Why I am deeply grateful to feminists.

I have wanted to comment on women having to register for the draft for a while, and now I am finally getting around to it.  On this matter, all I can say is: thank you, feminists!

In years of railing on the internet against feminism, against modernism, against materialism, and in favor of a traditional kin-based patriarchal social structure, I have accomplished only a little, mainly changing the minds of a handful of people who may have been readers of one of my previous two blogs.  But feminists, in their inability to consider any long-term consequences of their political agenda, have accomplished what I could not; they have assured an almost immediate return to marriage and natalism in the event of a war requiring conscription.

Thanks to the tireless efforts of feminists, men will be in a position to call all the shots if there is ever a draft for a war; every young woman will suddenly realize that she has an immediate desire to become pregnant as soon as possible because the alternative is the risk of getting killed in battle or taken prisoner by an enemy that has not had the, er, benefit of HR’s sexual harassment training.  There is zero possibility that our current economic set-up of subsidizing single motherhood will be sustainable if suddenly the majority of 18-29 year-old women decide to become pregnant at the same time; the sheer weight of that economic burden would collapse the system.

Most women know that they are utterly unsuited for fighting in a war (as opposed to serving as nurses or the like) and would only be in the way, endangering the lives of the other soldiers.  Women aren’t stupid and have a higher sense of self-preservation that you might suspect by looking at feminist talking heads.

But really, can you even imagine someone like Lena Dunham, Anita Sarkeesian, or Lindy West fighting in a war?  Regardless of what they may say, it is not now nor has it ever been one of feminism’s goals to establish actual parity of responsibility between men and women.  Were there to be a war with a female draft requirement, young women would instantly know whom to blame for this—feminism, which would be revealed as the anti-family, female-supremacist failure that it really is.   And young women would also quite clearly see where safety lies – in marriage and motherhood.

Which is what I have been saying for years now.

So now I say:

Thank you feminists, for achieving what I could not: our assured eventual return to a kin-based patriarchal social structure which is the source of safety and well-being for women and children.  You have my deepest gratitude.

Great job, feminists!

Advertisements

Sheryl Sandberg, billionaire slave driver.

I find Sheryl Sandberg to be quite repellent – not because she is physically ugly, on the contrary, she is a nice looking woman – but rather because her personality is so ugly.  Given what a scold she is, I am always amazed that she is taken so seriously by so many men.  This fact shakes the good opinion I have of men’s general common sense.  From the Air Force to world economic summits, the men in charge seek her out to gather the misleading pearls that fall from her destructive lips. The woman is COO of a social media site, people!  She did not cure cancer or invent some lifesaving or labor-saving technology.  Why the hell do people think she is some kind of Wise Genius?

Let us consider one of her better-known tidbits of evil wisdom.  Mrs. Sandberg wrote in her book Lean In:

“When looking for a life partner, my advice to women is date all of them: the bad boys, the cool boys, the commitment-phobic boys, the crazy boys. But do not marry them. The things that make the bad boys sexy do not make them good husbands. When it comes time to settle down, find someone who wants an equal partner. Someone who thinks women should be smart, opinionated and ambitious. Someone who values fairness and expects or, even better, wants to do his share in the home. These men exist and, trust me, over time, nothing is sexier.”

I can only conclude that she secretly hates women and wants us to be miserable and unhappy. My advice: do exactly the opposite of anything Mrs. Sandberg advises you to do.  Assume everything she says is the opposite of reality.

Do not date bad boys.  Do not date crazy boys or commitment-phobic boys.  Ever.  And don’t imagine that you will find a man who wants an equal partner “sexier”.  You won’t.

Laura Wood has Sheryl Sandberg’s number:

“WHEN a corporate plutocrat in charge of one of the largest propaganda companies in the world urges people to give their entire lives to their jobs, to “lean in” as she likes to put it, shouldn’t people be just a tad suspicious of her motives? Is it possible that the marginalization of leisure and the family just might be in her interests?

Sheryl Sandberg, COO of Facebook and author of bestselling Lean In, has been pushing the gender revolution for years and she gets more and more ridiculous as she goes. Here she is at the recent meeting of the World Economic Forum in Davos, where the oligarchy meets to wage psychological warfare against families and nations and to promote the global triumph of the debt-finance system. (Do you believe there is even such a thing as the World Economic Forum!? What chutzpah these people have! Seriously, they can’t even disguise their blatant intentions for world control.) From Sandberg:

“We assign our chores to our children in the United States, and it can be worse in other parts of the world… The boys are taking out the trash, it takes less time than cleaning the dishes and they get bigger allowances. We start out in our homes with these very different expectations and the time spent on these tasks is incredibly important.”

