Advice for Women: # 2

Building off the first bit of advice, if you possibly can, try to be more like Spock.  Mixing what we think we deserve with a lot of volatile illogical emotion is just bad for everybody.

Watch some of the old Star Trek episodes, you'll notice Spock is not emotional or dramatic, he's logical and analytical.  When you get in an argument, be Spock.  Maybe you'll discover you were actually in the wrong after all.

Advice for women: #1

I decided to start a list on here (to be posted on a page above) of advice for women.  It's needed.  So many women are clueless.  They like to think men think like women and that is a problem.

So, for the first one - and just because it's first doesn't mean I think it's the most important - I decided to emphasize a point which St. Teresa of Avila (not in the words I'll use) so frequently tried to impress on her readers in her autobiography.  It's great advice, not only for women, but for everyone.

Human respect is SHIT.

I'm not normally one to use extreme language, but that's the truth.  Stop being so concerned with what is owed to you, how you should be treated, how you should be spoken to.  Is your sense of justice so fine that you have never stepped on anyone else's toes?   Let people say what they are going to say, and be a little more forgiving if they offend you.  Realize that at some point you did the same thing to someone else that you are receiving.  Plus the fact, being defensive is a sign of insecurity.

Objectify me, but don't objectify me!

A woman I know (whom I had really rather not) likes to dress like a slut.  She also likes to say things like, "All men are idiots" and this in front of her male employees.  She ascribes to the prevailing insanity common to modern women, to modern feminists, which the majority of American women currently are.

So they don't want to be objectified as a sex objects?  Isn't that one of the big concerns that feminism rails on about?  They are violently disgusted with the nature of the male to desire sex, to not be androgynous, to see women first as women and not as people.  Hand-in-hand with this insanity is the idea that men and women can be friends, but I'll get to that in some other post.

It is a paramount focus of theirs to root out from boys this propensity to desire, because desire, that natural male reaction to the female form and face (not all, of course!) is dirty.  To them (female undesired) male desire is a form of rape.  If it wasn't so, no one would praise the woman who slaps the man who made a comment on how sexy she looks, when her outfit was meant to draw exactly those type of comments.

Desire is only acceptable on their terms, when they want it.  Outside of that context, it's grotesque, barbaric, and animalistic.  (There is a reason for them to believe that [female undesired] male desire is dirty.  How many of these feminists are speaking through the lense of unresolved abuse? They apply the maxim "if one is so, all are so" and use it to justify a campaign against the nature of males.)

Sex-ed isn't a "how-to" course for boys; it's sensitivity training, re-indoctrination on how women should be treated according to the new and enlightened view of feminism.  They don't want males, they want de-natured wimps who only desire when the ladies say it is okay for them to desire.  And they get upset that men don't view them as people first, like men are push-button automatons invented for the purpose of gratifying female vanity, pleasure and ego.  Who is objectifying who again?

And when they want to be desired, what do they do?  They dress like sluts.  We all remember the infamous slut walks!  How happy I am to announce that Tampa had one this past month.

I am sure you will remember as well that very few of the women were deserving of the desire which they seemingly wished to engender, but that wasn't the point anyway.  They were making a statement for all those other sluts out there, the attractive ones who just couldn't make it that day.  Women have the right to sexually objectify themselves to men, but how dare men objectify women as sex objects; they reserve the right to tempt men to desire, while at the same time calling that desire dirty and violent...unwanted male desire equals rape.

Want me, but don't want me.  If capriciousness was ever a fault of woman, it has been enshrined with this attitude.  She has the boob job, wears the deep cut halter top, the mini-skirt, and the hooker heels, but pepper sprays the guys who pays her the compliment of a whistle, and then gets up in arms at the guy who walks by and gives her a look of disgust.   And the majority of society applauds this insanity!!

Phyllis Schlafly on Feminism

This excerpt is taken from a March 30, 2011 NPR interview with Phyllis Schlafly 

MARTIN: Talk a little bit about the new book, if you would. What is it - your message in this book that you feel is particularly current for today?

Ms. SCHLAFLY: A lot of people don't understand what feminism is. They think it is about advance and success for women, but it's not that at all. It is about power for the female left. And they have this, I think, ridiculous idea that American women are oppressed by the patriarchy and we need laws and government to solve our problems for us. They have made their close alliance with the Obama administration. And they're always crying around about things like the differences between men and women are just a social construct. So they're really in a fight with human nature. I would not want to be called a feminist. The feminists don't believe in success for women and, of course, I believe that American women are the most fortunate people who ever lived on the face of the earth, can do anything they make up their minds to do.
I think people ought to understand what a large control the feminists have over the media, and that's why you don't hear some of the other side.

