I thought we might shed a bit of light on the so-called first wave of feminists, whom Christian feminists (is that an oxymoron?) often hold up as God-fearing, Bible believing women who simply wanted to end female oppression. Whether or not these women had legitimate arguments on one or two points is not something I want to debate, though I will if the reader insists. Aside from being anti-abortion, however, the philosophy of most of these women was very similar to that of the more “radical” feminists of the 60′s, whom most all Christians agree have done a great deal of damage to family life, and by extension to society at large. Allow me to introduce to those who may not know, a few members of the first wave.
Elizabeth Cady Stanton (1815-1902), who refused to allow the word “obey’ to be a part of her marriage vows:
“The memory of my own suffering has prevented me from ever shadowing one young soul with the superstitions of the Christian religion.”
“The Bible teaches that woman brought sin and death into the world, that she precipitated the fall of the race, that she was arraigned before the judgment seat of Heaven, tried, condemned and sentenced. Marriage for her was to be a condition of bondage, maternity a period of suffering and anguish, and in silence and subjection, she was to play the role of a dependent on man’s bounty for all her material wants, and for all the information she might desire…. Here is the Bible position of woman briefly summed up.”-
Introduction to The Women’s Bible, which Stanton authored.
Those are just two of the quotes I found from Mrs. Stanton, never mind that the second is total misrepresentation of what the Bible teaches. She is recorded as having felt like a caged bird bound to the domestic drudgery of her home. In fact, she is reported to have breathed a sigh of relief after being freed from her domestic drudgery when she hired full time help in the form of a nanny/housekeeper who remained in her employ for 30 years, freeing her to jump into the suffrage movement with both feet. Apparently the domestic drudgery was okay for that woman to endure.
Lucy Stone (1818-1893), first woman recorded to have kept her own name after marrying. In fact, she was very much in line with today’s thinking since she was 37 and well educated before she finally tied the knot. She was arrested for refusing to pay property taxes when she wasn’t allowed to vote. I actually agree with her in principle on that one. My problem is that we are often told that no women were allowed to own property before these women fought the good fight on our behalf.
Susan B. Anthony(1820-1906), whom I have a bit more regard for since she was at least never married and therefore never had a family to treat as a stumbling block to all she might be without them. Still, the view of the white woman as being oppressed on the level of the African slave is something that I will never be able to agree to. A couple of quotes from Ms. Anthony, as I’m sure she would be called today:
“I beg you to speak of Woman as you do of the Negro, speak of her as a human being, as a citizen of the United States, as a half of the people in whose hands lies the destiny of this Nation.”
“I do not consider divorce an evil by any means. It is just as much a refuge for women married to brutal men as Canada was to the slaves of brutal masters.”
(I do not believe women should be subject to a husband’s brutality either, but how many divorces can honestly be blamed on that?)
“Oh, if I could but live another century and see the fruition of all the work for women! There is so much yet to be done.”-
I, too wonder what Ms. Anthony would think if she could see today’s empowered woman.
Victoria Woodhull (1838-1927), the first woman to run for president in 1872. Married 3 times, and a fierce proponent of the idea of “free love”, she is quoted as saying:
“To woman, by nature, belongs the right of sexual determination. When the instinct is aroused in her, then and then only should commerce follow. When woman rises from sexual slavery to sexual freedom, into the ownership and control of her sexual organs, and man is obliged to respect this freedom, then will this instinct become pure and holy; then will woman be raised from the iniquity and morbidness in which she now wallows for existence, and the intensity and glory of her creative functions be increased a hundred-fold …”
So much for the oh-so-holy first wave of feminists.
the cottage child
July 25, 2011
Ach, Amen!!! We’re working on a short course of the outline of the American political system as part of our “summer term” of h/s, and suffrage/feminism is in the materials we have – I feel like taping over the heading and writing in The Women Who Ruined it for the Rest of Us. I realize that is a little hyperbolic, but – well, compared to the super-woman status they are typically assigned, it’s nothing. Yes, white women were just like black slaves. Riiiiiight. *like*
Aaron Traas
July 25, 2011
I really loath how many Christian women uphold Susan B. Anthony as some sort of saint, particularly among the pro-life movement. If women were never granted the right to vote, abortion would still be illegal in most of the world.
Chels
July 25, 2011
If women were never granted the right to vote, abortion would still be illegal in most of the world.
That sort of statement is exactly why some women became feminists–they grew tired of men policing their body and telling them what to do; not to mention there are fewer and more lenient restrictions imposed on their fellow men.
Chels
July 25, 2011
Terri, Lucy Stone doesn’t sound as bad as the others (keeping her own name and refusing to pay property taxes since she wasn’t allowed to vote sound pretty reasonable to me).
terri
July 25, 2011
I agree with you in part Chels, as I don’t have as much of a problem with Ms. Stone’s stance on the property taxes. She has a point.
Women who refuse to take their husband’s name make me uncomfortable however though it’s not a sin, I suppose. There’s a level of unity that comes when a couple shares a name that is missing. It comes across as a statement of independence from one’s husband. Now I know you have no problem with that, but I’d rather not spend 15 comments arguing about it, thank you very much, LOL. If for no other reason than for the children’s sake, I think a family unit should have a shared name.
Chels
July 25, 2011
Well, I happen to agree with you on the name part Terri, but I do understand why some women think that changing their name means they’re property to be transferred from her father to her husband.
Alte
July 25, 2011
not to mention there are fewer and more lenient restrictions imposed on their fellow men
Yeah, that makes a lot of sense, Chels. There is the minor difference that MEN CAN’T MAKE BABIES and shouldn’t have their childrens’ life at the mercy of a woman’s whims. Just thought I’d point that out, for discussion’s sake.
I feel like taping over the heading and writing in The Women Who Ruined it for the Rest of Us
Ha ha. Yeah.
Chels
July 25, 2011
Alte, I’m not going to get in the whole abortion discussion for the third time, but generally speaking, men are more lenient with their fellow men.
terri
July 25, 2011
shouldn’t have their childrens’ life at the mercy of a woman’s whims. Just thought I’d point that out, for discussion’s sake.
Yes, Alte, this. These pro-choice advocates conveniently forget that the “fetus” in question is not just the woman’s baby, but the man’s baby as well. They forget that women can’t make babies on their own, either. Women carry the babies but we don’t make them. No sperm, no baby.
But see, in their world, only women get to have a choice.
Aaron Traas
July 25, 2011
Your point?
Chels
July 25, 2011
Terri and Alte
That implies that all women who get abortions do so against the father’s wishes, but most often than not, men also want their partners to get abortions; and it’s not a unilateral decision made by the woman.
alcestiseshtemoa
July 25, 2011
whom Christian feminists (is that an oxymoron?)
Yes -> http://www.alittleleaven.com/
So much for the oh-so-holy first wave of feminists.
Indeed.
Some Catholics blame Protestantism and it’s liberal leanings -> http://catholicknight.blogspot.com/2011/06/two-babylons-alternate-history.html
Others the founders of the USA and their libertarian leanings -> http://bonald.wordpress.com/can-there-be-an-american-conservatism/
I, too wonder what Ms. Anthony would think if she could see today’s empowered woman.
She would say “Gosh I never knew that my thinking would lead to this. I just wanted a little equality.”
the cottage child
July 25, 2011
I think a family unit should have a shared name.
Yes, the absence of the unifying identifier was part of the point, I think – families had a system of proxy – including for voting – just like in other important functions, women were NOT without a vote in the context of the family, they just weren’t the one’s casting the public ballots. There’s a big difference. It’s the ignorance of the complexities of “rights” that haunted the first and subsequent waves, that those rights came with responsibilities that their husbands and families are still expected to bear on their behalves (and it’s certainly not exclusive to feminists). It’s a soft tyranny that has become mainstream, a destructiveness that comes with self-centered thought. ME ME ME ME! Oh, yeah, I forgot about you…..oh, well.
alcestiseshtemoa
July 25, 2011
That implies that all women who get abortions do so against the father’s wishes, but most often than not, men also want their partners to get abortions; and it’s not a unilateral decision made by the woman.
I think most here are aware of the holy alliance between feminists and pick-up artists (and even men’s rights activists). Liberalism affects both genders, various races and all age groups.
Chels
July 25, 2011
My point, Aaron, is that feminism can be seen as a reaction and a rebellion against men forcing women to do what men want; with no regard for women’s agency.
Chels
July 25, 2011
Alcest,
Not all men who agree to abortions are PUAs or MRAs.
alcestiseshtemoa
July 25, 2011
Not all men who agree to abortions are PUAs or MRAs.
Of course not. They’re just an example.
alcestiseshtemoa
July 25, 2011
My point, Aaron, is that feminism can be seen as a reaction and a rebellion against men forcing women to do what men want; with no regard for women’s agency.
Isn’t it usually seen as that?
terri
July 25, 2011
but most often than not, men also want their partners to get abortions; and it’s not a unilateral decision made by the woman.
We really have no way of knowing that this is true for sure because the father doesn’t have to be notified in advance. Now, I have no doubt that a good number of women who have abortions do so with their “partner’s” blessing. But I also know of two girls who had abortions when I was high school and neither one bothered to to tell their boyfriend about it.
Given that the mother (she’s still the mother; just the mother of a dead baby instead of a living one) can have an abortion without his consent, it would be foolish to think that there aren’t significant numbers of women who quickly and quietly abort simply because they know the guy wouldn’t approve of the decision.
Alte
July 25, 2011
a rebellion against men forcing women to do what men want; with no regard for women’s agency
1) That is just silly. Women have always had agency, even if it is not enshrined in law.
2) Considering that men build and maintain civilization largely for our safety and comfort, I think it is sensible to let them
force us to do what they wantwork undisturbed.Others the founders of the USA and their libertarian leanings
I blame The Fall. Eve was the First Feminist and Adam the First Beta. And they were thrown out of Eden for it.
alcestiseshtemoa
July 25, 2011
Introduction to The Women’s Bible, which Stanton authored.
Talking of specific bibles -> http://www.internetmonk.com/archive/selling-jesus-by-the-pound
Of course that’s a different topic but interesting and slightly connected nonetheless.
terri
July 25, 2011
Eve was the First Feminist and Adam the First Beta. And they were thrown out of Eden for it.
True, lol. Interesting that the first sin, the advent of the fall, was an act of rebellion by a woman and failure to lead by a man. Speaks volumes, doesn’t it?
alcestiseshtemoa
July 25, 2011
But I also know of two girls who had abortions when I was high school and neither one bothered to to tell their boyfriend about it.
Interesting. What about mothers having a child and not telling the father?
alcestiseshtemoa
July 25, 2011
Many of MRAs oppose abortion. They evaluate the impact, consider the facts and come to the conclusion that abortion is killing a person and destructive to society. In fact many PUA’s also come to this conclusion. Being anti-abortion is an acceptable position in the manosphere and it is extremely rare to take any flak about it. Also it is rare for there to be many pro-abortion articles.
Maybe I was wrong. I did notice a slightly influential liberal strand though -> http://ozconservative.blogspot.com/2010/05/revealing-political-profiles.html
A proportion of them identify themselves as liberals according to the link above.
Chels
July 25, 2011
Yup, we all know how men are so superior and women are their inferior, so it obviously makes sense for men to be allowed to tell women what to do (and I’m not talking about the woman’s partner, I’m talking about men in general)
Alte, it is true that women always possessed agency, but that doesn’t mean they could actually implement it or that it was respected.
terri
July 25, 2011
What about mothers having a child and not telling the father?
I’m sure that happens, too. Of course, there are two issues here. The first and most important, are the moral and spiritual implications.
The second is the legal aspect. If she decides to abort the baby, there’s nothing he can do to stop her, even if he wants the child. If she decides to have the child, he’s on the hook financially (with virtually no corresponding parental rights) even if he didn’t want the child. This is the problem with legalized abortion. It’s inherently unjust. The reproductive rights of the woman necessarily tramples on the reproductive rights of the man. And they all trample on the right of the unborn child to exist.
Which is why I believe we should err (if you will) on the side of life.
Alte
July 25, 2011
But I also know of two girls who had abortions when I was high school and neither one bothered to to tell their boyfriend about it.
I know a married woman who didn’t tell her husband (then fiancée).
David Alexander
July 25, 2011
Women carry the babies
That’s admittedly the problem. So while the male did help to create the child, he usually doesn’t suffer the consequences of carrying fetus for 9 months within it’s body. The only remotely equitable solution is to simply have the male reimburse the female for ensuring that the child reaches term in exchange for full custodial rights from her.
Not all men who agree to abortions are PUAs or MRAs.
Yes, some of them are average males and sub-humans like myself.
David Alexander
July 25, 2011
If she decides to have the child, he’s on the hook financially (with virtually no corresponding parental rights) even if he didn’t want the child.
So the solution is to simply change the law to permit unmarried men to have the right not to support these children in exchange for all parental rights. Married men a bit screwed in this context though, but until artificial wombs developed, we’re going to be at the whims and desires of the woman’s womb.
Cane Caldo
July 25, 2011
I don’t have as much of a problem with Ms. Stone’s stance on the property taxes. She has a point.
By this logic, legal aliens should be able to vote if they own property. Underage teen drivers shouldn’t pay road tolls, sales tax, gas tax…lots of taxes. Property taxes are tied to property; gas taxes to gas; sales taxes…you get the idea. The ability to vote is a separate issue–which can be argued from several different perspectives. One of which is this: each head of household gets a vote to represent that family. In a Christian traditionalist society, by and large, that means the husband.