She went on:

It doesn’t stop there: “Mothers will systematically overestimate their sons’ crawling, and underestimate their daughters’.”

I’m sorry to be cynical, but I believe the ridiculousness of these remarks is calculated. It is calculated to get attention and cause discussion and petty strife. Conflict and emotional disagreements keep the people from wondering why the heck anyone is listening to this billionaire slave driver in the first place.

Well, it doesn’t keep me from wondering about it.  I like my job and try to do it well, but I don’t want to be a slave to it.   It’s not my life and my identity – my Lord and my family are my life and my identity.  But without faith, kin, and kith, what is left?  One’s job.  It’s hardly any wonder that Mrs. Sandberg, as part of a tiny and very wealthy elite who benefit by keeping women enslaved to their jobs, wants us to define ourselves in terms of our jobs and gives women terrible advice about dating bad boys and marrying men who want “equal partners” (which in the Sandbergian tongue means men who are ambitious for their wives to lean into their jobs even after marriage and children).  A woman without a family has nothing else to devote herself to besides leaning into her job.  A woman with a money-grubbing “equalist” husband has no choice but to lean into her job.  And these women make Sheryl Sandberg even richer and even more respected by men in power.

 

Hey feminists, I know you are but what am I?

That moment when I realize I am far less sexist than feminists…

If I had a nickel for every time I was taken to task by some internet feminist for being allegedly sexist back when I used to run my anti-feminism blog, I would be writing this post from my Northern Michigan hunting preserve with luxury cabins and on-site deer processing facility.  But it turns out, feminists are the real sexists:

In Karen Keller’s kindergarten classroom, boys can’t play with Legos.

They can have their pick of Tinkertoys and marble tracks, but the colorful bricks are “girls only.”

“I always tell the boys, ‘You’re going to have a turn’ — and I’m like, ‘Yeah, when hell freezes over’ in my head,” she said. “I tell them, ‘You’ll have a turn’ because I don’t want them to feel bad.”

Although her approach might anger some parents, Keller is sticking to her guns: It’s all part of a plan to get girls building during “free choice,” the 40 minutes of unstructured play time embedded at the end of every school day.

Huh.  Sex-segregated play?  Tell me the one about gender being just a social construct, feminists.

I know I said I wasn’t going to write about the idiocy of feminism much anymore, but this story hit close to home.  As you may know, I am a speech-language pathologist.  I have worked in private practice and out-patient med rehab, but currently I work in a public school.  It’s a nice school.  The teachers are good, it’s a semi-rural setting, the kids are progressing well…no OMG aren’t the public schools so awful! stories to share about the building I work in.  The Kindergarten teachers there, who are not to my knowledge sexist feminists, all have tubs of Legos in their rooms for the children to use during choice time, and I have never ever seen them restrict use to one sex or the other.

As readers of my old blog may recall, I am a huge proponent of using Legos or other such bricks during therapy.  A typical therapy session for me is as follows:

I go to pick up Bobby (not his name) from Mrs. Smith’s (not her name) Kindergarten room.  He is building with Legos but doesn’t mind stopping to come to the speech room to work on his /s/ sound.  We sit at the table and I open up my large totebag filled with ziploc bags.  In the bags are various small sets of Legos, including the Friend Legos that are marketed toward girls, with their instruction booklets.  There are also large ziploc bags full of Snap-N-Style dolls.  He may choose any of these items.  Bobby always chooses the Legos, and he never chooses the Friend Legos.  Girls almost always choose the dolls or sometimes the Friend Legos.  Hey folks, I don’t make the biological sex roles!  But neither do I fight against them…

“Bobby, let’s go through your words now.  For /s/, keep your teeth together, put your tongue on the ‘T’ spot, and blow.  Ready?  Repeat after me.”

After 5 words, Bobby gets the blocks he needs to complete step 1.  He then uses the words in sentences and gets the blocks for step 2.  He continues working dilligently on his speech work with pauses to build.  At the end of the session, he has built this:

“Great job on your speech sounds, Bobby.  You may have 2 minutes to play with what you built.”

“Can we make a video?” he asks.