.....

Martin: ....The book makes the very strong argument that feminist ideology, as you define it, is dominating the academy, is basically dominating society, and I'm arguing with you about why you think that is when it would appear that women are still doing exactly what you would suggest that they should do.

Ms. SCHLAFLY: I think the main goal of the feminist movement was the status degradation of the full-time homemaker. They really wanted to get all women out of the homes and into the workforce. And again and again, they taught that the only fulfilling lifestyle was to be in the workforce reporting to a boss instead of being in the home reporting to a husband. That is an attitude toward marriage and homemaking that I think is intolerable and false.

Unfortunately I don't know enough about Ms. Schlafly as I should, but most of what I read in the interview was very apropos.   If I didn't find her language sufficiently strong enough regarding getting women out of politics and that Sarah Palin is not a great example for women, the very least I can say is that she was diplomatic in making her point regarding what feminism's true purpose is, and that it's atrocious how feminism devalues a mother's place in the home.

Best of: the Ads Feminists Love to Hate

I've received several emails in the past six months with the same vintage ads on them.  It was interesting to see that the one had the subject "Ah, those were the good old days," and the other had the subject line of "You'll never see these ads again. Thank heavens!"

The majority of Americans would think this ad is wrong, that it objectifies women, it makes the statement of saying that women should be in the home - dare I say it? - "barefoot in the kitchen."  The only problem is that today we equate women being in the home with "barefoot in the kitchen" and all of the "cave-man" barbarities nuanced in that phrase.  If there is one thing we can say for feminism, it is that it has been successful at ingraining in the American public a knee-jerk reaction against patriarchal norms, by misapplying and redefining what it means to patriarchal.  Modern society no longer can even imagine a concept of patriarchy to mean that men are predominantly the ones in paying jobs, government, business, and heads of households, while women are un-monetarily valued (not devalued, like feminists would like to persuade) for their role as mothers and wives.  Patriarchy now means misogyny.

Let's look at another:

A Hoover!  I am so offended!  To be honest, you know what I want for Christmas this year?  No, not diamonds (pfft...who wants diamonds?), or jewelry, or a new car, or an electronic gadget.  I'd like a kitchen-aid, but I don't know, I guess I should be offended if my husband buys it for me - as if though buying something to help someone out with their work should cause offense!

Let's change up the scenario a bit.  Let's suppose a woman who runs a stay-at-home business doesn't own a computer - wouldn't she just be ecstatic that her husband bought her a computer for Christmas?  And why is it that we don't consider that offensive?  Because it's a real job; that woman is contributing to civil society, earning actual money, unlike those housewives who are, what? home because they are too stupid to be able to handle a real job?  That's what feminists would like to convince everyone of.  I don't give a drop of credit to career mothers, unless they are single and have no other option.  Hey ladies, you want to know what's hard?  Quit your day job and do what you should be doing - stay at home and mother your kids!  For no money!!

Females (and males in regards to females) have lost their sense of value in regards to women's role as wives and mothers.  We now consider that a woman's worth is the same as a man's (yay for equality, right?) and the problem with that is that it cripples the ability for women to be good women, good mothers, good house-keepers, good wives.  Why?  Because they don't get a pay-check for it!  There's no cash in hand saying your work person is worth this much!

Actually, that is not the entire problem, the other half of it is the skewed understanding of work.  Traditionally people worked in order to provide for their family, to be with their family, outside of work.  It's a chicken or egg scenario what came first; whether feminism, in its endeavor to get women out of the home, made the utility of work the be all and end all of human existence, or whether that utility came first and merely supported and facilitated what feminism was trying to do.  I highly recommend reading Joseph Pieper's Leisure the Basis of Culture in regards to understanding work as life v. home as life.  I think many people would be surprised by what category they find they fall into.

Let's take a gander at another one of these stimulating ads:

Isn't that convincing?  It's not only insulting to women, it's also insulting to men!  Not only does it assert that it is in the nature of women to desire things which relate to the home, they also assert that men are susceptible to being manipulated by the tears of their wives!  (Hm, why do I think that the latter insult doesn't even come to modern women's notice when they see this ad?)

Last one, and my personal favorite:

I think most people would scratch their heads and say, "hm, what has he got to be excited about?" Well, for starters, at the time this ad came out men actually valued women for their work in the home; they didn't expect them to get jobs. Women's worth to society was "priceless." Way to go feminism!  And here's another episode of "Cut off your nose to spite your face!"  Now men not only hate having women in the working place, they also think women are worthless in the home!