Besides, flip that idea around and test it: Should renters NOT be able to vote because they don’t own property? What percentage of New Yorkers could vote?
Morticia
July 25, 2011
I am not sure how giving women the vote led to abortion. Abortion was a supreme court decision decided by men.
My grandmother told me that at the time the decision hardly even made headlines. She said she didn’t know any women personally who wanted abortion legal and she had quite a variety of friends.
Cane Caldo
July 25, 2011
I know a married woman who didn’t tell her husband (then fiancée).
This made my stomach lurch. Does he know now? Did you know her at the time?
Aaron Traas
July 25, 2011
Indeed. In Catholic tradition, it’s referred to as the sin of Adam. Eve may have taken the Apple and tempted Adam with it, but since Adam was put over her, it’s his failure to even attempt to lead her away from this path that is considered the greater sin. It’s funny that liberals accuse Christians of putting all the blame on Eve and thus woman; what allowed that to happen was egalitarianism.
Aaron Traas
July 25, 2011
It’s not so black and white. Women voting lead to an increase in government’s life into the social life of people. It became a nanny state in pretty short order. The court, over the generations, was feminized, along with the rest of government.
Also, you misunderstand what Roe v. Wade decided — it didn’t “legalize” abortion — abortion was already legal in some states. What it did is made it illegal for states to restrict it. And the states lost their balls; they could certainly have ignored this encroachment of their powers (look up “state nullification”).
Aaron Traas
July 25, 2011
There’s no such point. What does paying taxes have to do with voting? Giving every citizen the unequivocal right to vote is an incredibly modern concept. Taxation has existed since the dawn of government. Do you think the Jews in Christ’s time were given the right to vote by the Romans? Did Christ not tell the Pharisees that they should give to Caesar what is Caesar’s?
Aaron Traas
July 25, 2011
So what? Having a right and being able to implement the use of the right are two separate things. A just government must protect it’s citizens rights, but need not provide the means under which the rights might be used. For instance, the US constitution fabricates a right to free speech, and the government must thus not deprive a person of the right to such speech. What it is not obligated to do is give that person a platform for said speech; it does not subsidize internet access, manufacture of paper, etc. — it just gets out of the way.
The law can recognize agency of women, and thus must protect it when it is forcibly removed from her, whilst simultaneously doing nothing specifically to help her use her agency.
This modern understanding of rights from “this can’t be taken away from me” to “this MUST be provided to me” is preposterous.
Aaron Traas
July 25, 2011
That’s something I’d have an awful difficulty forgiving. If my wife did that to me, I’d throw her out of the house and never speak to her again. In a just society, such a woman would be executed, because that’s what sane men do to murderers.
Chels
July 25, 2011
In a patriarchy, the men’s rights trump women’s rights as women are seen inherently inferior in absolutely everything, and as such, it doesn’t matter what they say as their thoughts/ideas are not held to the same level as those of men. What does it matter what a woman says or thinks when she’s considered to be of inferior intelligence?
Chris Masterjohn
July 25, 2011
I never learned (BA in history) that women were not allowed to own property before the vote. I learned that married women were not allowed to own property but single women were, and that both British and American first-wave feminism pursued the right of married women to own property before, not after, the vote. My recollection is that in both cases the right of married women to own property was secured before the vote.
I find it baffling that anyone would consider voting more important than owning property, especially in an era when elected government took a much smaller portion of property away from the populace.
The prohibition of married women owning property, if I remember right, grew out of British common law’s politicization of the Ephesians passage about the man being the head of the wife. But Ephesians does not establish a political order. Obedience is the woman’s spiritual ascesis according to this passage, not the man’s right on demand nor the government’s contract to enforce.
Chris
Chels
July 25, 2011
7Man
Isn’t true that in a patriarchy men are seen as the bosses? Not only that, but is it not true that women are seen as lacking in intelligence? And what person does what an inferior one tells them to do?
Therefore, in a patriarchy, a woman doesn’t have an equal voice to that of a man.
Alte
July 25, 2011
Chels,
The way women have traditionally acquired a political voice is through their influence over the men in their lives.
Does he know now? Did you know her at the time?
He’s now her ex, neither he nor I knew about it at the time, and she didn’t tell me that until after they were separated. I don’t have anything to do with her anymore, although we were once quite close, and she keep trying to “friend” me on Facebook.
They split up halfway through their engagement, she went and got an abortion (he didn’t know she was pregnant), and then they got back together about a year later and married.
Svar
July 25, 2011
“Yup, we all know how men are so superior and women are their inferior”
You’re proof enough for this statement.
Morticia
July 25, 2011
It is pretty obvious when a woman is intelligent and when she isn’t, so intelligent women always had respect by men who were intelligent enough to recognize it.
The statistics tells us that most women are of average intelligence. There are more very smart men than smart women but there are more very dumb men than very dumb women.
But I don’t see what intelligence has to do with the price of tea in china.
Svar
July 25, 2011
“women are seen inherently inferior in absolutely everything, and as such, it doesn’t matter what they say as their thoughts/ideas are not held to the same level as those of men.”
Has modernity or feminism proved this to be untrue? It’s still the case, regardless of the existence of patriarchy.
Svar
July 25, 2011
“Therefore, in a patriarchy, a woman doesn’t have an equal voice to that of a man.”
The only difference between back then and now is that back then men didn’t pretend women were equal.
Svar
July 25, 2011
I know you’re probably thinking that I’m joking, but this time I’m serious about the statements I made on this thread.
Svar
July 25, 2011
“In a just society, such a woman would be executed, because that’s what sane men do to murderers.”
Murder is a capital crime.
Chels
July 25, 2011
Of course you’re not joking, I doubted you were joking from the beginning (I mean just who makes the same statements time and time again, only to say they’re joking after people got mad?).
I have no doubt you honestly believe men are superior, even though that’s not held up. I also have no doubt that every self-declared patriarch thinks of women as being inferior, and the proof is the insistence on the leadership/submission model.
Svar
July 25, 2011
“I have no doubt you honestly believe men are superior, even though that’s not held up.”
I don’t believe that to be the case. I know that to be the case.
“I also have no doubt that every self-declared patriarch thinks of women as being inferior, and the proof is the insistence on the leadership/submission model.”
Equality doesn’t exist in Nature. There is no natural basis to believe that men and women are on the same level. Your ideology tells you otherwise, but it’s nothing but ideology. Women follow men who lead, simple as that. I know that doesn’t make you feeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeewwww good, but Nature is a bitch(well, I like her, but I can see why some people hate her) and doesn’t give a damn about your feeeeeeeeeeewwwwiings.
Svar
July 25, 2011
“I mean just who makes the same statements time and time again, only to say they’re joking after people got mad?”
I joke when I say extreme statements like women are just for sex or just baby farms.
Svar
July 25, 2011
“Chels made a false statement and is now trying to justify it by her feelings by redirecting the frame. This extrapolation is BS. Her initial statement was BS. I am not entering into her warped frame. ”
And she wonders why we and our ancestors were so patronizing and condescending to women. If they had shown the ability to use logic just as well as men, I would consider them to be equal. Women who do use logic properly, I do consider to be equal actually, but as for the vast majority of women….. no.
Chels
July 25, 2011
7Man
Both of my statements still hold up and they’re not based on emotions. Please tell me it’s not true that in a patriarchy, men are seen as the bosses, and women are not seen as lacking in intelligence. I’d like you to make an argument against these 2 statements.
samseau
July 25, 2011
the problem w/men is men; women’s rights were given to them because powerful men wanted to create more problems for their political enemies (other powerful men).
and of course women are inferior, they are basically nitwits, they were nothing more than pawns for men in power.
that is the real problem w/men; over a long enough time period we will seek to destroy each through any means possible, and in this era we use women as weapons. but only the deluded consider women as anything but inferior whose only use is a political one
Chels
July 25, 2011
And I’d also like you to show me where I used emotion in my arguments.
Morticia
July 25, 2011
As a general rule women are very easily manipulated.
The juxtaposition is that men can be very stubborn.
Neither situation is good in itself ..hence “complimentary” nature of the sexes.
buckyinky
July 25, 2011
Chels,
Rarely comment here, though I do read many of the conversations with interest (thanks Alte, et al., for your contributions), so whatever rapport that I could possibly have gained with you through this forum, I don’t have. Still, you might benefit in considering that the things you write here in general, specifically the generalities you assign to how men relate to women, perpetuate the mistrust men have for women that we see in our day. Whether that mistrust is deserved or not (I would argue that it is not deserved, that is, there is reason for men to have hope, and they ought to have hope, in the goodness of women), statements from you, such as — “…I do understand why some women think that changing their name means they’re property to be transferred from her father to her husband” (which assumes that it is standard thinking for men to consider women as subhuman); “…feminism can be seen as a reaction and a rebellion against men forcing women to do what men want…” (which assumes that men as a rule don’t think of the good of anyone except themselves); and “…I’m not talking about the woman’s partner, I’m talking about men in general [being allowed to tell women what to do],” (which assumes that throughout most of history the average man has had some kind of control over the average woman) — these statements of yours, as well as most of the others I’ve read from you show a disbelief in or lack of faith in the goodwill of men. You start out with mistrust of men, but somehow you expect to receive back from men trust in your goodness and worth as a woman?
For my part, I do believe in the goodness of women, but it has not been because of anything you have demonstrated in the many comments of yours I have read. In fact, if I were to believe that your way of thinking (a default mistrust of the nature of men) was natural to women, I probably wouldn’t believe in the goodness of women. It is in spite of what you have written that I continue wholeheartedly to believe in women, and I appreciate your comments only in that they give a further platform for others to elaborate on very interesting and worthy thoughts.
Svar
July 25, 2011
Coming on to this site is like having a hamster hunt-All The Time.. Dalrock would be pleased.
“and women are not seen as lacking in intelligence.”
I want you to prove to me that the vast majority who have a pair still do not think this way.
Chels
July 25, 2011
I actually find Dalrock’s site acceptable; I have yet to read a post of his which states that men are superior and women inferior.
Svar
July 25, 2011
My feelings exactly, Buckyinky. I’m glad that most of the women around where I live do not think or feel the same way as Chels.
Chels
July 25, 2011
Bucky, I don’t distrust men, but I also don’t want to be dependent on their benevolence.
Cane Caldo
July 25, 2011
Please tell me it’s not true that in a patriarchy, men are seen as the bosses, and women are not seen as lacking in intelligence. I’d like you to make an argument against these 2 statements.
Ok: it’s not true. Surely you’ve heard John Adam’s letter to his wife about the despotism of the petticoat?
“Depend upon it, we know better than to repeal our masculine systems. Although they are in full force, you know they are little more than theory. We dare not exert our power in its full latitude. We are obliged to go fair and softly, and, in practice, you know we are the subjects.
“We have only the name of masters, and rather than give up this, which would completely subject us to the despotism of the petticoat, I hope General Washington and all our brave heroes would fight.”
Written n patriarchal times; written by a patriarch.
Women’s intelligence has never been in question by serious thinkers. It’s that women are not naturally moored to principles; that they toss easily in the choppy waters of emotion. And this is a good thing, too: Who has not questioned the ability of men to empathize? We are sometimes tied too tightly. But, as it comes to law and society, this is rarely the case. Laws can be bad, but it is worse when they’re capricious as well.
There’s this great scene in The 13th Warrior, when a little boy comes running naked out of a forest. He’s screaming, and covered in blood because his home has just been attacked by some monsters. The warriors ride out to get him, bringing the queen along. The men, stern and bold, reach the boy first. Jumping down, the grab him by the shoulders, shaking him, yelling, “WHAT HAPPENED? WHO DID THIS?” The pushes the men away, swoops up the boy in a blanket, and gives the men the coldest You-Are-Idiots look.
I think this is how life should go between the sexes.
buckyinky
July 25, 2011
I should say that I also appreciate your comments, Chels, because they show a raw persistence along with apparent sincerity, if also naivete and downright foolishness.
Chels
July 25, 2011
I don’t think feminism is the solution, but then neither is patriarchy, society needs something more moderate.
Chels
July 25, 2011
I wouldn’t mind living in a patriarchy that would model Dalrock’s or Athol Kay’s beliefs.
namae nanka
July 25, 2011
“Apparently the domestic drudgery was okay for that woman to endure.”
Same with Betty Friedan.
“My problem is that we are often told that no women were allowed to own property before these women fought the good fight on our behalf.”
http://feministhate.tripod.com/id49.htm
The Victoria Woodhull’s quote is a joke.
namae nanka
July 25, 2011
“That sort of statement is exactly why some women became feminists–they grew tired of men policing their body and telling them what to do; not to mention there are fewer and more lenient restrictions imposed on their fellow men.”
http://www.voxday.net/archive/2003/060203.html
http://calicantsar.blogspot.com/2009/09/casual-comment-54_17.html
terri
July 25, 2011
There’s no such point. What does paying taxes have to do with voting? Giving every citizen the unequivocal right to vote is an incredibly modern concept. Taxation has existed since the dawn of government.
Your comment makes sense, Aaron. I wasn’t thinking as much about the Jews under the Roman empire, though I should have been because Jesus did pay taxes and admonished us to render unto Caesar the things that are his.
