Hilarious Christmas feminist bitch-slap contains a serious and stinging rebuke for ugly, miserly feminists.

Some guy called Uncle Hotep, about whom I know nothing at all, tweeted this on Christmas Day:

Uncle Hotep managed to enrage a large (or possibly Extra Large) posse of feminists of every color, creed, and persuasion, but oddly many of them also felt the need to inform him of what great cooks they really are when they aren’t all tied up with the pressures of doin’ their feminism:

Readers are free to speculate as to why feminists felt the need to defend their kitchen skills.  For his part, Uncle  Hotep was having none of it and delivered the most epic of twitter harpy bitch-slaps:


It’s important to note that were just as many women who were like, “Right on, Uncle Hotep!” Are these women all oppressed stay-at-home trad-moms? Probably not. Like most women (including me), they likely have jobs.

What Uncle Hotep has managed to do is expose the true and very ugly face of feminism. Feminism is not about women having access to education and jobs; women had those things prior to modern feminism as a result of increased mechanization of household chores.  What feminism is about is rooted in insatiable envy which manifests itself as ugly miserliness (highlighting mine):

“The real reason feminists are ugly has nothing to do with their physical appearance. Feminists are ugly because they are miserly with love.

[…] I can’t think of any men of my generation or younger who don’t enjoy cooking. This is in stark contrast to the women of the same generations, who (typically) view cooking as an indignity. The reason for the difference in attitude boils down to what cooking is all about. Cooking is an act of love, an act of service to others. It is an opportunity to care for others in a very fundamental way, to literally nourish them through the work of your own hands. This is precisely what troubles the modern woman so much about cooking (or cleaning, or changing diapers). Serving others in the mind of a feminist is an indignity, so cooking, cleaning, or any other act of service and love is the object of revulsion. Women now actually compete to show off their miserliness in caring for others, each trying to outdo the rest in proving they are the greatest scrooge with love. It has gone so far that large numbers of women are quite proud of the fact that they have never learned to cook or otherwise care for others. Their miserliness is a badge of honor. Not all women have adopted this extremely ugly worldview, but the ones who are going against the grain of the culture here understand better than anyone how uncommon their loving and caring attitudes really are today.”

Feminists find the loving service aspect of cooking to be enragingly degrading.  Don’t believe it? Check out a few more tweets to Uncle Hotep:

There are more (many more) tweets of the same flavor. Uncle Hotep has done an outstanding job with one innocuous tweet of exposing the ugly miserliness of feminism.  Normal women with jobs and families definitely don’t want to be associated with such an ugly, hateful ideology that provides them with no benefit.




Feminist Fact Or Crap: “We Wuz Housewivz” edition

It’s time to play everyone’s second-favorite game, “Feminist Fact or Crap” (with everyone’s first favorite game of course being How Many Ways Can Feminists Use Images of Their Vaginas and Call It “Art”?)!
Farm Boy quotes Megan Rivera:

Plenty of “modern women” who are into equality with their partners enjoy cleaning and making their home look beautiful. Plenty of modern women who are Feminists enjoy decorating and cooking. Feminism isn’t about demeaning women for being femme, a huge focus of feminism is making sure people have the ability to choose how to live their own lives without harsh judgements of the outside world, and would never dream of looking down on a woman who was a mother, homemaker, domestic, whatever. There are a LOT of women who are Feminists and homemakers, and posts like this and the comments afterward make me feel sad because so many people have a deep, fundamental misunderstanding about what Feminism is and looks like and how Feminists operate. For that I’m truly sorry.

Just as No True Scotsman would ever…so apparently No True Feminist would ever bad-mouth traditionally feminine women or housewives.

Is this claim Fact or Crap?

Let’s go right to the horses’ mouths, shall we? Without further ado, the founding females of modern feminism:

[Housewives] are mindless and thing-hungry…not people. – Betty Friedan

Housewives are dependent creatures who are still children…parasites.” – Gloria Steinem
“No woman should be authorized to stay at home and raise her children. Women should not have that choice, precisely because if there is such a choice, too many women will make that one.” – Simone deBeauvoir

Oh dear! It turns out Ms. Rivera’s claim is in fact…


Just like all of feminism is crap.

Women didn’t need feminism in order to work outside the home. Women have always been able to work outside the home.  I work outside the home, and I loathe feminism.

Feminism is NOT about giving women “choices”. Feminism is about the destruction of femininity, the enslavement of women to corporate masters, the sexual degradation of women, and the destruction of family bonds.  Women are objectively worse off now than pre-feminism.



Ladies, don’t fall for the lie that you owe feminism anything just because you have a job. You don’t.   And definitely don’t believe that feminism supports (or ever supported) women who are housewives.