Secondly, he's excited b/c he's happy to see her up and about - any hard-working mother with a passle of kids can tell you that if one is doing their duty, being a mom is WORK, especially if one also has to deal with the energy sapping problems associated with pregnancy, new babies, etc.

Now, the bitter egalitarian masculist will tell you that she looks all fresh because she didn't do crap all day, and will go on to gripe about how women should be bringing home the bacon same as the men.  My problem with that is, who's mothering the children?  You are actually PAYING a disinterested third party to do her job...? What about the house?  You are both actually staying up late to catch up on all the housework, do the laundry, fold the clothes, vacuum and mop the floors, and clean the bathrooms?  Or do you HIRE a maid for that?  What about meals?  Or are those usually fast-food and take-out?  What about your sex-life?  Or is she too tired because there's just no time with all the other crap she (and you) had to do 'til ten o'clock at night around the house.  (scratches head)  Equality?  Seems pretty lame to me.

To sum up, I'd say that "Ah, the good old days," was a perfect subject line for the email, and not in the patronizing, sarcastic way that I am sure it was intended.

The Upcoming Witch-hunt for all you patriarchalists

While channel flipping this evening my husband landed on a major news channel discussing the Warren Jeffs case and cult.  We only were able to catch a portion of it, but I was very disconcerted by the feminist/anti-patriarchal message which the media is helping to promote in identifying this man as a psycho instigator of misogynistic "patriarchal" rapist practices.  "Lock up your daughters" now holds a whole new meaning for the feminist "mother."

We started viewing the show during an interview with a young woman who had left the cult and was appearing on camera to tell of her experience and how Warren was viewed by those within the cult.  The show then cut away to some "expert" (psychologist/lawyer/advocate - I was listening, not watching the captions on the screen), who made the lovely, broad, and thoroughly asinine statement that can be more or less summed up in the following: "These men are sick and perverted.  They raise males to treat women like dogs, to be submissive, to have no voice.  These boys grow up to be sex-offenders and rapists, and then these young men are allowed out into society.  You just never know who will move into your neighborhood.  They are a real danger to society and something has to be done."

And did the news anchor make any comments about the runaway train that just blew through his show?  Absolutely not.

Now, I can't expect any news anchor to have the temerity to make the distinction between women being submissive and women having no voice; the reason why I can't is because society by and large doesn't make the distinction - there is a correlation between voice and action which now exists, which did not at one time.  To say something hateful is no longer simply an expression of thought, it is an action, in some cases a prosecutable action.  For a wife to disagree with her husband is to act against him.

Tthis line of thinking fails to separate the intellect and the will.  I have mentioned in other posts (regarding women's submission to their spouses) that there is a difference between the two.  An act of the intellect is to disagree and inform him of that disagreement - an act of the will is to refuse to do as he willed on the matter. In essence, "I have a voice" and "I will be heard" are two very different things.  Feminist (diabolical) logic says that if we can clump the two together and culturally ingrain the correlation, we have at hand a stratagem whereby the politics and power of the media can target specific individuals merely by the (typically emotionally charged) insinuation of their being objectionable to society at large  They take the perfectly neutral (actually virtuous) topic of submissiveness in a woman, and make it into Misogyny.  "And something has to be done."

Their "personal is political" motto is exemplified hereby.  If a personal argument between a man and wife arises, in a patriarchal marriage, she disagrees, he says too bad we are doing it this way and that's it.  In a feminist based marriage, she gives her disagreement with her spouse a public forum, either by way of vote, by political action or involvement with such groups that support her cause, or by blatantly acting contrary to his express wishes.  In that instance "the voice" ceases to be only an act of using and expressing one's intellect and becomes an act of using one's will in order to force the other to capitulate.  Submission is the virtuous surrendering of one's will (i.e. one wills to surrender one's will); capitulation is the surrendering of the will because they have little choice but to do so.

Whereas men, in general, have shied away from putting the personal in a political (read "public") arena, because of the distraction that it causes and the inanity it allows, feminism has seen this as a viable tool in their political campaign for hegemony.  Historically, men knew that women would do it enough regardless; the cultural moral censure which acted as a preventive measure from the total moral decay of society was in large part due to gossipy women ready to be scandalized and ready to make public that which was most certainly private (not that I, in any way, promote detraction or slander).   Women took these same pistols and upgraded them to V2 Rockets.