I was thinking more about the American tradition of rejecting taxation without representation. However, given that there is much talk on the right about tying voting rights to property ownership, I thought Ms. Stone’s argument had merit.
The Deuce
July 25, 2011
I wouldn’t say that men are superior and women inferior full-stop. However, generally speaking, men are clearly superior at thinking logically and objectively when making decisions – something Chels reinforces every time she argues using her subjective emotional state.
It stands to reason then, that when logical and principled decision-making is of primary importance, it is better if most of it is being done by men.
Chels
July 25, 2011
7Man
I couldn’t live in a patriarchy a la Svar, or a la Aaron or a la Samseau because it wouldn’t match my belief systems.
joanna
July 25, 2011
Wow, Terry. I didn’t realize that Susan B. Anthony said something so wholly irrational as, “I beg you to speak of Woman as you do of the Negro.”
I actually get the point of “heads of households” voting for the whole family. You can only imagine how many times I’ve read things like, “I admit, I voted for Obama because I wanted to be part of something wonderful.” An emotional reason to vote, and that is a bad way to elect someone to run the country. I certainly trust my husband to vote in a manner that represents the needs of me and my family. Obviously, since I’ve been given the right to vote, I do.
Chels
July 25, 2011
The Deuce, what you said sounds reasonable, my problem is when people say men are superior at everything, not when they say men are superior at X or Y.
Morticia
July 25, 2011
I wouldn’t like a patriarchy ala Dalrock because I think he over-estimates the effectiveness of shaming in keeping women chaste. A better method is to keep boys and girls separate as much as possible and to shame excessive leniency in parenting.
Chels
July 25, 2011
Since the comments made here by men clearly illustrate that not one definition of patriarchy exists, and therefore, it is subjective to each man’s belief system, how can a system like that be reconciled and actually implemented?
Or are there a few core rules to it and everything else is subjective?
terri
July 25, 2011
But Ephesians does not establish a political order. Obedience is the woman’s spiritual ascesis according to this passage, not the man’s right on demand nor the government’s contract to enforce.
This is an excellent point, Chris. I appreciate your making it. One of the arguments people who oppose male headship often raise is this idea that men have Biblical authority to force their woman to submit and nothing could be further from the truth. So thank you.
Also, like you, I was never under the impression that women couldn’t own property. However, talk to a strident feminist long enough and I promise you you’ll hear the “women couldn’t own property” argument right along with “men had a legal right to beat their wives.”
Morticia
July 25, 2011
I would gladly give up my vote but this is because I hate voting. I have never voted for the winner and not felt guilty a year later.
At least when who I vote for loses I can throw my hands up and say “not my fault”.
If the men did all the voting then I could just blame them. hehe.
namae nanka
July 25, 2011
“my problem is when people say men are superior at everything, not when they say men are superior at X or Y.”
a facile answer to that is that men(males) being more variable(rather genetic losers as well as winners), are also found at the far end of tails of feminine traits, but of course not in the same quantity as the masculine traits.
namae nanka
July 25, 2011
“Since the comments made here by men clearly illustrate that not one definition of patriarchy exists, and therefore, it is subjective to each man’s belief system, how can a system like that be reconciled and actually implemented?
Or are there a few core rules to it and everything else is subjective?”
the same goes for feminism?
excellent work here:
http://gynotheory.blogspot.com/2011/01/pig-latin.html
Aaron Traas
July 25, 2011
You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.
When patriachy-types use the word “superior”, they aren’t using it to mean “better”, they’re using it in the same way you describe a military man submitting to his “superior officer”. Superior in the heirarchy. Super as in “above”. My boss is my “superior”, and she’s a woman. There’s plenty of times I think I know better than her, but I submit, because that is my position — to fail to do so would be to neglect the Catholic teaching on authority. I effectively have two options when I disagree with her commands: obey or quit. There is no middle ground.
Morticia
July 25, 2011
7man- When I debated on his website the biggest complaint I had was this idea that teenage girls can be the gatekeepers of sex and boys need not be discouraged from pressuring girls into sex. This does not work…just like Eve fell to Satan so will many a typical girl fail in gatekeeping when she experiences sexual advances from her crush.
There must be more pragmatic solutions that take into account feminine weakness.
Morticia
July 25, 2011
7Man- Okay..i’ll bite. How should I have worded my point of view so that it was received better?
namae nanka
July 25, 2011
“My recollection is that in both cases the right of married women to own property was secured before the vote.”
funny things have happened:
http://fullofgraceseasonedwithsalt.blogspot.com/search/label/Anti-Suffrage
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women's_Tax_Resistance_League
Cane Caldo
July 25, 2011
7Man- Okay..i’ll bite. How should I have worded my point of view so that it was received better?
Ha! I wondered the same thing. When I read your comment, 7Man, I thought. “Uh, didn’t she just say that she wouldn’t emphasize shaming women, but keep the sexes separate and shame lenient parenting?”
Alte
July 25, 2011
It is pretty obvious when a woman is intelligent and when she isn’t, so intelligent women always had respect by men who were intelligent enough to recognize it
Intelligent women have always been highly valued and their opinions have always been heard. The suffragettes are their own counter-argument. They had no vote, and therefore no formal power, but they were marching about in the streets demanding power, nagging men, and shaming the state… and they eventually got their way.
Many of them were married and their husbands supported their campaigns even if they didn’t support their politics. The patriarchal oppression was apparently overwhelming. Not.
I actually find Dalrock’s site acceptable
*Dalrock hides in shame at being complimented by Chels.*
It stands to reason then, that when logical and principled decision-making is of primary importance, it is better if most of it is being done by men.
Precisely.
Chels, you should note that the more clear-sighted and intelligent a woman is, the more the idea of ending female suffrage will appeal to her. You are worried about being terrorized by patriarchs, but we are sick of being terrorized by matriarchs. I would gladly give up my vote if silly girls like you lost theirs, as well. I would cheer in the streets and cry tears of relief.
Svar
July 25, 2011
“You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.”\
Exactly, she thinks the word “superior” means instrinsically of better worth not simply higher in rank.
alcestiseshtemoa
July 25, 2011
The details do not negate the core, (which is often a method that women use to disagree). Details can be debated to refine the concept but not negate the central core premise.
True.
Svar
July 25, 2011
“I wouldn’t say that men are superior and women inferior full-stop. However, generally speaking, men are clearly superior at thinking logically and objectively when making decisions – something Chels reinforces every time she argues using her subjective emotional state.
It stands to reason then, that when logical and principled decision-making is of primary importance, it is better if most of it is being done by men.”
Exactly, Deuce. My views are actually more nuanced than the ones that I say out of irritation. I believe that men are best for some things and that women are best for some things and even though both are intrinsically equal in worth and value, men are higher in rank. Those are my more-thoroughly clarified views of men and women.
alcestiseshtemoa
July 25, 2011
It’s not so black and white. Women voting lead to an increase in government’s life into the social life of people. It became a nanny state in pretty short order. The court, over the generations, was feminized, along with the rest of government.
Agreed. Women’s influence has been felt in political, social and economic areas.
Svar
July 25, 2011
“But in the manosphere, men don’t give up so that is why the majority of women don’t do well when trying to participate.”
Hehe, that’s true. It’s because we have reason to give up and stop chasing the hamster.
terri
July 25, 2011
Women voting lead to an increase in government’s life into the social life of people. It became a nanny state in pretty short order. The court, over the generations, was feminized, along with the rest of government.
It’s also worth noting that most women are quite liberal when they are single, and grow more conservative when they marry and have children. There are far more single women who vote for liberal candidates than married women.
So women are more likely to help institute bad policies with their vote while young before realizing the error of their ways later. All the more reason to tie a woman’s vote to that of her husband.
And yes, my gravatar has changed. I prefer the image of a southern flower to the rose and a magnolia is the first thing that came to mind.
alcestiseshtemoa
July 25, 2011
There are far more single women who vote for liberal candidates than married women.
What happens if marriage (its meaning, its laws, itself) becomes more liberal? Generally married women are more conservative but I’m curious.
Morticia
July 25, 2011
I still don’t quite understand what was lame about my comments.
The problem was defined as women sleeping with men too easily. The proposed solution was “traditional women” shaming women who show themselves to be “easy”. Some of the practical ways suggested was by not associating with such women, one person even went so far as to suggest spitting on such women.
When it was noted by another commenter that these rules were not being applied to the men who seduce women the response was that this was not the mans responsibility. Women are the “gatekeepers” end stop.
They seemed to think I was worried about fairness. But I wasn’t..I was worried about the method not being effective enough.
Recently I started watching My Big Fat Gypsy Wedding and I was struck by how conservative they were despite the fact that to look at them one would think they were simply white trash. In actuality they have a strict code of conduct and girls are *never* allowed to be alone with a boy and are expected to marry early. Now if a girl was alone with a boy she would be chastised, but everyone in the group seems pretty keenly aware that expecting girls and boys to spend time alone and still remain chaste…or to remain chaste into their late 20′s…is impractical for the great majority.
My point- that we can’t expect women to be gatekeepers of sex unless we create a society that makes that easier…led people to assume that I was in favor of promiscuity.
alcestiseshtemoa
July 25, 2011
Ha! I wondered the same thing. When I read your comment, 7Man, I thought. “Uh, didn’t she just say that she wouldn’t emphasize shaming women, but keep the sexes separate and shame lenient parenting?”
She meant that shaming just women doesn’t work but shaming both sexes does (e.g. separation). It’s a better solution.
Chels
July 25, 2011
All the more reason to tie a woman’s vote to that of her husband.
How can you not see how it’s ridiculous making such a statement? You suggest that women are not able to make their own decisions politically and it also implies that men are needed to guide women towards the “right” choice.
It’s also false to assume that only a woman changes her vote as she gets older, so do plenty of men. As well, social programs are needed, we do need to support our unemployed, our sick and our education system. How are these bad policies? The majority of people don’t mind paying taxes to help their fellow human being, and both men and women support social programs (it shouldn’t be all mememe). Or is it so much smarter to invest in the army instead of helping your own people at home?
As well, women don’t rule the world, men do, and they’ve also made plenty of mistakes.
Alte
July 25, 2011
I like the new avatar, Terry. The red was always a bit jarring.
alcestiseshtemoa
July 25, 2011
7Man
I couldn’t live in a patriarchy a la Svar, or a la Aaron or a la Samseau because it wouldn’t match my belief systems.
Chels the solution is parallel societies, secession or separation.
Chels
July 25, 2011
Alte, then maybe you should also think of taking away the right to vote from the majority of the population, as people with your worldviews are the minority (and yes,this also includes taking away the right to vote from most men).
alcestiseshtemoa
July 25, 2011
How are these bad policies? The majority of people don’t mind paying taxes to help their fellow human being, and both men and women support social programs (it shouldn’t be all mememe).
I think it’s twisted altruism. In a democracy since it’s the rule by the people, for the people pleasure and happiness are among the biggest goals for governance (the whims of the population are always being called to be put into action). Sometimes they desire something unnecessary and waste chunks of money on it. Other times it’s to create social programs that enable even more negative consequences. On one hand it’s what the other person can do for me, on the other hand it’s -> http://charltonteaching.blogspot.com/2011/07/error-of-christian-socialism.html
As well, women don’t rule the world, men do, and they’ve also made plenty of mistakes.
Aren’t the type of men that feminists love and desire ruling the world?
Aaron Traas
July 25, 2011
I’m 100% in agreement with you, though spitting on a woman, no matter how repugnant she is, is unbecoming of a lady.
Women are the gatekeepers. Most men will take the path of least resistance towards getting sex, end of story. If you make the only path available, or at least the best path for all but the most “alpha”, marriage, you solve the problem. Who cares if it’s a double-standard? First, men and women are different. Second, the long-term outcome would be better for both men and women. Finally, there’s all kinds of things men are shamed for that women are not — crying in public, for instance. Being too weak/vulnerable. These and more are privileges afforded women, and I don’t begrudge them.
Obviously, this doesn’t excuse men from the sin of fornication. It’s just to state that women are 100% capable of stopping it, and to their own benefit.
alcestiseshtemoa
July 25, 2011
as people with your worldviews are the minority
The validity and truth of a worldview does not simply depend on numbers.
terri
July 25, 2011
Chels. I meant a married woman’s vote, not ALL women. While it’s true that all people evolve and change their minds and grow more conservative as they age, I believe women are more pronounced in this regard.
To be honest with you, I think there should be all kinds of factors taken into consideration before one is allowed to vote besides gender, beginning with a basic understanding of how American government works, as determined by examination.
This idea that every citizen over the age of 18 is guaranteed a vote is part of the problem. I know your last comment was addressed to Alte, but I don’t object to people with different worldviews voting their conscience. I just would prefer they have a basic understanding of the policies that vote for besides their feeeelings.
Chels
July 25, 2011
Oh yeah, like it makes so much sense completely ignoring people who are sick, poor and unemployed–let them just manage by themselves. I can’t think of the harm these policies have done, only how much it benefited everyone around.
Cane Caldo
July 25, 2011
It’s also worth noting that most women are quite liberal when they are single, and grow more conservative when they marry and have children.
Testosterone injections will be that to you!
As well, women don’t rule the world, men do, and they’ve also made plenty of mistakes.
This is true. You never know when men are going to give women suffrage.
Chels
July 25, 2011
And no Alcest, in a democracy, all people choose their leaders, not only feminists.
alcestiseshtemoa
July 25, 2011
And no Alcest, in a democracy, all people choose their leaders, not only feminists.