Yes, I say, smiling to myself because Bobby doesn’t know that making Lego videos is my trick for getting him to practice narrative language skills.  Bobby proceeds to narrate a brief story about a bad thief and a good cop while I record it with my school iPad.  While he watches the video happily, I tell him to check to make sure his story has a beginning, a middle, and an end.  He says it does.  He gets his sticker (he can choose from a wide variety of stickers but almost always chooses a super hero sticker – hey folks, I don’t make the biological sex roles).   He leaves.

Bobby returns to class happy and sits down for read-to-self time.  When Suzy (not her name) comes to speech, she gets to choose from the same totebag.  She almost always chooses the Snap-N-Style dolls, which stimulate her spatial reasoning skills and develop her fine motor abilities just like Legos do.  Her narrative video shows a girl doll feeding the Snap-N-Style puppy and brushing its fancy fur.

Oh, curse you, you persistent biological sex roles!

Naturally Bobby and Suzy are free to choose to play with whatever they find in the totebag.  Boys who play with dolls and girls who build motorcycle cops are A-okay by me; my therapy goals for them will be achieved either way.

In other words, I don’t have to be sexist like feminists are to use Legos at school.

Now, let us contemplate the school district’s response to noted sexist Kindergarten teacher Karen Keller:

“Following the release of a recent news article, the Bainbridge Island School District (BISD) has received inquiries that reflect inaccurate perceptions about student access to Legos in Karen Keller’s kindergarten classroom at Blakely Elementary School,” wrote district spokeswoman Galen Crawford.

“In keeping with a science, technology, engineering and math (STEM) education grant, Ms. Keller gave girls a designated time to play with the building toys during a 30-minute ‘free-choice’ time block in September 2015. This isolated, short-term practice ended in October. All students in all classrooms have and will continue to have access to all instructional and noninstructional materials.”

Hey Bainbridge Island School District administrators, here is a protip from me: if you refuse to call out isolated incidents of terrible and probably illegal behavior by one of your teachers, you feed the fire of public perception of our schools being evil dens of ultra left-wing idealogues who want to brainwash and indoctrinate little children to their personal political agenda by all means possible, including using discriminatory classroom practices.  Those of us who are down here in the trenches know that most teachers aren’t like that, so why do you throw them under the bus by defending bad apples like Karen Keller?   It’s hardly a mystery why homeschooling is increasing by seven to fifteen percent per year when certain school administrators won’t police their own.

Luckily for me, this kind of crap would never fly in the district I work in.  I wouldn’t work there if it did since speech therapists are highly in demand and I could choose to work in a variety of schools, therapy clinics, hospitals, or skilled nursing facilities instead.  I will never silently acquiesce to sexual discrimination against boys no matter where I work.

But let’s end on a positive note, shall we?  Let’s talk about why I use Legos in my therapy plans so often.  It isn’t solely because Legos are fun and children love them.  There is actually a plethora of research that demonstrates the cognitive, fine motor, linguistic, social and academic benefits of playing with bricks such as Legos.  I use them as reinforcers for speech sound articulation therapy, for building narrative language skills, and for improving social pragmatic language skills for children on the autism spectrum.  I’ve used them with kids who stutter to practice fluency techniques.  I’m even considering starting a second blog on which I post all my therapy lesson plans involving Legos or other building blocks since I’ve seen so much improvement in the children with whom I use them.

For those who are interested, here are a handful of studies, but there are many more:

  • Caldera YM, Culp AM, O’Brien M, Truglio RT, Alvarez M, and Huston AC. 1999. Children’s Play Preferences, Construction Play with Blocks, and Visual-spatial Skills: Are they Related? International Journal of Behavioral Development; 23 (4): 855-872.
  • Casey BM, Andrews N, Schindler H, Kersh JE, Samper A and Copley J. 2008. The development of spatial skills through interventions involving block building activities. Cognition and Instruction (26): 269-309.
  • Christakis DA, Zimmerman FJ, and Garrison MM. 2007. Effect of block play on language acquisition and attention in toddlers: a pilot randomized controlled trial. Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med. 161(10):967-71.
  • Heisner J. 2005. Telling Stories with Blocks: Encouraging Language in the Block Center Early Childhood Research and Practice 7(2).
  • Ferrara K, Hirsch-Pasek K, Newcombe NS, Golinkoff RM and Shallcross Lam W. 2011. Block talk: Spatial language during block play. Mind, Brain, and Education (5): 143-151.
  • Kamii C, Miyakawa Y and Kato Y. 2004. The development of logico-mathematical knowledge in a block-building activity at ages 1-4. Journal of Research in Childhood19: 44-57.
  • Keen R. 2011. The development of problem solving in young children: a critical cognitive skill. Annu Rev Psychol.62:1-21.
  • Legoff DB and Sherman M. 2006. Long-term outcome of social skills intervention based on interactive LEGO play. Autism. 10(4):317-29.
  • Oostermeijer M, Boonen JH and Jolles J. 2014. The relation between children’s constructive play activities, spatial ability, and mathematical word problem-soving performance: a mediation analysis in sixth-grade students. Frontiers in Psychology 5 Article 782.
  • Pepler DJ and Ross HS. 1981. The effects of play on convergent and divergent problem solving. Child Development 52(4): 1202-1210.
  • Richardson M, Hunt TE, and Richardson C. 2014. Children’s construction task performance and spatial ability: Controlling task complexity and predicting mathematics performance. Percept Mot Skills. 2014 Nov 11. [Epub ahead of print]
  • Roseth CJ, Johnson DW, and Johnson RT. 2008. Promoting Early Adolescents’ Achievement and Peer Relationships: the Effects of Cooperative, Competitive, and Individualistic Goal Structures. Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 134, No. 2: 223-246.
  • Sprafkin C, Serbin LA, Denier C and Connor JM. 1983. Sex-differentiated play: Cognitive consequences and early interventions. In MB Liss (ed), Social and cognitive skills: Sex roles and child’s play. New York: Academic Press.
  • Stiles J and Stern C. 2009. Developmental change in young children’s spatial cognitive processing: Complexity effects and block construction performance in preschool children. Journal of Cognition and Development (2): 157-187.
  • Verdine BN, Golinkoff RM, Hirsh-Pasek K, Newcombe NS, Filipowicz AT, Chang A. 2013. Deconstructing Building Blocks: Preschoolers’ Spatial Assembly Performance Relates to Early Mathematical Skills. Child Dev. 2013 Sep 23. doi: 10.1111/cdev.12165. [Epub ahead of print]
  • Wolfgang CH, Stannard LL, and Jones I. 2003. Advanced constructional play with LEGOs among preschoolers as a predictor of later school achievement in mathematics. Early Child Development and Care 173(5): 467-475.
  • Wolfgang, Charles H.; Stannard, Laura L.; & Jones, Ithel. 2001. Block play performance among preschoolers as a predictor of later school achievement in mathematics. Journal of Research in Childhood Education, 15(2), 173-180.

Happy building!

About those safe space circles.

I don’t bother my head much with what feminists think because their stupid, anti-biology anti-reality propaganda which never fails to make women’s lives worse will eventually eat itself alive.  Perhaps it will be the transgender issue that does feminism in or perhaps some other issue but either way, no ideology which is that at odds with reality and human nature can continue indefinitely.

Nevertheless, I am sometimes taken aback when I realize that there is still a fair bit of functional society left for feminists to consume and destroy.

Case in point – you really have to read it to believe the barf-in-your mouth levels of obnoxious feminist entitlement in this recent article written for CNN by anchor Carol Costello (highlighting mine):

[Last week] To its enormous credit, and because it values women, the Air Force organized the largest combined forum on gender issues in the academy’s history. Almost 3,000 cadets attended — mostly young men — to hear the featured speaker, Facebook COO and feminist author of “Lean In” Sheryl Sandberg.

As she took the stage, the nation’s finest young leaders seemed ready to “lean in.”

“I’m inspired by your courage, strength and dedication,” Sandberg told them. “(And I have) special admiration for the women in this audience, because you not only strengthen the Air Force by joining the Air Force, but you fight for equality with every single step you take.”

May I say that was a ballsy thing to say in a sea of mostly men. Don’t get me wrong, there were cheers of approval from the audience, but there was something else too — a negative energy. And it was palpable.

“Women and minorities face barriers that white men don’t face,” Sandberg went on. “And the veil of silence, pretending that this doesn’t exist, does not make the playing field even. For women in the military, there’s a special challenge because you have to be tough enough to fit in.”

Can someone PLEASE explain to me why the United States Air Force is taking direction from Sheryl Sandberg, COO of a gossipy social media site? The Air Force exists to protect the lives of our citizens in the event of a war. Facebook mostly just exists so people can waste time at work bragging about their supposedly fabulous lives.

