi Goldberg being a presenter, is just too perfect to ignore. Whoopi and her whole cadre excused Roman Polanski's sodomy of a thirteen-year old girl. Whoopi dishonored her by dismissing it as less than rape. "It wasn't rape-rape," she said.

Honorable mention has to go to Alicia Vikander, who won for Best Supporting Actress. The movie, The Danish Girl, is the story about transgender woman Lili Elbe. Xe/Xir was one of the "first known recipients of gender confirmation surgery." That's what they're going to call it now. Gender Confirmation Surgery.

I remember my Confirmation. It was the moment in my life when I made a mature commitment to Christ, and received strength from the Holy Spirit through prayer and the laying on of hands by a bishop. Now the meaning of the word "confirmation" will be to describe genital mutilation. Hacking off a penis or spackling over a twat will be "confirmation" of what in reality is same-sex attraction with opposite-gender fetishization. But homosexual activists want their word, and have colonized the language yet again.

And so the Overton Window for transgender issues expands relentlessly leftward.

Eyeglass World "Robin"

Based on the marketing for Eyeglass World, one could infer that the target demographic for eyeglasses is young women. First there was "Jamie," a blonde who looks a little like actress Jennie Garth. Then there was "Angie," a brunette with straight hair and a pencil skirt, shown browsing on her mobile device while passing time at the airport.

The "Jamie" commercial is practically void of cultural cues. It's a thirty-second story about a young woman who wants stylish frames for low prices. On the other hand, "Angie" deploys cultural markers a little bit more. "Angie" is a confident woman who combines style and business savvy. The camera pans right to reveal her chic mustard handbag.

The latest ad, "Robin," is one long cultural beacon. "Robin" is depicted at her wedding reception.

"Robin got the dress she loved, the flowers she loved, and the cake she loved for a price she really loved. Not surprisingly, Robin shops at Eyeglass World."

It's her wedding day. Did Robin also get the man she loves? Perhaps "tolerates," is a better word, but "Robin got a man she tolerates," doesn't make good ad copy.

Note grimace on the groom's face as he struggles with the champagne cork. He looks like a keeper, "Robin."

The groom looks over for assistance. She can't help you. It's all she can do to not scratch your eyes out.

Note "Robin's" beige dress. Not her first rodeo.

Note his ill-fitting blue suit. Why did she settle for such a loser? She's almost pretty enough to do porn.

Finally he ejaculates, er, gets the cork off the bottle.

"Robin" is deft enough to catch the cork in mid-air. This may be a euphemism for her mastery over her reproduction.

She controls his reproduction, while he happily raises her children from a previous marriage.

Nice catch, "Robin!"


I'll submit an alternate interpretation of the commercial's metaphors. His struggle with the cork represents his failure to maintain an erection while fucking his insufferable harridan of a wife. Maybe he needs beer goggles.