No Chels. Where did you get that from? I’m talking about social programs and democracy.
alcestiseshtemoa
July 25, 2011
Oh you mean this Chels “Aren’t the type of men that feminists love and desire ruling the world?“
Chels
July 25, 2011
Terri, no, you’re not open to different worldviews since you said that (married) women’s vote should be tied to that of her husband, who you think will vote conservatively. Therefore, you believe only those with conservative views should have the vote.
PS: What difference does it make if a woman is married or not? Why shouldn’t a woman’s vote just be tied to her father if she’s not married or to another male?
joanna
July 25, 2011
Yes, women need to men to help them make rational political decisions. Most of the women I meet can hardly state their reasons for believing in one thing or another, they just do it because it feels right. Logic, and not feelings, is needed to run the country properly. Hence, “I voted for Obama because I wanted to be part of something special.” Obama’s “Hope and Change” mantra was especially appealing to women’s feelings.
Chels
July 25, 2011
Social programs are tied to political parties (different parties have different views regarding this) and therefore, people vote for the party whose views match theirs the most.
The Deuce
July 25, 2011
How can you not see how it’s ridiculous making such a statement? You suggest that women are not able to make their own decisions politically and it also implies that men are needed to guide women towards the “right” choice.
Good girl, Chel! You understood what she said! (*pat on the head*)
Aaron Traas
July 25, 2011
Sounds good to me! My theory is that if we are to keep the republic, only landowning men should vote, as landowners have a greater stake in society. In addition, they should only be able to vote for the most local elections (such as municipal elections), and the elected officials of the municipality should vote for the county seats, and the county seats should vote for the state, the state should appoint senators and the senate should elect the president.
This modern idea of a mega-republic where everyone votes for everything position pretty preposterous. Even in republics of old, this wasn’t true. For example, in the old Republic of Venice, the Doge (roughly, Duke) was elected by a council of 40, and only from a specific group of aristocratic families. In the Holy Roman Empire, the Emperor was elected from a college of 7 prince-electors, three ecclesiastic and four secular (5 of the 7 seats still exist; if the Pope were to call for an election, we could have a re-establishment of the HRE today), and after a time, it became a requirement that the Emperor was a Hapsburg.
terri
July 25, 2011
Oh yeah, like it makes so much sense completely ignoring people who are sick, poor and unemployed–let them just manage by themselves.
I am not totally against the idea of a safety net for those truly in need, Chels. I would argue however, that the institution of policies to provide basic necessities to those who have simply hit a rough patch has eroded the God-ordained safety net of families.
I get so sick of liberals claiming that conservatives want to starve the poor and kick the needy while they’re down. That’s hogwash, and you know it. I wonder why it has been conclusively and repeated shown that conservatives and religious people give far more money to charity (and not just their churches either) than secular liberals. It must be because we’re oh-so-heartless.
I think it’s heartless to get between families and cause more and more people to depend on government programs on the verge of going bankrupt. And people have made the horrible mistake of being disconnected from the very lifeline God intended: friends and families.
Chels
July 25, 2011
Joanna, the women are know are not like that–before voting, they read each of the party’s platforms, they watched televised debates between the leaders, they look at the party’s history, all in all, they make an informed decision.
Instead of tying their vote to men, how about we just teach them politics?
The Deuce
July 25, 2011
Social programs are tied to political parties (different parties have different views regarding this) and therefore, people vote for the party whose views match theirs the most.
No kidding? Also, did you know that water is wet?
alcestiseshtemoa
July 25, 2011
PS: What difference does it make if a woman is married or not? Why shouldn’t a woman’s vote just be tied to her father if she’s not married or to another male?
A woman usually is expected to continue her lineage so that her father doesn’t burden himself with her for all of his life and also a woman needs live her own life and create a family (the lineage thing again). After the woman grows up most of the responsibility will fall on her husband (even though of course the father still has some influence and power).
Chels
July 25, 2011
Aaron, how about landowning women?
Chels
July 25, 2011
Deuce, I was replying to Alcest’s comment “No Chels. Where did you get that from? I’m talking about social programs and democracy.” when I said
Social programs are tied to political parties (different parties have different views regarding this) and therefore, people vote for the party whose views match theirs the most.
joanna
July 25, 2011
I think the vast numbers of people voting mucks up the system.
Aaron Traas
July 25, 2011
Most people (men and women) are too stupid, to easily swayed by a slick message, for this to work.
Restricting it to the successful (whether as broad as land-owners or as narrow as a formal aristocracy) would smooth that out. We already have a political class bordering on oligarchy; political classes will rise regardless of the system. It’s best to acknowledge that and put it to use.
Chels
July 25, 2011
7Man,
Terri was talking about how women support social programs and that apparently is bad.
Isn’t the natural consequence of eliminating social programs letting people manage by themselves?
Cane Caldo
July 25, 2011
Oh yeah, like it makes so much sense completely ignoring people who are sick, poor and unemployed–let them just manage by themselves. I can’t think of the harm these policies have done, only how much it benefited everyone around.
You know why you’re here, right? Why you have to argue; why you care what we think? You can see that feminists are nuts, but you can’t dare tell yourself that it’s probably best if you shut up and listen. You know we’re right. We may not be precisely right, but we’re accurate. And it just drives you crazy that it’s INSIDE YOU. These barbaric, antiquated, hill-billy, non-suffragette, shut-your-mouth-and-your-Cosmo ideas aren’t just heard from us…they’re welling up inside you, and you can’t understand why. You hate that part of you; that inner voice, betraying how you feel. Upending what your mother told you. Capsizing what your father’s money bought you at university. (By the way: that is hilariously ironic.) I could go to FARK.com, but I don’t. I know they’re crazy. I signed up to comment at the very racist “The Root”, but why bother? I gave up on “The Root” because I realized (most) their arguments were specious, and designed solely to hurt. But you can’t do that because you know we’re right–so, to change that horrid, rebellious mind in you, you’ve decided you have to change our minds.
The Deuce
July 25, 2011
Regarding women being politically informed:
http://johnziegler.com/editorials_details.asp?editorial=197
alcestiseshtemoa
July 25, 2011
Social programs are tied to political parties (different parties have different views regarding this) and therefore, people vote for the party whose views match theirs the most.
Now I’m really confused Chels. I was talking about the structure of democracy and social programs and why there’s something innate in democracy that may increase social programs regardless of political parties.
Chels
July 25, 2011
Terri, people shouldn’t be dependent on charity for their next meal, or for their next doctor’s visit–it should be a secure and constant “stream” of help.
Chels
July 25, 2011
Eh Cane, I’m close to doing that myself (I’ve only been here for about a month).
Alte
July 25, 2011
As long as we are on the subject Chels, how do you feel about the price of tea in China?
LOL
terri
July 25, 2011
Chels, either my comment was confusing or you need a reading lesson. I never said I was “open to other worldviews.” I said I am open to people with alternative worldviews having the right to vote their conscience. I would just rather they understand what they’re voting on. Those are two totally different things. Surely you can see that!?
Maybe an example might help. I’m black (in case you didn’t know that). It’s fairly common knowledge that 90-95% of black voters vote Democrat. Even the Christians. My husband and I have found over the years that when we sit down, with the facts, and talk to other Christian couples, they almost always come away with a political change of heart, especially those under 40 who pay taxes. One of two things happen: most either vote more conservatively, and a few have decided both parties are lying liars and withdraw from the political process altogether.
We have no expectation of older blacks changing their minds but we understand why and at least their decision is based on something real that makes sense to any one who lived through what they went through.
Anyone who thinks critically about these things can see that steadily increasing government programs to include more and more “poor” people while undermining families is a recipe for disaster. And since most of those on the receiving end of the benefits are women, one can clearly see why most women vote for them based on feelings rather than the good of the country, or whether or not these politicians can make good on their promises.
Aaron Traas
July 25, 2011
Because most women fail at abstract thought, don’t have the stomach to do things that would make life painful for a few to benefit the many, are too compassionate and emotional, etc. I have no issue with the idea of someone like Alte, or Morticia, or Terri voting, but their way of thinking is so diametrically opposed to that of most other women, that the net effect of allowing the women to vote very, very bad.
Politics is also the proper domain of men. The man speaks for his household.
Finally, in a proper, healthy society, unmarried landowning women are such statistical outliers that they don’t matter. There’s simply not enough of them to make a difference. But, frankly, I’d rather tie voting to all landowners of both sexes rather than simply all men. And by land-owners, I mean freeholders (i.e., has no debt levied against his land — owns land outright.)
The Deuce
July 25, 2011
Instead of tying their vote to men, how about we just teach them politics?
It’s not like womens’ political and economic ignorance is the result of them lacking education. Women already go to and graduate from college more often than men.
The reason is that women don’t like to think about abstract topics like economics and politics, or to inform themselves on those topics. Those things bore them, and they’re usually not that good at it even if they do try. They would prefer to vote based on their emotions, because that’s how their brains are wired. It’s just how they are and not something that can be “fixed”.
Chels
July 25, 2011
I know that this is going to make some of your eyes pop, but in Canada, we offer hampers for Christmas to those on Welfare–it includes food to prepare the Christmas meal, but it also includes lots of canned food and gifts for the children (all from the taxpayer).
And guess what? Canada is doing much better than the US; not to mention, we have free healthcare, subsidized education, and many other social programs because people don’t mind paying taxes to help their felow human being.
Cane Caldo
July 25, 2011
Eh Cane, I’m close to doing that myself (I’ve only been here for about a week).
Continuously, I might add. I gave up on The Root before posting one comment. You’ve written probably 10′s of 1,000′s of words here. Leave if you want, but it won’t cure you. I noticed you responded without arguing against with any of the claims I made–that’s a feat yet to be beheld here. Maybe you’re trying to prove me wrong–showing an appropriate blase attitude.
BTW, you’re with the wrong guy. If you’d accept Dalrock and Athol Kay’s patriarchy, but require relative equality from your own beau: he’s the wrong dude.
terri
July 25, 2011
Chels, there’s Canadian woman on our blogroll, To Love, Honor, and Vacuum. Her husband’s a doctor there. According to her, the Canadian healthcare system is far from ideal. She also homeschools their children because public education there, in her estimation, is just as bad as it is here.
Not all Canadians agree with your assessment. Many do, because they get more than they give. But once again, the people who bear the brunt of the burden see the issue differently.
I know that this is going to make some of your eyes pop, but in Canada, we offer hampers for Christmas to those on Welfare–it includes food to prepare the Christmas meal, but it also includes lots of canned food and gifts for the children (all from the taxpayer).
Private charity is better than public charity, Chels. Surely you see why, or do I need to spell it out?
Alte
July 25, 2011
Chels… how do I say this… hmm… nevermind. I think reading that comment just cost me 2 IQ points. I can feel the brain cells screaming from lack of oxygen.
Alte
July 25, 2011
Cane,
We’ve all long ago come to the conclusion that Chels doesn’t think her man is very hot.
the cottage child
July 25, 2011
Chels doesn’t think her man is very hot.
But I’m sure he opens doors, puts the seat down, and holds her purse when she’s not hitting him with it.
Chels
July 25, 2011
Some comments just don’t deserve a response Cane because they’re that ridiculous and far-fetching.
Cane Caldo
July 25, 2011
If you think those comments were fetching, you should see me in person. (rimshot!)
Anyway? Who am I to say? Only you and I know I’m right.
Alte
July 25, 2011
CC,
I totally spit my tea out all over my keyboard. Gross. Warn me before you’re that funny, the next time.
Aaron Traas
July 25, 2011
Many of the local churches around my do exactly the same thing. The Catholic grade school I attended did this every year. People were asked to donate food, toys, etc. and they were distributed by the church. No need for the government to do it. In fact, it benefits the donor and the benefactor much more when this sort of thing is 100% voluntary.
The Deuce
July 25, 2011
7Man, that’s all true, but you’re talking to someone who’s level of analysis is essentially “Government welfare gives stuff to people, so it’s good. People who don’t like government welfare want to take stuff from people, so they’re mean!”
Chels
July 25, 2011
No, Cane, you’re completely wrong, but I have no intention of discussing my private life here.
terri
July 25, 2011
Many of the local churches around my do exactly the same thing. The Catholic grade school I attended did this every year. People were asked to donate food, toys, etc. and they were distributed by the church. No need for the government to do it.
Every church does it, that I’m aware of. But the thing about the church is that it isn’t something done just at the nd holidays, as if people only get hungry at Thanksgiving and Christmas, lol. Our church gives thousands of dollars in school supplies out to families on tight budgets. All the church members bring in supplies. We’ll be donating our share on Sunday. We can afford to do that because we live on a budget and therefore have something to give to someone else.
Our church hands out boxes of food to the needy every week. Our family participates in our church’s ministry to the homeless. I can guarantee you my children learn more from serving and handing plates to homeless men and women than they’ll ever get from just knowing their tax dollars are going to someone who may or may not be truly needy.
Chels
July 25, 2011
7Man, I cannot discuss the American model because I know nothing about it. However, I am extremely familiar with the Canadian government and how/why it works.
Alte
July 25, 2011
LOL, Deuce.
Morticia
July 25, 2011
I have received quite a lot of charity. I think when you have 5 kids people just put you on lists you don’t even ask to be on..lol.