By the time she got to “I have never met a man who was asked, ‘Should you be working?'” some in the crowd seemed downright hostile […]

The question is why did the crowd seem hostile to Mrs. Sandberg?  The assumption is that they were hostile because they were closed-minded sexists who believe women should not be in the armed services as warriors.  But isn’t it just as likely that the “hostile” attitude was because they don’t care if women work or if they are in the military or if they stay home…they just want them to perform their jobs competently and not demand non-stop special treatment?  Isn’t it possible the hostility was due to the fact that these young men felt blamed for something they didn’t cause, namely women’s angst about their failure to perform (on average) as well as men in the military?

That’s why Sandberg is not only delivering speeches, but has partnered with the armed services to create “lean-in circles,” or peer-to-peer groups, that meet regularly at places like the Air Force Academy.

Air Force Academy Cadet 1st Class Danielle Kaufman is all in. “It’s not just a military problem. A lot of it is societal. We’re put in these tough situations as females every day. (The circle is) a safe environment where people feel their voices are heard,” she said.

Did the Muslim invaders who attacked Parisian civilians on Friday provide safe space circles?  If not, how will these wilting-flower women Mrs. Sandberg is referring to be able to deal with that when the next Muslim attack occurs here in the United States?

If women are the natural equals of men in the military, why do they need “safe space circles”? This makes no sense. Women are equal to men but need to be protected from men so they can prove how equal they are…am I the only one who notices the LOGIC FAIL there? These are the women who are going to PROTECT us in the event of a war, these chicks blubbering to the news about the “negative energy” from men at a Sheryl Sandberg speech?

Yet at the conclusion of her article, Carol Costello asks…

Can you hear us roar, alpha males?

That’s right, alpha males! Rawr! Can’t you hear us ladies roaring over here from our safe space circles that you need to create more of so that we can feel safe while roaring at you?   Really, isn’t giving women a safe rawring space a much more important function for the Air Force to be concerned about than, like, preparing to defend the U.S.? Sheryl Sandberg says it is, and I am sure we can trust Ms. Sandberg to know what’s necessary for the U.S. to defend itself against an attack or invasion.

But will peer-to-peer circles convince an alpha male to lean in? As Sandberg wrapped up her speech, a young female cadet asked her: “How do you stand up and counteract that … unwillingness to open their minds?”

Sandberg didn’t blink. “There’s only two options: One is that men are far, far, far more talented than women and deserve 95% of the top jobs, or the second is that there’s systematic bias. Those are the options. Pick one. Because those are your only two choices.”

Sheryl Sandberg says there are only two choices, so…let’s choose. When in Rome, let us do as the Romans do and vote about it.

The Worst Mother-in-Law

I’ve just finished reading Mychael’s post Monster-in-law at Scott’s new blog, Morally Contextualized Romance, and skimming through the comments.  There are several good stories there about the positive role a mother-in-law can play in her daughter-in-law’s life, but the question asked was how to avoid becoming a MONSTER-in-law to your (potential) daughter-in-law.  I’ll never have a daughter-in-law since we have only daughters and no sons, and (despite some tensions early in our relationship) my own mother-in-law is not a monster, but I do have a thought on what would make a terrible mother-in-law.

I think a terrible mother-in-law is someone who seeks to influence important decisions in her son’s and daughter-in-law’s life according to her own agenda.  Equally important would be the problem of the son who seeks to involve his mama in marital decisions overly much.  Allow me to provide an example that I have mulled over for years.

Two years ago, the self-help author Susan Jeffers, a not-infrequent guest on the Oprah Winfrey Show, passed away.  She was born Susan Gildenberg, got married young, had two children, and decided that she was meant for “more” than “just” raising a family (her words).  So she went back to school, biding her time until her husband was making enough money to afford daycare, and then divorced him, giving him full custody of the children so she could pursue a full-time career as a psychologist and self-help author.

After getting divorced, she changed her name to “Jeffers” because she liked the way it sounded.  Among her many words of bad advice for women, one of them is that as soon as they are old enough, women should randomly pick a surname of someone they don’t know and change their name to that because to keep their fathers’ names or take their husbands’ names is sexist and implies that the woman is owned by the men in her life.  In her view it is better if the woman is just disconnected from everything and everyone, I guess.

