Category Archives: Feminism

Taking a Joke

I’m reading through a book on philosophy at the moment and the male author of the book does not hesitate from making jokes at the expense of men in general. This is all well and good. Being able to make fun of yourself is a big part of levity; of not taking yourself too seriously.

Western women, in general, don’t have this sort of levity. Feminists in particular seem to have none of it. They are gravely serious when the topic is themselves. While men frequently use self-deprecating humor to lighten a mood, feminists affirm what they say and then talk themselves up.

I’ve seen a man say “women must be better than men, because they have to put up with us!” only to have a woman respond with “that’s right we are, and don’t you forget it!” or something similar. While there may be some cases where both sides understand the humor and don’t take what they are saying with any seriousness, these cases are rare. It is far more likely that this sort of exchange results in awkward silence.

If you don’t think this phenomenon takes place, you may want to pay more attention.

Feminism hasn’t simply drained the joy out of marriage and motherhood by sterilizing both and making husbands and children into burdens. It has literally drained the joy out of being a woman because it has made levity impossible. Feminism has made it an act of betrayal for a woman to not take herself with grave seriousness. The effect isn’t women who need to be taken seriously, but women who are too serious altogether. Do feminists believe women aren’t capable of anything else? More likely, feminists are afraid their fraud would be exposed.

The best way to handle the grave seriousness of feminism is for women to use self-deprecating humor.

Marriage is Inevitable

No matter what people do, no matter how much feminism is entrenched in modern thought, there seems to be no way to avoid the necessity of marriage. Or, at the very least, a pathetic marriage substitute.

From Breitbart:

According to the language of the bill, “consent must be ongoing throughout a sexual encounter, and can be revoked at any time. The existence of a dating relationship between the persons involved, or the fact of past sexual relations between them, should never by itself be assumed to be an indicator of consent.”

Aside from such an absurd law being unenforceable, dependent on one witness against another, based on feelings, and so easy to break that any sane and self-controlled man would just skip it altogether, it’s also kind of like marriage. A marriage devoid of its best parts, but a marriage nonetheless.

And now California is having students learn about the process:

Gov. Jerry Brown has approved legislation aimed at making California the first state in the nation to bring lessons about sexual consent required at many colleges into high schools, his office announced Thursday.

Last year, California became the first to require colleges and universities to apply an “affirmative consent” or “yes means yes” standard when investigating campus sexual assault claims. That policy says sexual activity is only considered consensual when both partners clearly state their willingness to participate through “affirmative, conscious and voluntary agreement” at every stage.

This pathetic marriage substitute called “yes means yes” is apparently pretty important to the anti-marriage crowd. It’s interesting that within a century of feminism dismissing marriage for being restrictive and suffocating, a marriage substitute that is even more restrictive and suffocating, not to mention clinical and sterile, should replace it. It’s marriage without force and meaning.

The Substitution Test

The most straightforward and practical test to tell whether someone is a feminist or not is to take some text that is critical of men on a moral issue, replace the references to men with references to women, and present the two side-by-side to them. Men and women, contrary to popular opinion, are distinct creatures and cannot be substituted one for the other. However, in the context of moral questions, both have the same responsibilities and duties, and you may indeed have discovered a person indwelt by the unholy spirit of feminist ideology if they hold one sex to a different moral standard than the other.

For instance, consider the following quote, in image form:

pic for post against feminism - replace for mothersThe text says:

A DADDY isn’t defined as the man who makes the child, but rather a man who extends his hands and time to help raise the child and gives his heart and love to the child!! BLOOD doesn’t always make you a DADDY. Being a DADDY comes from the heart…any fool can make a baby, it takes a MAN to raise a child.

In the sense that there is a difference between impregnating a woman and being a good father to a child, the quote is sound. Fatherhood is a masculine trait, and a sign of godly manhood. A reasonable person would likewise find truth in the quote if adapted for women, perhaps like this:

A MOMMY isn’t defined as the woman who makes the child, but rather a woman who extends her hands and time to help raise the child and gives her heart and love to the child!! BLOOD doesn’t always make you a MOMMY. Being a MOMMY comes from the heart…any food can make a baby, it takes a WOMAN to raise a child.

In the horror stories of women who leave their healthy babies to die in the elements because they are inconvenienced, or who would decide to have their unborn child brutally murdered by an abortion doctor, there is a revelation to the truthfulness in the above. A sane and healthy person, unacquainted with feminism and innocent in regards to the dark and sinister philosophy will agree with the quote as fervently as with the one directed to fathers.

A feminist, on the other hand, will be repulsed by it. How DARE you criticize women? How DARE you suggest that carrying a baby for nine months is not sufficient to be a mommy to the child? The simple transformation of the message into an indictment of women from an indictment of men is enough to draw the feminist from her composure and into the more truthful form of a raving lunatic. In order to serve the falsehood that women are naturally the moral superiors of men, just as it is with all philosophies founded on obvious falsehoods, only raving lunacy can keep a person looking like they are sane.