Someone through the VA gave my family a bunch of Christmas presents..anonymously.. we didn’t even have to ask.
At Thanksgiving someone gave us a bunch of food. We didn’t ask for that either. I think someone at my kids school put us on that list. I never even told anyone we were financially hurting.
Don’t underestimate private charity. Most of it is anonymous. It isn’t like you have to go door-to-door. You get on some list for some charity somewhere and the gifts just come. It doesn’t require the self-effacing pandering that some people seem to think.
Even when I went to a food bank it wasn’t all that humiliating. The people were very nice. You just sit in a lobby and wait for someone to bring out a cart of food.
Most of the people who work in charities are those who have needed charity at some point in their life, so they are very kind and non-judgy.
terri
July 25, 2011
Sadly, Deuce’s analysis of Chels’ level of analysis describes the thinking of far too many people. It’s funny, but the sadness of this childlike thinking in adults outweighs the humor.
R.I.P., critical thinking. You are already missed.
Chels
July 25, 2011
7Man, I don’t know where you get off giving advice or judging relationships, considering you’re divorced.
Chels
July 25, 2011
Terri, your reasoning is completely and utterly selfish, which is why I don’t agree with it.
Church charity is all fine and good, but you forget that a lot of people aren’t Christians, aren’t regular members of the church, and a lot of Churches are broke and only has money for its parishioners.
Morticia
July 25, 2011
Church’s may be broke in Canada but here they aren’t doing so bad. Protestants actually do a little better than Catholic Churches because they put more emphasis on a 10% tithe.
And you don’t have to be Christian to get Church charity.
Chels
July 25, 2011
The Church my father goes to doesn’t have mandatory donations, you just donate as much you can (which to people means anything under 5$), so they simply don’t have the money for such things.
terri
July 25, 2011
Terri, your reasoning is completely and utterly selfish, which is why I don’t agree with it.
Church charity is all fine and good, but you forget that a lot of people aren’t Christians, aren’t regular members of the church, and a lot of Churches are broke and only has money for its parishioners.
What??? Do you think churches only offer charity to other Christians? That we take a faith poll before we feed people or give them assistance? That is the antithesis of what most churches believe or practice.
If someone reaching into their own pockets and giving of their own time to help their fellow man is your definition of selfishness, I’m speechless! I continue to give you more credit for being smarter than you reveal yourself to be.
Selfish to expect people (liberals) to put their money where they claim their hearts are and help other people directly. Whoa!
Can someone with a modicum of intelligence help me out here because I think I’m in over my head.
The Deuce
July 25, 2011
Cane, Aaron, Deuce & Svar, what do we call it when women do this?
talking
Morticia
July 25, 2011
Chels has clearly never received charity and never been to a Church.
terri
July 25, 2011
Cane, Aaron, Deuce & Svar, what do we call it when women do this?
talking
LOL. I don’t totally agree with this, being a woman, but it is funny.
Chels
July 25, 2011
Terri,
I’m not familiar with how Church charity works in the US, but the Canadian churches I’m familiar with prioritize its own poor parishioners, and gives to those first; which means they run out before they can give to others.
The Deuce
July 25, 2011
Terri:
Can someone with a modicum of intelligence help me out here because I think I’m in over my head.
Just re-read my post summarizing Chels’ analysis, and it will all make sense.
The Deuce
July 25, 2011
I’m not familiar with how Church charity works in the US…
and yet….
alcestiseshtemoa
July 25, 2011
Women already go to and graduate from college more often than men.
I actually think that college worsens women’s way of thinking and our nature. A lot of colleges and degrees are useless and overpriced (besides already teaching things like equality, autonomy, progress and whatnot). Better to have a planned route and stay in college for a while (nothing more than 1-4 years) and be gone. Academics is important but the vocational aspect wouldn’t be bad either.
the cottage child
July 25, 2011
7Man, I don’t know where you get off giving advice or judging relationships, considering you’re divorced.
Well Chels, I would say he has the advantage of knowing whom not to consider as marriage material. But that was laugh out loud funny considering you’ve never been married nor do you have kids but feel no compunction about sharing your expert opinion in both matters.
Morticia
July 25, 2011
Charity can work several ways.
One is where someone turns in paperwork to apply and the organization approves you
Some you get on a list and people either stop by your house or you go to some location to pick it up.
The other kind is where no names are involved and people just stand in line until the supplies run out.
Chels
July 25, 2011
CC
It’s one thing to express my personal opinion about how I wish things to be in my marriage and how I want to raise my kids, and it’s a completely different one to judge someone else’s relationship based on nothing (because that’s exactly how much you know).
Alte
July 25, 2011
Not true. He knows enough Game to understand that a woman’s willingness to submit to a man’s authority is strongly correlated with how much she respects (and therefore desires) him. This is not brain science.
Cane Caldo
July 25, 2011
I’m not familiar with how Church charity works in the US, but the Canadian churches I’m familiar with prioritize its own poor parishioners, and gives to those first; which means they run out before they can give to others.
Are there any other Canadians here who can speak to this? Is this true?
The Church my father goes to doesn’t have mandatory donations, you just donate as much you can (which to people means anything under 5$), so they simply don’t have the money for such things.
I don’t know of any non-cult Christian church that has mandatory tithing. It’s…antithetical. The first thing that happens to people in the Bible is Adam and Eve fruits of feminism debacle. The second thing that happens is my namesake gets his offering rejected because it wasn’t given in the right spirit.
However; I do see a lot of the $5 or under offerings in the Anglican and Catholic churches I’ve attended. You can’t help but notice sometimes that the guy who drives a Beamer reaches into his wallet just before the plate gets to his row. Wallet? Really? You drive a Beamer, and you’re offering in bills? Why bother? I try to assume this is on top of their monthly or weekly check, but you know it’s not.
Usually though, there are the rich benefactors who make up for this. I’d be very interested to learn if many Canadian churches have to turn people away. Canada is a rich country, too. That’s a sickness, if it is so.
Alte
July 25, 2011
Almost all of the collections at our parish are electronic bank transfers now. That’s how we did it, and there were checks before that. The baskets are nearly empty when they go around, but the collections are larger than before because the money is collected regardless of whether they are at church that day. Anyways… total derailment.
the cottage child
July 25, 2011
reading comprehension, por favor
Cane Caldo
July 25, 2011
We’re going to need to parse out this here “CC” and “CC” thang. I don’t know who is funny, or who knows Game, or what.
Aaron Traas
July 25, 2011
I’ve NEVER been to a parish, food pantry, soup kitchen that turned away non-Christians for such programs. You’re just making shit up now.
Chels
July 25, 2011
There are MANY Canadian churches that don’t have the funds necessary for food pantries/soup kitchens/Christmas hampers, etc…
Aaron Traas
July 25, 2011
You really don’t know what that person’s giving. I give *zero* in the collection plate, but my wife and I cut a check monthly; much easier for budgeting that way (actually, our Parish started allowing us to do so electronically, so we started doing that). Some people I know do the same, but they also throw between $1-$5 in the plate because they feel weird not giving anything when the plate comes around. Doubtless, there are many that ONLY give $1-5 or so per week, but the point is you really don’t know.
Aaron Traas
July 25, 2011
One could argue that because the government is taking care of it, people feel less inclined to give. I doubt that’s 100% of the problem, but it’s likely part of it.
I red a Ted Rall column a few years back where he argued that the people donating towards the Katrina victims were assholes, because it was the government’s job to take care of it, and allowing private charities to pick up the slack just absolved the government of its duties. There are lots of liberals that think this way.
Chels
July 25, 2011
For the millionth time, I am not going to discuss my personal relationship here so you might as well just back off now. I don’t need your approval and I don’t need to follow your model for my bf and I to be happy; what we have now works very well for both of us, and knowing this should be the end of the conversation.
Chels
July 25, 2011
Hey muffin, how about you tell me some of those mistakes you made so I can learn from them instead of judging my relationship when you know nothing about it?
terri
July 25, 2011
One could argue that because the government is taking care of it, people feel less inclined to give. I doubt that’s 100% of the problem, but it’s likely part of it.
I’d say that’s a very big part of it. Is it a coincidence that here in the U.S., the state populations that give the most to private charities are the states with the highest numbers of religious believers? Conversely, the states with the lowest levels of personal giving are the more secular states.
Given the secular nature of most Canadian society (remember that our dear Chels professed herself a Christian so I rest my case), it would stand to reason that the low level of private charity in Canada is directly related to the fact that most of the people have ceded that function to the state.
Morticia
July 25, 2011
There is also the fact that state charity tends to require you arrange your life in such a way so that you are constantly needy.
For instance- you can’t get food stamps if you have 2000 in savings. Now what if you have 2000 in savings because you are saving it up to pay your yearly property tax? It doesn’t mean you can use that 2000 for food.
Private charity doesn’t care if you have 2000 in savings. Usually they don’t ask for bank information.
I have a relative on food stamps. They get about 800 a month. They are in the precarious situation where if her husband gets a job making a little bit more than he does then they wont’ qualify for the food stamps. If he gets just a few hundred dollars a month then he loses 800 in food stamps. Therefore it is only worthwhile for him or her to make more money if they are going to make at least 800…and even then they are just working to make-up for what they lost by working more. Food stamps makes it more worthwhile to stay poor than to try to incrementally improve your wages.
Private charity doesn’t. Private charity will help you even if you usually make enough money but are just having a bad month. Or if you are just a little bit above what it would take to get food stamps.
Welfare keeps you dependent because if your wage improves you lose your benefits and then the improved wage must be significant enough to make it worth the loss of welfare. Private charity generally has much looser standards.
Aaron Traas
July 25, 2011
Morticia,
It actually depends. Some of the private charities are equally bureaucratic, like Catholic Charities in Patterson diocese. However, they get this way in part because they accept a lot of public funding, and assist people in filing for public assistance and the like.
My preferred mode of private charity is the most local, and community-based. If a member of the community falls on hard times, the community takes care of him. If he’s a deadbeat, and just doesn’t want to work, the community knows already or discovers this quickly, because they take interest in his life.
Jennifer
July 25, 2011
I like most of those women Terri, but your points are valid. I HATE free “love” and strongly disagree with the comparison of woman’s plight to African slavery.
“The Bible teaches that woman brought sin and death into the world, that she precipitated the fall of the race, that she was arraigned before the judgment seat of Heaven”
If someone else taught her this, they are to blame for their deception.
“Apparently the domestic drudgery was okay for that woman to endure”
She was willing, and paid. Stanton wasn’t.
Aaron Traas
July 25, 2011
Been there, done that. Thankfully, we didn’t marry. After breaking up with her, I became wary of women with superfluous advanced degrees. It’s always a power-struggle. I.e., she thinks she’s smarter because she’s more educated, and thus is completely unwilling to follow your lead. In fact, the women I find most irritating are the ones the most obsessed with grades, awards, degrees, certifications, etc. They tend to be a bit above-average intelligence-wise, and very hard-working, but completely single-minded and unfeminine.
Keoni Galt
July 25, 2011
I actually agree with her in principle on that one. My problem is that we are often told that no women were allowed to own property before these women fought the good fight on our behalf.
Here here! Great post Terri.
“No women were allowed to own property before the first wave of feminism!” is pure revisionist history.
Morticia
July 25, 2011
The funny thing about education is that it seems to make people over-confident in their opinions..which doesn’t make sense because generally the more you learn the more you realize what you didn’t know and what you still don’t know.
Or at least it should, which may be testimony to how crappy our education system is. If you graduate believing you know-it-all then the school must have failed somehow because greater knowledge should breed greater humility.
I think this is evident by many of the people who post here. Most of the commenters are very well read on many subjects and yet they aren’t pompous know-it-alls.
Morticia
July 25, 2011
Going back to the original post-
I was reflecting on how I use to really like the first wave feminists and identify with them. Just a few years ago I probably would have been quite offended by some of the “tone” of these comments.. Now it hardly phases me at all and yet I am more convinced of my own innate dignity now than I ever was.
It occurs to me that this is because of Christianity. All of the things that could happen to me that would be most undignified and hurtful are sinful. Casual sex use to be no-big-deal to me while someone saying women were inferior would seem like a hate crime. Now I could care less about such words being attributed to women but I see casual sex as the disgraceful sacrilegious act that it is.
There was a time when surrogacy was a lofty and nice thing to do, but yet I was hyper-sensitive to any suggestion that I be “submissive”. Now I see submissive as just good common sense, and surrogacy as a debasement of women and children and God’s natural law.
I think my Christian faith graced me with a real sense of personal dignity that made all the other stuff I would once be concerned with seem like wrapping paper on an empty box.
When you can really grasp the dignity of mankind then everything starts to make sense. Otherwise you obsess over the superficial and wonder why you feel empty inside.
Alte
July 25, 2011
The more you learn, the more you realize just how ignorant you are. Yes, I think this is generally true. I felt smarter when I was younger and dumber than I do now. I’m grateful to Catholicism for giving me the Magisterium and Traditions to refer to, so that I don’t have to think everything up by myself.
I have noticed though, particularly as a woman, the more well-educated and well-read I am, the higher the knowledge and intelligence of the male company that I keep. This means that there’s usually a smarter man around that I can defer to, which is nice.
Alte
July 25, 2011
Now it hardly phases me at all and yet I am more convinced of my own innate dignity now than I ever was.