“Jeffers” first popped on my radar one morning back in the early 2000s when I was watching the Today! show (back when we still had TV) while feeding one of our daughters.  There was some segment on the Mommy Wars with careerists squared off against the stay-home mom crowd.  I’ve always found that debate tiresome, but I watched it idly.  Jeffers asserted that women should NOT have children but if they are stupid enough to have them, they should never, ever have more than one, because it would limit their career success, and their careers should be the most important thing in the world to them. I thought, “What an awful woman.”

But a week or so later I was at the library when I saw a book she’d published in 2000 entitled, I’m Okay, You’re a Brat.  The book claimed that it would debunk harmful myths about raising children, so on a whim I grabbed it and read it.  It was an absolutely disgusting piece of trash, it turns out.  The book grumbles over all the challenges of raising children, but the real gist is that “Jeffers” did not like being a mother and therefore believed that most women probably dislike being mothers and instead should devote their entire lives to their “careers”.

But one anecdote she told in the book horrified and disgusted me at the time and has stuck with me these some ten years or so.  At one point, Jeffers’ son came to her and told her that he and his wife were thinking about having a child and asked her if they should do it.  I wish I could find the direct quote of what she said to him, but the gist of it was that she told him that he and his wife were fools to even consider having children, that they absolutely should not, that they would hate every minute of it, and if they had children, to understand that they should never imagine that she would want to take care of their child for them for even a moment.

Now, I don’t know why a man would go to his mama to ask her whether or not he ought to have kids; one would hope that by the time he is a husband, he is a big enough boy to make decisions like that for himself.  But for heaven’s sake, what kind of mother would give that kind of advice to her son?  It’s none of her business whether her son and his wife have children or not!  I felt sorry for Jeffers’ daughter-in-law, and I would say Jeffers epitomized the Monster-in-law in that example.

My advice to young single women would be Don’t marry a man who can’t seem to make decisions without asking his mommy first.  My advice to mothers would be Don’t raise your son to be the kind of man who runs to Mommy for advice before he makes decisions for his family.  And my advice to wives would be Don’t set yourself up as some kind of authority over your husband such that he feels like he needs to get female permission before he makes decisions for his family (go to Dalrock’s blog and search “mother-in-law” for a good post on that topic).

In terms of how to treat a potential daughter-in-law when first meeting her, though, I think Mychael pretty much has it right when she says:

I have told Scott that what I would like to do is really pour on the sweetness and submissive attitude toward him, in the girls presence so she can internalize “this is what my guys mom treats his dad like. Does he expect that of me?”

And then maybe give the girl a chance to ponder that.  It may be the first time she’s seen a woman who treats her husband with a sweet, respectful attitude and she may very well be intrigued but unsure.  Gently influencing her (potential) future daughter-in-law with her good example is likely to be the most helpful thing a mother-in-law can do.

The ugly stepsisters in the Overton Window

This past Sunday my mother-in-law kindly treated my daughters and me to tickets to see the National Tour of the Rodgers and Hammerstein Broadway musical, Cinderella.  Of course it was lovely and magical; even my high schooler gasped when Cinderella’s rags magically turned into a ball gown right in front of our eyes.

“How did they do that?” she asked, but I couldn’t answer because I didn’t know.  It was quite astonishing. But one song in particular made me laugh:

The Stepsister’s Lament

CHARLOTTE

Why would a fellow want a girl like her, a frail and fluffy beauty?

Why can’t a fellow ever once prefer a solid girl like me?

She’s a frothy little bubble with a flimsy kind of charm,

And with very little trouble, I could break her little arm!!

Why would a fellow want a girl like her, so obviously unusual?

Why can’t a fellow ever once prefer a usual girl like me?

A SECOND LADY OF THE COURT

Her cheeks are a pretty shade of pink

CHARLOTTE

But not any pinker than a rose is

A THIRD LADY OF THE COURT

Her skin may be delicate and soft

CHARLOTTE

But not any softer than a doe’s is

A FOURTH LADY OF THE COURT

Her neck is no whiter than a swan’s

LADY

She’s only as dainty as a daisy

CHARLOTTE

She’s only as graceful as a bird, so why is the fellow going crazy?

CHARLOTTE & THE LADIES OF THE COURT

Oh why would a fellow want a girl like her, a girl who’s merely lovely

Why can’t a fellow ever once prefer a girl who’s merely me?

What’s the matter with the man?

CHARLOTTE

Yes, he’s witty, so disarming, and I like the way he really holds a room

Clever cunning, ever charming, how do I make him see I’m special?