That is utter crap.

Feminism claims another poor girl’s life.


Feminism has been a mixed bag for economically privileged women, but it has been a straight up disaster for poor women.   However, feminism is simply a tool that has been used by a global elite to line their own pockets via usurious “fiat dollars” that banks are allowed to create out of thin air and lend out to us.  How to get us to borrow, spend, borrow, borrow, and spend some more?  Destroy marriage and childbearing, and women will seek to fill the hole that remains with stuff, career, travel, and a vapid Sex-in-the-City lifestyle.

The destruction of traditional culture goes hand-in-hand with the destruction of the family unit.  The progressive globalists pulling feminism’s strings don’t really give a shit about women.  If they did, they wouldn’t have been egging this poor stupid Pakistani girl on, knowing what her eventual fate would be:

What is the real story here? CNN wants to spin an epic tale of an average woman standing up to patriarchal oppressors against all odds. CNN wants to turn her into a martyr and a heroine. But she is neither of those things, and CNN’s tale is false on its face.

The real story is a sordid one. It is a story of a number of news organizations and NGOs following Anglo-Saxon ideologies of feminism and progressivism, funded and directed from abroad, working on a long-term project to undercut traditional Pakistani society and remake it in the images of Harvard and Oxford Utopia. It is a story of a lower-class Pakistani woman without a husband who got sucked into the pointless spiral of selfies, clicks, and likes that is Western social media, and was then selected and fueled down that path by those same news organizations and NGOs in order to further their political goals.

When she met her inevitable fate in Muslim Punjab, they eulogized her and blamed the patriarchy. And yet, before Qandeel Baloch was having phone calls with journalists at major left-of-center newspapers, she was not likely fearing for her life, nor twerking half-naked for millions to watch on YouTube. Qandeel Baloch was not empowered, she was a political pawn for organizations that did not care whether she lived or died.

Notice that none of the female journalists encouraging her to pose half-nude on the internet were themselves doing anything so pointlessly stupid.  They were happy to whisper lies about empowerment in the girl’s ear, telling her she was strong and independent when in reality she was just reveling in the attention, as most girls would.  Did they care that she would be almost certainly be killed?  Apparently not.  Her death has been ever so useful for their narrative and the news organizations’ site traffic though.  She served her purpose for them, poor stupid girl, and she won’t be the last.

Feminism is the lie that progressive globalists feed gullible girls to celebrate their own debasement and destruction.

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.

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.

Another example of feminism failing to help real women, public breastfeeding edition.

On my recent post about the vagina kayak feminist “artist”, I made the following comment:

If feminists want to be taken seriously, why do they do stuff like this? Don’t they know they are an embarrassment to serious women?

Imagine a young woman who believes in full equality of the sexes, who intends to have a serious career, and who wants to work hard and be taken seriously. What does modern feminism offer such a woman? Why should she choose to ally herself with a movement that lauds vagina kayakers?

Answer: she won’t. Feminism seals its own fate with such asinine behavior.

Not everyone rejects feminism because they are a weirdo Christian traditionalist like me. Many women reject feminism because they observe the grotesque, embarrassing behavior of feminists and say, “No thank you. I have serious work to do.”

I’m going to start out today’s related post with two personal anecdotes that will seem unrelated but which tie in to the main point here.

First anecdote: when I was a student at the University of Michigan, I lived in a student co-op called Black Elk House. I arrived there as a small-town girl who wasn’t used to anything other than very conservative behavior from other girls, but one of my female housemates was a wild-eyed graduate student feminist of the hairy-legged sort who would pass gas loudly at the dinner table fairly regularly, and she earned the rather unkind nickname Master Blaster behind her back. She felt it was her right as a feminist to act gross in public because somehow having good manners was a manifestation of The Evil Patriarchy™.

Second anecdote: I chose to breastfeed our children, including in public places if they were hungry. However, I was never any kind of lactivist, and when it was time to nurse them, I simply tucked them up close to me and raised my shirt only as far as was necessary to get them latched on, and then I tucked the shirt around the side of my exposed breast. I didn’t feel the need to suffocate the babies by putting a blanket over their heads but neither did I want to make others around me uncomfortable. Frankly, I think people only felt uncomfortable when they were trying hard to show that they were NOT ogling my breasts, not because they actually had a problem with public breastfeeding.

Recently I posted a picture of Phil holding our eldest daughter at a Detroit Red Wings game when she was still a nursing infant. During that game, we were seated right next to three cheerful blue-collar type guys who drank beer and joked around, chatting with us the entire first period while our daughter was nursing, and they never even noticed! It wasn’t until the period break when I removed her from the breast that they realized what had been going on, and they became still and nervous as they tried to show that they weren’t staring at me. I thought this was rather nice of them; they weren’t offended by my nursing, and they didn’t want to offend ME by making it look like they were trying to sneak a peek.