Here here! Same with me. Once you realize that your dignity rests solely on the fact that you are human and a daughter of Christ, and not on your talents and accomplishments, you quickly realize that you don’t have to worry as much about protecting your own ego or your own body. You’re safe in the Church.
Aaron Traas
July 25, 2011
Yeah… a smart cookie like you probably needs someone like your husband to take you down a peg!
God has always been good about keeping people around me to keep me humble. That doesn’t come from my wife, it actually comes mostly from priests, and one or two other male friends. They knock me down a peg simply by being more pious than me, in ways that are so very clear to me.
Svar
July 25, 2011
Haha. This was a fun read.
alcestiseshtemoa
July 25, 2011
Here here! Same with me. Once you realize that your dignity rests solely on the fact that you are human and a daughter of Christ, and not on your talents and accomplishments, you quickly realize that you don’t have to worry as much about protecting your own ego or your own body. You’re safe in the Church.
=)
Stewart Griffin
July 25, 2011
Arthur Brooks found that the people who give the largest charitable contributions (including volunteering time) are the religious. He also found that the religious skew conservative politically (big shock there). I learnt all this from a video presentation by Dr Brooks, but for your convenience I here include a written article (that I have only skimmed). In the presentation he was adamant that while both sides of the political divide give equally when religious, the non-religious – who trend liberal – give far less. What is more, they give more to both secular and religious causes.
Obviously, academics are a disreputable bunch who must always be eyed with suspicion. Not wanting to let this key point, concerning the link between religion and alms giving, rely upon evidence from a member of the world’s trouble-making caste (people with Doctorates) I include here the altogether more trustworthy testimony of an alcholic, ex-heronine junkie, schizophrenic, homeless guy:
“Only people who really help is the Church. Church come round some nights a week. They drop off soup and coffee and something to eat, blankets, bit of clothing.”
You can see the video of this fellow, which contains some course language, at youtube.
Again, it is not that conservatives qua conservatives give more, but that most of the religious, who do give more, are conservative. Thus, when nobody is forced, the people giving to the poor will generally be conservative.
Stewart Griffin
July 25, 2011
No coincidence. See my comment above.
Chels
July 25, 2011
Wow 7Man, now I feel bad for mocking you; you’re right though, women like that should be avoided.
Morticia
July 25, 2011
Stewart- Gosh that was sad. I cried.
I am a bleeding heart when it comes to the poor. My uncle was often homeless. He was too sick to work full-time so supporting himself was difficult. He sometimes lived with my grandma but their personalities clashed. One night he was out on a bicycle and a gang of kids and their mothers beat the crap out of him with a brick. They left him for dead. Luckily he survived but he did lose an eye.
This is where matriarchy leads.. single mothers and their degenerate children trying to beat the life out of a homeless man.
Stewart Griffin
July 25, 2011
Agreed.
Cathy come home’, which has been released to the world for free, will probably get to you then. It tells the tale of descent into poverty in 1960s Britain.
Svar
July 25, 2011
“My uncle was often homeless. He was too sick to work full-time so supporting himself was difficult. He sometimes lived with my grandma but their personalities clashed. One night he was out on a bicycle and a gang of kids and their mothers beat the crap out of him with a brick. They left him for dead. Luckily he survived but he did lose an eye. ”
That’s horrible, Morticia! Did they beat him just for the heck of it? Why would they do such a thing?
wifey
July 25, 2011
this is ridiculous. do you live in america? this country was founded on this very point.
Stewart Griffin
July 25, 2011
Yet did not have universal suffrage from the get go.
wifey
July 25, 2011
@stewart
not at all the point. from the get go america had many issues. i am simply pointing out that some people on here are actually trying to argue that the idea of “taxation without representation” is something nobody ever had a problem with.
David Collard
July 25, 2011
“But I’m sure he opens doors, puts the seat down, and holds her purse when she’s not hitting him with it.”
I don’t mind opening doors. That is just good manners. But if she wants the seat put down, she can do that herself. And I tend to treat my wife’s handbag as if it were radioactive.
Herbie
July 25, 2011
“But I also know of two girls who had abortions when I was high school and neither one bothered to to tell their boyfriend about it.”
“I know a married woman who didn’t tell her husband (then fiancée).”
This reminds me of a letter posted in the opinion section of the magazine “First Things” within the past year. The woman claimed that the majority of married women who have abortions do so because they got pregnant by someone other than their husband. She didn’t provide references to her claim, but it does seem very plausible. I suppose its a strategic move(the abortion), though lacking in any sort of charity.
Stewart Griffin
July 25, 2011
Correct me if I missed a serious comment that contradicts this, but I do not remember anyone denying that people have had a problem with “taxation without representation”. What people have been pointing out is the flaws in using ‘no taxation without representation’ as a general principle for deciding upon political issues such as suffrage. From what I can tell, these people care more about the principles underlying the “no taxation without representation” demand than how people, either now or in the past, have felt about it.
I am also not convinced, seeing as the USA did not use this concept as a general principle when constructing itself – starting, as it did, without universal suffrage – that it even was the point upon which your nation was founded. Perhaps you can use your knowledge of your nation’s history to convince me otherwise. Either way, I certainly would agree that it is fantastic and stirring rhetoric with which to justify the violent revolution of the American colonies – even if not a good argument for universal suffrage.
Chels
July 25, 2011
I just finished listening to Obama’s speech and following that, the House Speaker’s speech regarding the debt crisis and I did some research…And I have to say, are Republicans completely insane???
Obama’s plan sounds reasonable–tax the big corporations, tax those making over 250,000$/year whereas the House Speaker basically wants to cut programs, tax the people and the small corporations.
How in the world does it make sense for big corporations such as Esso not to pay taxes in years AND to receive governmental subsidies for drilling, and yet it makes sense to cut social programs, tax the small person and the small businesses who pay more taxes than the big corporations that make millions of profit per year?
Again, have Americans completely lost their mind?
David Collard
July 25, 2011
Better not to marry a woman who is more educated than you.
7man, most of your problems seem to have been based on lack of respect. Do you think knowing more game would have helped at any stage?
Bird on a wing
July 25, 2011
Come now, Chels. Is that your best troll impression? Weak. Sauce.
Svar
July 25, 2011
“The woman claimed that the majority of married women who have abortions do so because they got pregnant by someone other than their husband.”
Cuckoldry + Murder. You know what’s even worse? I’ll bet that types of women go back home to their husbands and children annd act as if nothing ever happened. This, I find to be disturbing.
David Collard
July 25, 2011
7man, I still haven’t got used to the idea that most women are happier when you are behaving assertively. I had a fiancee I eventually broke up with, and nothing turned her on more than my harshness towards the end. It is creepy in a way. I want to be a good man, but I don’t want to be a sap. I did a bit of a political rant this morning as I drove my wife to work, and that seemed to turn her on. She wants to be spanked a lot at the moment, which is usually a good sign.
David Alexander
July 25, 2011
you can’t get food stamps if you have 2000 in savings
My mom is admittedly in the same boat. She has too much in assets to qualify for Medicaid to pay for health coverage, but she needs said assets to provide for her retirement. It’s a perverse situation, but because we’re not interested in building a social welfare state, but a basic safety net, we tend to force people to destroy their assets first before being able to secure government assistance.
Welfare keeps you dependent because if your wage improves you lose your benefits and then the improved wage must be significant enough to make it worth the loss of welfare.
The solution is to switch to graduated limits in which benefits are not immediately cut off, but there’s a small trade of in favour of working. The problem is that our philosophy seems to fight against that for fear that it would create a permanent welfare class, but we ended doing that regardless given the minor differences between one’s income after working at minimum wage and earning welfare.
because it was the government’s job to take care of it, and allowing private charities to pick up the slack just absolved the government of its duties.
It makes sense given if one believes that it’s a government duty and responsibility to provide for people during a natural disaster, and that providing money simply reinforces government incompetence and inaction.
Morticia
July 25, 2011
DA- My situation is similar. I really can’t afford to be without the medicaid unless I can get equally good insurance at a job, but the kind of jobs that provide excellent insurance for low premiums I am not qualified for. I could get some menial labor job for a few hundred dollars a month but then I won’t qualify for the medicaid. It just takes my kids having one major emergency and I am screwed.
I have one child who may be needing surgery in the future, so I definitely need insurance..not to mention I am pregnant and while that isn’t that expensive for a vaginal birth it can get very expensive if I need a c-section.
I tried getting a government job but nothing has panned out yet.
Svar
July 25, 2011
“7man, I still haven’t got used to the idea that most women are happier when you are behaving assertively.”
Really, David? I’ve gotten quite used to it; it feels almost natural. It doesn’t surprise me that jerkish, assholish behavior works very well in turning girls on. Alot of these behaviors come naturaly to me, but I do feel that I need to spend more time learning how to calibrate it. I also want to be good, strong, assertive man and I just don’t want to be a complete philandering prick. I truly want to be a good Christian man, but it’s hard. Temptation is strong and Flesh is weak,
David Collard
July 25, 2011
Yes, grabbing a woman by the hair is famously sexy. However my wife has always had short hair. I actually prefer short hair on women. Long hair gets in the way. In fact, I only miss long hair when it would be nice to grab something.
The flow diagram seems to be 1) assertive male, 2) respect from female, 3) sexual desire in female.
I don’t doubt there are exceptions, and your ex-wife may have been one. But I suspect the exceptions are rare. Most women are wired pretty much the same way. The snootiest woman I ever knew was the most submissive in private.
Alte
July 25, 2011
Obviously, all of our flesh is weak. That’s what the Church community and the graces are supposed to help counteract.
Morticia
July 25, 2011
I have always been attracted to guys that I would describe as “better” than me in some way. My husband is very strong and capable (I could probably survive the zombie apocalypse if he was with me). My ex-fiance before I met my husband was a super-genius. I never had very long relationships with guys who I didn’t think were superior to me in some way. And I mean superior in a practical way..not in a ontological gender-hierarchy way.
I never thought much about it until I discovered the manosphere but now I know why it makes sense.
Svar
July 25, 2011
“I actually prefer short hair on women. Long hair gets in the way.”
How short is short, David? I like the way long hair feels and looks.
alcestiseshtemoa
July 25, 2011
This reminds me of a letter posted in the opinion section of the magazine “First Things” within the past year. The woman claimed that the majority of married women who have abortions do so because they got pregnant by someone other than their husband. She didn’t provide references to her claim, but it does seem very plausible. I suppose its a strategic move(the abortion), though lacking in any sort of charity.
Vox Day did a post about working women and cheating -> http://voxday.blogspot.com/2010/11/mystery-of-female-infidelity.html
He also did about cuckoldry -> http://voxday.blogspot.com/2011/01/science-of-cuckoldry.html
David Collard
July 25, 2011
Yes, Svar, most men like long hair on women. I am unusual because I don’t. I think it might be because my mother had short hair, and men are often attracted to the type they grew up with.
By short, I mean quite short. A boyish cut, I suppose. I find it sexy.
I am not tempted to philandering. Even at my age, I notice women. In about ten minutes at the shops yesterday, I saw a really cute blonde with nice (long) hair in a ponytail, a tall woman with fabulous legs, and a girl at the check-out with an unusually beautiful face. So I am still alive – but I have never been tempted to philander.
I was brought up nicely, and I have had to learn most of this stuff from experience. I think my saving grace has always been that a woman brings out a lot of latent assertion in me, more than most people would predict given my quite “progressive” upbringing. I think it is just innate.
alcestiseshtemoa
July 25, 2011
How short is short, David? I like the way long hair feels and looks.
The only actress I’ve known that works that short hair out is Halle Berry but even I prefer when her hair is longer. And this continues on practically every woman I’ve seen adorning short hair. In the first movie of Pirates of the Carribean Keira Knightley had that English upper-class girl dress, the enchanting aura and that medium-long hair. In the second and third movie she’s gone all tomboy and I lost interest after the second movie. I tried to watch the third movie but I just forward it until the finish and only catched glimpses (I rented it out).
Morticia
July 26, 2011
Question: Are ugly women more likely to be feminist?
Susan B. Anthony and Elizabeth C. Stanton
http://ecssba.rutgers.edu/images/ecssba.gif
David Collard
July 26, 2011
Alcest, I know there is a politics to short hair on women, but I don’t care. My wife has always had short hair and I have always liked it. It is not a feminist statement. I gave another reason I find it sexy once before, but I am not going to repeat that because I am trying to be (comparatively) good on this new blog.
Morticia
July 26, 2011
Lucy Stone
http://www.learnnc.org/lp/media/uploads/2009/12/lucy_stone_crop.jpg
Victoria wasn’t so bad (picture used in post)
Morticia
July 26, 2011
My favorite..if looks could kill
http://www.newmenstime.com/images/AndreaDworkin_55742a.jpg
Andrea Dworkin
Morticia
July 26, 2011
You have to have a very feminine face to get away with short hair.
I can’t do it. My features can be a bit harsh and longer hair “softens” me.
David Collard
July 26, 2011
Yes, my wife is a bit baby-faced and has blue-grey eyes and pale skin. It suits her. She once looked a bit like Elizabeth McGovern in She’s Having a Baby or maybe “Rachel” with her hair up in Bladerunner.
David Alexander
July 26, 2011
I could get some menial labor job for a few hundred dollars a month but then I won’t qualify for the medicaid.