It’s a pity

LADIES OF THE COURT

It’s a pity

CHARLOTTE

I’m as pretty

LADIES OF THE COURT

I’m as pretty

ALL

Plus I’ve got the patience of a perfect saint

So I’m waiting, always waiting

Nevertheless, I’m in a mess

CHARLOTTE

Loosen my dress, help me, I’m starting to faint!

LADIES OF THE COURT

Why would a fellow want a girl like her, a girl who isn’t dizzy

Why can’t a fellow ever once prefer

CHARLOTTE

A high-strung girl like me…

Ah, the usual feminist refrain…there is no such thing as a universal standard of beauty!  But of course there is and to say otherwise is really quite delusional.  We plain girls do best by accepting it, making the most of what we do have in the looks department, and then being darned charming to make up for the lack of objective physical beauty. One overcomes being plain by being sweet, not by being horrid.  After all, if you wish to catch a fly, you use honey, not vinegar.

But really, it is liberal modernity that insists there are no absolute standards; feminists aren’t even clever enough to come up with that idea by themselves, the poor dears.

Anyway.

Do you remember a while back I had my own little lament about how I didn’t have the right words to talk about politics because “left” and “right” no longer make any sense to me?

…to talk about politics, we have to use these grossly inaccurate terms that don’t really mean precisely or even approximately what we want to say. We end up sounding like teenage girls gossiping about their frenemies instead of mature adults using wisdom and good judgement to decide upon a course of action.

 

Well, I read with interest several recent posts at Zippy Catholic, from which I will pull two quotes for your consideration.

From How no enemies to the right perpetuates the mind trap:

We can think of modern politics as a mental prison composed of a soft chewy center, a comfortable center made of left-right faux opposition within the Overton window – differing mainly from place to place on how many and which particular unprincipled exceptions to liberalism are allowed.

And from Life outside the padded walls:

“Understanding our sociopolitical life as more of an ‘inside-outside’ thing than a ‘left-right’ thing changes our perspective significantly. Living inside or outside of a lie isn’t a matter of left versus right; it is a matter of the evil, false, and ugly versus the good, the true, and the beautiful.”

Of course, that makes quite a bit of sense.  This is probably why so much of the news, political discourse, and cultural commentary I read sounds like it was written by middle school girls on the rag rather than rational adults.  The good, the true, and the beautiful resides firmly outside the present day Overton Window clogged with (literal and metaphorical) ugly, high-strung, jealous stepsisters in denial of reality.

Humorously enough, the feminist denial of objective standards of beauty (which thereby elevates physical beauty above its proper place, anyway) probably is no small part of what makes a lot of people (men in particular, I would imagine) look up and say, “Hmm.  I know I am supposed to find the ugly stepsister just as beautiful as Cinderella, but some how I can clearly see she isn’t…hey, look, there’s a whole ‘nuther world outside this window!”

So thank you, grumpy feminist stepsisters, for making the view inside the Overton Window so appalling that some folks actually peek outside for the first time.

Are you smarter than a primitive Stone Aged woman?

fifth grader

Today, the primitive women of 1830s West Africa whose culture was unchanged from the Stone Age era are up against Ivy League educated third-wave feminist Millennial women.

Let’s start with the Stone-agers.

J.L. Wilson was an American missionary to Africa beginning in the 1830s.  In 1856, he wrote Western Africa: Its History, Condition, and Prospects in which he described some of his observations about social and family structure.  He writes (highlighting mine):

Polygamy is a favorite institution here as it is in every other part of Africa.  In their estimation, it lies at the very foundation of all social order, and society would scarcely be worth preserving without it.  The highest aspiration to which an African ever rises is to have a large number of wives.  His happiness, his reputation, his influence, his position in society all depend upon this.  The consequence is that the so-called wives are little better than slaves.  They have no other purpose in life than to administer to the wants and gratify the passions of their lords, who are masters and owners rather than husbands.  It is not a little singular, however, that the females upon whom the burden of this degrading institution mainly rests, are quite as much interested in its continuance as the men themselves.  A woman would infinitely prefer to be one of a dozen wives of a respectable man, than to be the sole representative of a man who had not the force of character to raise himself above the one-woman level.

…Each [wife] is mistress of her own household, and is not liable to be interfered with by any of her co-wives.  She provides for herself, her children, and entertains her husband as often as he favors her with his company.