In this instance, the story of one sick individual, Warren Jeffs, and his victims (by no means a large number in comparison to the greater population of the United States), is given a political focus, is used as a political weapon to enforce a propaganda fear campaign against patriarchal men, against men who expect their wives to be submissive, who expect their wives to put out, who expect their wives not to be nagging, scheming, spend-thrift, ungrateful, emotional divas who turn into raging Medusas when they don't get their way.

As so many have said before, feminism is playing a zero sum game.

And the witch-hunt is on, given a national stamp of approval by ABC or NBC or CNN - does it matter which one it was?  Any one of them is liable to have aired it.  In the coming years we can expect to see a growing cultural back-lash against any males that aren't whipped.  I am sure that if one doesn't wear an occasional pink shirt, that will be a red flag - if one doesn't laugh it up when the ladies crack jokes about how "all men are assholes" etc., that will be a red flag - and if you expect your wife to stay home, make babies, and actually mother her children, you for sure are going to be either burned at the stake, drowned or hung.

Let's hope men wake up and realize what the hell is going on before it's too late - this is not a silly little movement, to be ignored and back-burnered.  Any politician will tell you that.

Being Judgmental

No, I don't approve of pre-marital sex.  No, I will not let my little children play with the little children of couples who live together sans matrimony, of feminist career women or stay-at-home dads, of people who approve of impure relationships, pre-marital sex and abortion; nor do I care to socially interact with the same.

Most people would probably consider this judgmental, but I do not.  As a parent I have a moral obligation to protect my children from people who think immoral things are okay.  My approval of my own, or their social exposure to feminist women, to disordered households, to impure relationships, would give approval to their living the same lifestyle.  Don't be offended, it's not meant personally.

It's judgmental if I'm rude and impolite because one is a public sinner, but let's not confuse tolerance and approval.  Being polite is tolerating, being friends is approving.

I have little choice but to tolerate a society which is disordered and morally chaotic.  When the state allows it by law,* what is one to do?  The state-approved lack of a moral guide results in the state arbitrarily deciding how parents should parent (or is it so arbitrary?).

If it were for nothing else but the sake of self-preservation, one would be required to be polite to gays and lesbians, to racist blacks and whites, to man-haters, man-whores, and loose women, to the same people who would be ready and willing to call the cops on you for bad parenting if they saw you spank your kid, or let him taste your beer (never mind the fact that their own children are being raised to destroy society with licentious behavior).  But even beyond self-preservation, charity demands it of us.  Hate the sin, not the sinner.  (Don't confuse that with an enforcement of approval either.)

There is a right order to society and a wrong order to society.  Allowing one's children frequent social exposure to the wrong order isn't tolerance, it's approval.  Children learn first by example.  So don't be upset when I don't bring them over to play in the "harmless" environment of your home where you'll put on Barney and Sesame Street, and little kids movies that have overt male-bashing, disrespect for authority, approval of "kid-attitude" and "pop-princess-diva," pop and rock music, and girls in clothes which my grandma would consider slut-wear.

No, my children do not live under a rock.  They don't dress look or act like they live in 19th c.  They get plenty of social interaction with other like-minded parents and children.  No, we do not live in a cult compound in Texas; we live on a regular block, with regular not-like-minded neighbors. 

On the other hand, they don't know (and hopefully will never care to know) who Justin Bieber is.  They play with dolls and there's no hint of anything sexual; there's love, matrimony and children.  To them Love is known by the sacrifices made by those who love; it isn't self-centered.  It's a holy thing, not a sordid affair, tainted by impurity.  Their understanding is innocent, but only because my husband and I take every precaution to keep it that way.  Whatever happened to childhood innocence?  Cultural Marxism raped it.  Feminism and "Tolerance" raped it.  Innocence is "DAY-ud."

Isn't it common sense to protect your children from bad influences?  Surprise, surprise, your seventeen your old daughter is sleeping around; well, why'd you let her hang around with whores after school, watch movies about people who sleep around, listen to music that talks about and supports having pre-marital sex or sex period?

Judgmental?  You can call it that if you want to; you can hate and scapegoat those "judgmental" Christians; it is possible that you could even go so far as to call the state on them out of spite, have their children taken away to be brainwashed into believing your brand of social "order."  But if that's the case, let's not pretend you are any more "tolerant" than I am.


*  But our laws are subject to the collective understanding of morality; when morality is thrown out, what standing does law have?  If I were atheist, in principle I would be anarchist.