In New York, you could work full time at my current employer and qualify for Medicaid from having two or three children. Given your large family you would easily qualify for food stamps, Medicaid/SCHIP, and Section 8. Mind you, around here, your home would cost at least $2500 to $4000 per month to rent and doesn’t including heating which could easily cost $600 to $1000 per month depending on the price of oil. Morticia, you really should look up your state’s rules on SCHIP (or what ever they call the special insurance for children in your state) as given your family’s size, you’d qualify for a lot more assistance than you may think.
I tried getting a government job but nothing has panned out yet.
That’s admittedly my saving grace at this point too as I will probably never make enough in the private sector.
alcestiseshtemoa
July 26, 2011
I’ve seen a lot of African women whom get away with short hair. I’ve done it and people though I looked okay but I prefer natural (curly/wavy) medium to long hair on me. There’s nothing that feels like home.
alcestiseshtemoa
July 26, 2011
Halle Berry with short hair -> http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_30PRmkOl4ro/S4EAIiKf6hI/AAAAAAAAaIo/yefd7hKbtxM/s1600-h/black-hair-style.jpg
Black model with short hair -> http://www.hairstylesdesign.com/gallery/black_hairstyles_women_3127.php
alcestiseshtemoa
July 26, 2011
In New York, you could work full time at my current employer and qualify for Medicaid from having two or three children.
Maybe they should lower the taxes instead? And lower the costs (if possible)?
David Alexander
July 26, 2011
Maybe they should lower the taxes instead?
If you qualify for Medicaid in New York, it’s unlikely that you pay any tax at all.
And lower the costs (if possible)?
Buying insurance is roughly $1000 to $1500 for a basic plan without any employer subsidies. At the market wage of $9.50 an hour, that’s up to one month’s earnings before withholding. The only way to reduce the costs would be to get rid of community rating and offer catastrophic plans or reduce the mandatory coverage, but the first option shifts the costs to unhealthy people, the second doesn’t help with urgent care needs or basic visits which can easily cost $100 per visit for a physical or $3000 for a small stay in the hospital, and some would argue that the “non-essential” things are essential to those who need them. Even in states with lax regulations, it’s not like health insurance is magically cheaper.
Morticia
July 26, 2011
Medicine really shouldn’t cost as much as it does. It doesn’t make any sense. I have a medical bill for a trip to the ER where we were in and out in less than an hour. The bill is 1300 dollars. All they did was put that stitch-glue on my sons finger.
If it weren’t for the ridiculous costs I would just pay for things out-of-pocket.
David Alexander
July 26, 2011
The Canadian tax rate is in many cases lower than that in the US.
But provincial tax rates are far higher than their state equivalents. The Canadian central government other than defense, foreign policy, and the Canada Pension Plan basically serves as a giant machine to take some money and redistribute it to poorer provinces. It’s arguably more in line in terms of what some small government types want for the US.
David Alexander
July 26, 2011
Morticia, the main problem is that to give the discounts for insurance and to make up for the lower payments offered by Medicaid and Medicare, doctors and hospitals charge high prices to those paying cash. Since illegal immigrants basically have no assets, the only people left are working class and middle class types with some assets and fear of losing them or rich people who are too lazy non fearful of losing their assets to healthcare.
FWIW, our doctors tend to make more than doctors else where in the first world, but they have absurd amounts of student loans…
If it weren’t for the ridiculous costs I would just pay for things out-of-pocket.
FWIW, my mom went to see her cardiologist. $140 for the visit, $75 for the blood work, and $450 for an EKG…
Chris
July 26, 2011
Mortician says:
.
Morticia, you are arguing by example. The principle is you want good quality care at a reasonable price.
To your example, and since my ex worked in an accident and medical centre — in a country where you cannot sue for malpractice
It would have cost you $90 — 120 to walk through the door.
The glue is a modification of superglue (that does not produce cynates). Pharmaceutical grade tubes cost around 100 dollars.
The dressings would be around 20 — 30 dollars.
Total bill: under 200 dollars. That’s in NZ. but in NZ the competition is free, socialized care to all NZ residents . But you will wait. The current goal is to get the wait time down to six hours.
In the US, all ERs are mandated to treat the indigent. You can’t turn someone away. An Accident and medical unit (which is a grown up “doc in a box”) can, and do. No money, go to the hospital down the road and wait. They are selling promptness and experience — most of the doctors are certified in that kind of work, and many have postgraduate fellowships.
Your ED can’t.So doctors do what they have always done — charge line a wounded rhinocerous on angel dust (PCP) when they can — because a large number of people are either (a) not going to pay or (b) have an insurance card with gives them a 80% discount — which is close to the real fee in Australasia.
Alte
July 26, 2011
Question: Are ugly women more likely to be feminist?
No, I don’t actually think that. We joke about it sometimes, but the feminists have had some hotties. We’re looking at their middle-age pictures usually, after all. It seems more that they don’t age as well, or that their features harden more over time.
Hillary managed to snag Bill for a reason:
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_qsjlYtt8u4E/SZbZu2M0lgI/AAAAAAAAEB0/hE7Xw8IkAIA/s400/HillaryClinton.jpg
Naomi Wolf is beautiful, at 49:
http://www.mediabistro.com/fishbowlla/files/original/Naomi%20Wolf.jpg
And then there’s Ashley Judd:
http://www.msmagazine.com/images/mar03/judd_180H.jpg
Some of the first-wavers weren’t unattractive.
Millicent Fawcett:
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-lPmaWS1bYwc/TgOFJUE4JeI/AAAAAAAAW2w/8dXA81H3fRE/s1600/Millicent_Fawcett.jpg
Emily Pankhurst:
http://www.christopherwhitehead.worcs.sch.uk/Pankhurst%20website/images/images/pankhurst%20at%20schhol%20b.jpg
We also shouldn’t assume that most women are pretty, and that the ugly feminists are therefore some sort of exception.
David Collard
July 26, 2011
Take this famous poster:
http://www.pointsincase.com/files/u2/hooters-sexism-poster.jpg
I would bet that if you took the dismal looking brunette, put her in a skirt, some makeup, got her to smile and to dump the feminist attitude, she would be pretty in her own way. She is young, not fat, and not deformed. If feminists are ugly, it is surely mostly self-inflicted.
joanna
July 26, 2011
DC – I hate Hooters, but that there is a funny picture.
Cane Caldo
July 26, 2011
If feminists are ugly, it is surely mostly self-inflicted.
I’m convinced that almost any woman has the raw ability to be attractive; provided there are no severe genetic defects, or mistreatment. That’s no detraction from the argument that most feminists are ugly. You aren’t “a different person on the inside” The best representation of you is outward, and apparent. Alte found some feminists who weren’t ugly. It wasn’t stated that all feminists are ugly, but that they trend towards it. I think they choose this because it IS who they are on the inside. They want to show an ugly face. Look at that Ashley Judd picture: someone has tried to make her look as least attractive as possible. It’s an abominable, impoverished, philosophy.
alcestiseshtemoa
July 26, 2011
Medicine really shouldn’t cost as much as it does. It doesn’t make any sense. I have a medical bill for a trip to the ER where we were in and out in less than an hour. The bill is 1300 dollars. All they did was put that stitch-glue on my sons finger.
If it weren’t for the ridiculous costs I would just pay for things out-of-pocket.
I think they need the money to fund large social programs (government ones in particular but maybe corporations too?).
Aaron Traas
July 26, 2011
First, it wasn’t. Voting was restricted to landowning white males. Universal voting wasn’t part of the founders’ intent.
Second, I consider 1776 to be pretty modern in terms of the history of human civilization.
Chels
July 26, 2011
Voting was restricted to landowning white males.
Yes, let’s restrict voting to the richest of the rich; they will definitely represent other people’s interests besides their own.
Chels
July 26, 2011
Morticia, if you’d live in Canada or in any other country with universal healthcare, you would have paid 0$ (zero)
Aaron Traas
July 26, 2011
First, I was stating historical fact to make a point that universal voting was a principle this country was founded on.
Second, I’ve said before that I wish to restrict voting to male freeholders, and only allow voting for the most local level of government (i.e., municipality). The reason for this isn’t wealth (I know lower-middle-class freeholders), it’s because they have the most stake in the community. It would also have the effect of discouraging holding debt, and run counter to rampant consumerism.
Aaron Traas
July 26, 2011
Sorry, above, the first sentence should read:
First, I was stating historical fact to make a point that universal voting was NOT a principle this country was founded on.
Chels
July 26, 2011
First, I was stating historical fact to make a point that universal voting was a principle this country was founded on.
This country was also founded on subjugating Aboriginals, maybe we should bring that back.
I’ve said before that I wish to restrict voting to male freeholders, and only allow voting for the most local level of government (i.e., municipality). The reason for this isn’t wealth (I know lower-middle-class freeholders), it’s because they have the most stake in the community.
Male freeholders have the most stake in the community? Their only interest is making as much money as they possibly can, while taking advantage of anyone poorer than them (e.g. those belonging to the middle class, not to mention the poor). If that would happen, it would a dog eat dog world.
Aaron Traas
July 26, 2011
First, that’s bullshit — that was done by the original colonial settlers, and had nothing to do with the revolution against HRH George III. Second, reading comprehension? I was merely refuting a point, not saying that we should go back to it. Third, anyone who’s been paying attention knows I think the foundation of our country was a unilaterally unjust revolution against the British crown, so don’t take this as any form of consent.
Are you really as stupid as you sound? Or maybe just lazy? Or are you trolling?
And you can see into the hearts of men? How many freeholders have you even ever met? I aspire to be one in about 10 years, as do most of the men within my community, and we hardly value money as much as you’re selfish, consumerist ass. There are not enough freeholders in the US. How is it hard to understand that people that own land have a greater stake in the community, by definition, than ANYONE else?
Morticia
July 26, 2011
What you smokin, Chels?
All men who own property want to take advantage of the poor? That is ridiculous.
Aaron Traas
July 26, 2011
Actually, fuck it. I’m done responding to Chels. No way she can be as stupid as she’s making herself sound in this thread. She’s clearly purely a troll. It’s like she had fill the trolling vacuum created when BF was banned.
Chels
July 26, 2011
No, their stake is not in the community, but in protecting their private assets and in getting richer, by any means necessary, as plenty of the rich have shown (and yes, that includes pushing anybody that stands in their way).
As well, it’s ridiculous to imply that the majority of society should be at the mercy of a few men and they should count on them to do the right thing for everybody. That’s absolutely crazy!
Morticia
July 26, 2011
Maybe she doesn’t know what freeholder is? Does she think it is a corporate fat cat?
There are plenty of free holding minorities. You don’t have to be rich. Often you can be a freeholder by simply inheriting land.
Chels
July 26, 2011
Aaron, I’m forever grateful that I don’t live in the society that you advocate, and I will do everything in my power to make sure that such a society isn’t implemented; where a few are privileged over all others.
I read more on the Republican party in the US, and their ideas/policies are despicable.
Chels
July 26, 2011
No, Morticia, I know what a freeholder is and I stand by my arguments.
Morticia
July 26, 2011
Chels- We are not all republicans. Conservative =/= republican.
But you should understand something about the republican philosophy that you don’t seem to get. Wealth drives the economy. A wealthy business person creates new companies that create jobs. Taking all there money INCREASES the unemployment rate. When taxes on corporations go up lay-offs soon follow.
But a freeholder is not the same thing as a wealthy business man…so Aaron isn’t advocating that only the wealthy vote. He is advocating that only those who have ROOTS FIRMLY PLANTED in a community vote.
Morticia
July 26, 2011
How much do you think land costs? You don’t have to be wealthy or even upper-middle-class to buy land. You live frugally and save for 10 years.
Chels
July 26, 2011
Yes, Morticia, you mean the jobs they’re outsourcing to India and other parts of the world to increase their profits. Capitalism only cares about themselves, about increasing their profit, and they don’t care only bit in the wellbeing of the community–some companies have “corporate social responsibility” programs only to pretend they aren’t as greedy and due to pressure.
Chels
July 26, 2011
The companies that truly create jobs are the small businesses, which also happen to be taxed out of their minds, whereas big companies get tax breaks to outsource our jobs so they can make huge profits.
Morticia
July 26, 2011
There is no other way to build wealth than by letting people keep most of their wealth. What about this confuses you?
If I start a Cleaning Company and make enough profits to expand the company and hire more people…but then taxes take the money away…I can’t hire those people.
This economics 101.
Chels
July 26, 2011
Do you care at all that most of the jobs that big companies create are not actually in the US, but somewhere in the 3rd world? (which incidentally makes them even more profit)
There’s no such thing as corporate loyalty towards society, only towards making as much as money as you can possibly can.
Chels
July 26, 2011
Basically you’re giving big companies tax breaks to either take away jobs from Americans through outsourcing or to create jobs in the 3rd world. That makes so much sense!
Morticia
July 26, 2011
Not all jobs can be outsourced. Obviously…or the unemployment rate would be 100%.
The motivation of the big companies isn’t my concern. My concern is the math. Both republicans and democrats are failing miserably at math.
Aaron Traas
July 26, 2011
7Man,
The grass huts will evidently be populated by straw men, as those are all she knows how to dialog with.
Chels
July 26, 2011
Yes, that’s why we’re moving towards a service economy (because those big companies want to cut their costs by as much as possible, with no regard for society, which means any and all jobs they can outsource).
Chels
July 26, 2011
7Man
Don’t make assumptions about my knowledge simply because I don’t agree with Republican (or your) views.