Let’s add up their score:

  • Relationship status (+1 for monogamy,+0 for being part of a harem)? Harem +0
  • receive reciprocal sexual pleasure? No (they exist to gratify their lords’ pleasure). +0
  • provided for? No. +0
  • married? Yes. +1
  • children? Yes. +1

Total score: 2

And now let’s see how the Ivy League educated third-wave feminist Millennial women fare:

At a booth in the back, three handsome twentysomething guys in button-downs are having beers. They are Dan, Alex, and Marty, budding investment bankers at the same financial firm, which recruited Alex and Marty straight from an Ivy League campus. (Names and some identifying details have been changed for this story.) When asked if they’ve been arranging dates on the apps they’ve been swiping at, all say not one date, but two or three: “You can’t be stuck in one lane … There’s always something better.” “If you had a reservation somewhere and then a table at Per Se opened up, you’d want to go there,” Alex offers.

“Guys view everything as a competition,” he elaborates with his deep, reassuring voice. “Who’s slept with the best, hottest girls?” With these dating apps, he says, “you’re always sort of prowling. You could talk to two or three girls at a bar and pick the best one, or you can swipe a couple hundred people a day—the sample size is so much larger. It’s setting up two or three Tinder dates a week and, chances are, sleeping with all of them, so you could rack up 100 girls you’ve slept with in a year.”

[…] But Marty, who prefers Hinge to Tinder (“Hinge is my thing”), is no slouch at “racking up girls.” He says he’s slept with 30 to 40 women in the last year: “I sort of play that I could be a boyfriend kind of guy,” in order to win them over, “but then they start wanting me to care more … and I just don’t.”

…[The girls] are seniors from Boston College, all in New York for summer internships, ranging from work in a medical-research lab to a luxury department store. They’re attractive and fashionable, with bright eyes highlighted with dark eyeliner wings. None of them are in relationships, they say. I ask them how they’re finding New York dating.

“New York guys, from our experience, they’re not really looking for girlfriends,” says the blonde named Reese. “They’re just looking for hit-it-and-quit-it on Tinder.”

“There is no dating. There’s no relationships,” says Amanda, the tall elegant one. “They’re rare. You can have a fling that could last like seven, eight months and you could never actually call someone your ‘boyfriend.’ [Hooking up] is a lot easier. No one gets hurt—well, not on the surface.”

They give a wary laugh.

…“A lot of guys are lacking in that department,” says Courtney with a sigh. “What’s a real orgasm like? I wouldn’t know.”

They all laugh knowingly.

“I know how to give one to myself,” says Courtney.

“Yeah, but men don’t know what to do,” says Jessica, texting.

…“I’ll get a text that says, ‘Wanna fuck?’ ” says Jennifer, 22, a senior at Indiana University Southeast, in New Albany. “They’ll tell you, ‘Come over and sit on my face,’ ” says her friend, Ashley, 19.

Oh, that’s rough!  But let’s see how they scored:

  • Relationship status (+1 for monogamy,+0 for being part of a harem)? Harem +0
  • receive reciprocal sexual pleasure? No. +0
  • provided for? No. +0
  • married? No. +0
  • children? No. +0

Total Score: 0

So there we have it.  The primitive Stone-Aged women had to put up with being part of a harem, didn’t get to enjoy the sex, and weren’t provided for, but they got to belong somewhere, be part of a family, have a husband, and children.  The Ivy League Millennial third wave sex-positive ladies got…nothing. Zip.  Nada.

So why do they do it?  Mr. Free Northerner, who takes a dim view of the modern men and women portrayed in the VF article, believes the women do it because they are addicted to the attention and affirmation:

This article by itself is justification for patriarchy. These young women are addicted to attention. They are not enjoying themselves, they are neither respected nor loved, they are starved for affection, and they are willingly making themselves sex toys for men who don’t care in the least about them and enjoy hurting them. It is destroying their emotional core, but they can’t quit their addiction.

They need a stern father to drag them back home and force them to respect themselves.

The men are aimless and alienated. They need responsibility. Instead, they get untold free poon. Why do they need to care, when they can drown themselves in hedonism? They need the women’s fathers to to be cut off from empty masturbation with their breathing sex toys and be forced to contribute and care before hedonism can take them, so they can grow into men.

On the other hand, Mrs. Susan Walsh suspects this is the usual sex-positive propaganda hit piece that doesn’t truly represent Millennial women.

But no matter who is right, I think we can safely say to those Millennial women who swallowed the sex-positive feminist lie:

YOU are NOT smarter than a primitive Stone Aged woman.