Sounds pretty woke.

Here’s Mike Pence’s reaction to Mulan, when it came out I could dig up some similar Limbaugh guff. Peterson is not that original or smart.

Just spent a memorable Fathers Day, like so many other all American Hoosier dads, with my kids at the new Disney film entitled, "Mulan". For those who have not yet been victimized by the McDonald's induced hysteria over this film, Mulan is a fictional account of a delicate girl of the same name who surreptitiously takes her fathers place in the Chinese army in one of their ancient wars against the Huns. Despite her delicate features and voice, Disney expects us to believe that Mulan's ingenuity and courage were enough to carry her to military success on an equal basis with her cloddish cohorts. Obviously, this is Walt Disney's attempt to add childhood expectation to the cultural debate over the role of women in the military. I suspect that some mischievous liberal at Disney assumes that Mulan's story will cause a quiet change in the next generation's attitude about women in combat and they just might be right. (Just think about how often we think of Bambi every time the subject of deer hunting comes into the mainstream media debate.)

The only problem with this liberal hope is the reality which intrudes on the Disney ideal from the mornings headlines. From the original "Tailhook" scandal involving scores of high ranking navy fighter pilots who molested subordinate women to the latest travesty at Aberdeen Proving Grounds, the hard truth of our experiment with gender integration is that is has been an almost complete disaster for the military and for many of the individual women involved. When Indiana Congressman Steve Buyer was appointed to investigate the Aberdeen mess, he shocked the public with the revelation that young, nubile, 18 year old men and women were actually being HOUSED together during basic training. Whatever bone head came up with this idea should be run out of this man's Army before sundown. Housing, in close quarters, young men and women (in some cases married to non-military personnel) at the height of their physical and sexual potential is the height of stupidity. It is instructive that even in the Disney film, young Ms. Mulan falls in love with her superior officer! Me thinks the politically correct Disney types completely missed the irony of this part of the story. They likely added it because it added realism with which the viewer could identify with the characters. You see, now stay with me on this, many young men find many young women to be attractive sexually. Many young women find many young men to be attractive sexually. Put them together, in close quarters, for long periods of time, and things will get interesting. Just like they eventually did for young Mulan. Moral of story: women in military, bad idea.

He said it was feminist propaganda because the two main characters didn’t need men and the story didn’t end with a marriage

Just like Alice in Wonderland in 1951, but I suppose the 50s were woke too.

The term woke is at least around 100 years old.

It was specifically a reminder to stay “woke” (awake) of the threat of lynching.

Well, Disney has had POC characters since at least 1946, but we don't talk about that one.

So when Harry Potter and the ~~Philosopher's~~ Sorcerer's Stone came out, one of the tie-in toys was a vibrating Nimbus 2000, and I thought that was a totally bold move (knowing something about child development)

On one hand our moral guardians also thought it was a bold move, in fact too obvious and too spicy. All the unsold Vibrating N2Ks got recalled, and the ones left suddenly became super pricey on the secondary market.

Years later when I shared this story with my girlfriend, she had raised three daughters and noted versions of the bumble ball vibrates and is meant specifically for experimentation. We just don't want to market vibrating toys to tweens in the form of a broom you put between your legs. That's a bit too on the mark.

i have only ever seen people on the political right, incapable of understanding these sorts of concepts fully, and being either, a nuisance, or irresponsible with it.

There are definitely responsible gun owners on the right, ironically, they're the ones that don't talk about it on the internet, it's primarily the ones that DO talk about it on the internet that are irresponsible, so it's definitely some variant of observation bias, since most of these people probably aren't being picked up by our means of detection here.

TL;DR probably don't yap about gun ownership on the internet, it's probably not a great look for you.