While I was pregnant with our second child, I used to go to Lifetime Fitness in Canton to work out. After she was born, I would take her with me and drop her off in the nursery there while I swam laps. At that time, I didn’t know about the controversy surrounding Lifetime Fitness, but shortly after she was born, I found out that another Lifetime Fitness location had refused to allow a mother to nurse her baby on the premises. I was outraged and looked in the member handbook; sure enough, it said women could only nurse their babies in the locker room and had to make it brief and stay covered up.

I had been working out there for awhile and had seen women wearing nothing but thong undies spend 30 minutes at the mirror doing their hair; my four-year-old had come a hair’s breadth from grabbing such a woman’s exposed buttock because she was enamored by the large butterfly tattooed on the lady’s rump (I grabbed her hand just in time to prevent this). I had watched a woman sit entirely nude on a bench for ten minutes breaking up with her boyfriend on her cell phone. But apparently if I wanted to nurse my baby, I was supposed to hide in a corner, cover us fully with a blanket, and make it quick so as not to offend anyone with a 1/8″ view of breast.

I dropped my membership in disgust.

So I can see how a woman was irked recently when Claridge’s, a luxury hotel in London, told her to shroud herself to a ridiculous degree while nursing her infant there. How she started out is pictured on the left and what they asked her to do is pictured on the right:

breastfeedingSome women held a nurse-in to protest, which is fine though it’s nothing I would have done personally. I didn’t feel the need to hold a nurse-in at Lifetime Fitness – I simply took my business and my money elsewhere – but I wouldn’t have thought badly of another woman doing so. Most women who hold “nurse-ins” are pretty discreet and don’t go out of their way to expose themselves, as you can see from this photo of the one that happened at the hotel:

nurse in

So here is a true woman’s issue. Feminists should shine in this area, right?

Wrong.  Here is an excerpt from a feminist essay about the Claridge’s incident and the issue of women being asked to shroud themselves while nursing their babies:

To exhibit any kind of bodily function in public – whether it’s pissing against a wall, spitting in the street, picking and flicking earwax while one waits in a queue – is still seen as a male thing to do. We might consider such things disgusting, but men can assume the right to be disgusting in a way that women can’t. It’s understood that male bodies are a part of what men are. Female bodies don’t have the same status. Even though, on a basic level, we know that they work in much the same way male bodies do – we shit, we piss, we perspire, we snore – we don’t really want to know this. A female body remains a thing to use, to own and to look at. It’s not something which does things suggestive of some real, human messiness inside.

These days the phrase “real woman” is associated with Dove adverts, not with women who fart and burp and might occasionally want to cough up some phlegm while out on a jog. I’m not saying these are pleasant things to do – nor am I proposing we organise a feminist fart-in (unless it’s held at Claridge’s) – but I do think we need to ask ourselves whether the perceived “maleness” of bodily functions is harmful to women. If we pretend that other women don’t snore, sweat or have smelly feet, how much more ashamed will we feel of our own bodies, simply for existing in their natural state?

In contrast to the female body, the male body is simply allowed to be: to fill the room, legs spread wide, adding its own sounds and scents to the air. To assume the right to be a little bit revolting – to spit on the street, to jokingly raise your arse cheek to fart – is, I would argue, a form of privilege.

Here was a chance for feminists to show they really care about the kinds of issues that affect real-life women, and the feminist response was to turn it into a gripe session about how women aren’t allowed to fart loudly in public the way the woman in my student co-op did at the dinner table.

But you know what? Men don’t usually pass gas loudly in public like that. This is a feminist fantasy. And the vast majority of normal women don’t want to do that either; they want to be able to nurse their babies without being harassed by hotel or gym staff, but they don’t want to offend and disgust the people around them.

Defecating is also a natural bodily function that both men and women engage in, but we don’t do that publicly either. We excuse ourselves to a private room to take care of that, and passing gas can almost always be taken care of in a similar manner. This is not because bodily functions are shameful but rather because part of good manners is not offending others with unpleasant odors when it is possible not to.

Breastfeeding, on the other hand, does not produce a foul smell. It is not socially disruptive, and women should not have to retreat under a blanket-tent or hide in another room to do it. How can feminists not see that farting and nursing are in no way equivalent? The original woman’s complaint was valid, and the feminist response was a perfect example of how feminists make real life women’s issues into an embarrassing joke that men won’t take seriously and how they distract us from finding good solutions to those issues by focusing on non-existent “male privilege” instead of the real problem, which in this case was poor corporate policy.