Morticia
July 26, 2011
Socialism is only sustainable so long as the gross national product can support it.
US has more socialism than the gross national product can support. The result is insane debt.
Chels
July 26, 2011
Yeah 7Man, I fail to see how the policies you profess can be categorized under “thoughtful ideas” either.
Morticia
July 26, 2011
Chels- you are so arrogant. You just can’t accept that you might not know everything that you think you know. You don’t have an open mind to learning which is why you sound so ignorant.
Chels
July 26, 2011
No, Morticia, I’ve studied different political regimes, and the one that I support most is socialism. I’ve consistently voted for either the Liberals or the NDP in Canadian elections, I’ve never voted for the Conservative party because they more or less mirror the Republican party in the US.
I’m not arrogant, I am open to learning, but I’ve studied enough to know what I support and it’s very hard for someone to budge my views considering I’ve spent enough time studying and analyzing them and also their alternatives.
Morticia
July 26, 2011
Nothing you have said on this thread would suggest you are educated on these topics. It is all a bunch of silly ad hominams “Republicans are greedy so republicans are wrong”
Alte
July 26, 2011
They want to show an ugly face.
I suspect this alone explains Dworkin’s appearance. She’s determined to be hideous, to spite the men around her. I put quite a bit of effort into my appearance because I wish to please the men around me. This is the main difference, I agree.
Naomi Wolf is probably the prettiest feminist that I know of, and she seems the least man-hating of the genre, which is why I sometimes quote her in my articles. She’s clearly trying to make herself look appealing to the men around her, and that is a reflection of her pleasure in their approval.
Morticia
July 26, 2011
Dworkin is so strange. She was in a sexual relationship with a gay man for many years. I guess sex isn’t oppressive if the man is gay? I should try to read some of her books to get a peak into her bizarre mind.
Stewart Griffin
July 26, 2011
A free-holder is not the same thing as a capitalist or a business owner. Most of them are ordinary middle and working class people. For instance, my parents, who have neither owned a business nor ever been considered rich by anyone within their own country (no doubt third worlders have a different perspective), were able to become free-holders. They achieved this through normal, not particularly well paid, jobs that allowed them to slowly pay off a mortgage on their house.
As free-holders are tied to the land (literally by their free-hold) they have a stake not only in the immediate future of the community, which everyone has, but also in the long-term outcomes. One advantage to this is that it helps to avoid careless national spending that leads to unsustainable national debt. This is because, unlike those without geographically fixed assets in the nation, they can easily have their property taxed away from them to pay for debt obligations. Also, if things do fall apart in the the nation it would be difficult for them to migrate as they will have to leave behind their free-hold.
Thus, my parent would neither be able to leave nor avoid higher property taxes if the national debt burden grew to onerous proportions. I on the other hand, as a renter, would have nothing for anyone to take and nothing to stop me just leaving so as to avoid dealing with the mess. Who do you think, out of me and my parents, is more likely to make decisions that take into consideration not just their desires of the moment, but the long-term well-being of the community?
Alte
July 26, 2011
Another looker is Germaine Greer. She was a bit of a sex-symbol at one point, wasn’t she?
http://www.marxists.org/glossary/people/g/pics/greer-germaine.jpg
Morticia
July 26, 2011
This link is pretty elementary explanation of why debt is bad.
http://communities.washingtontimes.com/neighborhood/vasko-kohlmayers-globe/2011/jul/19/entitlement-programs-consume-revenue-leaving-debt-/
Debt should be no more than 40% of GDP but it is currently 100%.
I don’t know much about Canada but if your GDP can handle your socialism then fine… Though socialism still has a negative effect on social stability even if it can be economically managed.
But US can’t afford our debt, so you shouldn’t judge US politics based on your experience of Canadian politics.
Its like saying that someone who earns 30,000 a year should model their spending after someone who makes 100,000 a year.
Morticia
July 26, 2011
From the article:
the cottage child
July 26, 2011
There are plenty of free holding minorities. You don’t have to be rich.
True. You most certainly do not have to be rich to own property. Small holdings can cost lest than $1000, depending on the location. I’m more inclined toward a broader eligibility for voting besides land ownership (business ownership/self-employment, a minimum annual tax liability, etc). If someone doesn’t care to own they shouldn’t be required to if they are otherwise vested. It’s ridiculous to suggest that it’s discriminatory except on any basis other than remedial economic literacy. It doesn’t demand high intelligence or any real sophistication, just a modicum of initiative. “Skin in the game”, as 7man put it.
Stewart Griffin
July 26, 2011
Steve Kellmeyer just published a post explaining how the US Federal Govenment has engineered an underclass by supporting university education.
Morticia
July 26, 2011
It is very strange to watch our politicians ignore the cold-had-facts and throw our nation off a cliff like we are lemmings. It would be funny if it wasn’t so tragic.
The conspiracy theorists say that the demise of our dollar is part of a plan to unite us with one world government. Honestly, that is the only thing that makes sense because our fearless leaders can’t possibly be this stupid.
Stewart Griffin
July 26, 2011
From the perspective of getting and staying elected I would bet their actions are pretty smart. They are not, for the most part, simpletons – they are just not playing the game people commonly think they are playing.
Morticia
July 26, 2011
But don’t they care at all about their legacy? Do they want to be remembered as the key players in our decline?
Alte
July 26, 2011
Let’s move the economics talk to this thread, so that we can concentrate on feminists here. Thanks.
Svar
July 26, 2011
“DC – I hate Hooters, but that there is a funny picture.”
Why would you hate Hooters, Jonna?
David, that picture is so true. There are a certain type of women who actually care about sexism. The rest are happy about the attention.
David Alexander
July 26, 2011
I put quite a bit of effort into my appearance because I wish to please the men around me.
But why do you want to please the men around you? I don’t think men wake up with the desire to please all the women around them, so why should women?
Svar
July 26, 2011
“Actually, fuck it. I’m done responding to Chels. No way she can be as stupid as she’s making herself sound in this thread. She’s clearly purely a troll. It’s like she had fill the trolling vacuum created when BF was banned.”
Strange, I’m not the only one who sees it; apparently you, CSPB, Cane do as well. She is dumber than shit. “America was founded on oppressing the aboorgiinnaaaaals” what a bullshit point. Does that even make any sense? Oppressing Aboriginals is an American principle? I am getting tired of the ad hominems, argumentum ad populums, red herrings, and straw men.
She said she studied various political regimes-bullshit. She doesn’t know anything. She thinks she does, but I’ve heard her stupid points all the time. She presents her ideas as if they’re original, new, or ground-breaking. On top of all that, she lives in Canada, the country no one cares about, but cares so much about American politics.
Obvious troll/idiot(this is where you and I disagree, Aaron, I actually think that she is this stupid. I have met some Texas liberals, they sound just as stupid as her). It is best to ignore her, when you’re not making fun of her for the lulz.
Alte
July 26, 2011
Protection and provision, same as always. Also, out of respect for them. It’s disrespectful to not care about the opinions of others. It shows contempt.
Svar
July 26, 2011
“I don’t think men wake up with the desire to please all the women around them, so why should women?”
Wrong, I wake up with the desire to please all the (hot)women around me. It’s called morning wood.
terri
July 26, 2011
I put quite a bit of effort into my appearance because I wish to please the men around me.
Who said that? I must’ve missed it. I hope she’s single. Or at least willing to elaborate
I put effort into my appearance for the sake of my husband. It matters to me that I look attractive to and for him. You would think this goes without saying, but increasing numbers of women don’t feel this way. There’s a school of thought among modern women which basically says:
“if he loves me he’ll love me for who I am, not what I look like.”
I get a fair amount of negative feedback from women when I express my desire to get dressed in the morning with my husband in mind.
David Alexander
July 26, 2011
On top of all that, she lives in Canada, the country no one cares about, but cares so much about American politics.
You’d be surprised. Canadians seem to have an interest in American politics, but like most people even within the US, there’s always an oversimplification of detailed topics that leads to gross misunderstanding and questionable statements, something I have seen regardless of sex or even income.
Protection and provision, same as always.
Being pretty isn’t going to make me want to magically save you. You providing for an income stream to take care of my mother in case of my injury or death will. Regardless, one could argue that you should simply protect and care for yourself instead of being a rent-seeking female and expecting a man to waste his energy and resources to do it for you.
Also, out of respect for them.
Why? They don’t count!
I wake up with the desire to please all the (hot)women around me. It’s called morning wood.
Wrong answer. Alphas don’t care about pleasing women. It’s merely a side benefit of pleasing themselves.
Stewart Griffin
July 26, 2011
I would say former practice rather than principle.
Svar
July 26, 2011
“I would say former practice rather than principle.”
You would say that because you’re intelligent and logical. Believe it or not, some people can differentiate the two.
“Wrong answer. Alphas don’t care about pleasing women. It’s merely a side benefit of pleasing themselves.”
Either way, women get pleased, so does it matter? Your definition of alpha changes to fit your argument. In this case then, I’m a beta. And so are all of the men on this blog.
David Alexander
July 26, 2011
Either way, women get pleased, so does it matter?
Your original statement made an implication of primary desire to please women, hence the “you’re a beta” remarks.
David Alexander
July 26, 2011
Who said that?
As I reference her in the real world when talking to my mom, “The German Lady”.
I get a fair amount of negative feedback from women when I express my desire to get dressed in the morning with my husband in mind.
One could argue that they’re trying to minimize the effort that they can put into their husbands, and you’re raising the bar which makes things harder for them. Mind you, I suspect that the main difference between you and these other women is that while you’re attracted to your husband, these women aren’t and aruably fuel my theories that some women get married merely to have children in a respectable middle class manner, and they do so by picking a man that’s tolerable enough for the medium term.
The whole “he’ll love me for who am I theory” makes sense if one believes physical attraction shouldn’t play a role at all since both couples will age, and it definitely makes sense for women who place less importance on physical attraction when compared to men. The problem is that some fear that giving in to that will lead to a nasty race between women for men.
Svar
July 26, 2011
“Your original statement made an implication of primary desire to please women, hence the “you’re a beta” remarks.”
I guess the most of the men here are betaish, in that they want to please their women(however, not every women). The way that we’re alphaish is that we don’t take them seriously most of the time, however, even though we care.
Aaron Traas
July 26, 2011
I respectfully disagree; she threw up straw man after straw man, threw in a bunch of insults at Republicans when many (most?) of the people here don’t identify with that party, just came up with the most inane, barely-tangential crap to derail the conversation, etc. I’m not even going to bother making fun of her; I only put effort into ribbing people that I have some modicum of respect for.
Cane Caldo
July 26, 2011
Being pretty isn’t going to make me want to magically save you. You providing for an income stream to take care of my mother in case of my injury or death will. Regardless, one could argue that you should simply protect and care for yourself instead of being a rent-seeking female and expecting a man to waste his energy and resources to do it for you.
Speak for yourself.* Pretty is not a factor in my decision-making process, but it certainly is a stimulus! Beauty is rare, and should be treasured; particularly if her beauty is my treasure. Income I can get, but if there’s something better than your beautiful woman upon to spend your energy and resources, I don’t know it.
I put effort into my appearance for the sake of my husband. It matters to me that I look attractive to and for him.
I’ll bet he loves it. Besides: I think Americans have a real problem with this area. One of the ways you can tell that Americans hold each other in contempt is because we think it’s acceptable to reveal to each other what we look like in pajamas and sweatsuits while grocery shopping. It’s an ugly culture. We ought to be getting dressed appropriately not just for our spouses, but for your neighbors in general. Clothes make the man (and woman), and an undershirt and flip-flops says, “I lack discipline and concern for others.”
*As an aside: The constant pontificating by those in the PUA community about what is beta, and what is not, belies what a bunch of wannabe prom queens they really are. That and the fact they ultimately don’t reproduce, or influence the lives of others. Internet-praised alphas are the Barbie dolls of the mating world. Don’t be that guy, DA.
Svar
July 26, 2011
“threw in a bunch of insults at Republicans when many (most?) of the people here don’t identify with that party”
Ok, I see what you mean. She knew that insulting Republicans(which I happened to notice that she basically did out of the blue) would rile most self-describing conservatives up; too bad the vast majority of us don’t consider us to be Republican. However, this is the same woman who called Clarence insane and me a skinhead/Klansmen for agreeing with many of Breivik’s stated political ideas, even though we both said that we disagreed with his actions.
Aaron, I can’t tell. I have met people this stupid, but, the Republican deal seems like she’s just trying to piss people off. I dunno. Deuce? Cane? CSPB? Stewie? Your thoughts?
terri
July 26, 2011
I’m not Deuce, Cane, CSPB, or Stewie, but I actually think that Chels is a typical uneducated left-wing Westerner. Woefully undereducated despite official credentials, and totally convinced she understands things that she clearly doesn’t.
joanna
July 26, 2011
“…undershirt and flip-flops says, “I lack discipline and concern for others.”
Okay, but I live in a climate that requires flip-flopped feet. It’s dang hot here. Who wears shoes here? Nobody. Everyone wears flip-flops.
joanna
July 26, 2011
Yeah, what Terry said. I can barely read Chels’ comments anymore, I just skip over them.
Svar
July 26, 2011
Terri, she is educated alright. She’s older by me by about 8 years. She’s had more education than I’ve had so far. And yet, I know more and have a greater ability to use logic. It’s ridiculous. She still thinks that she’s thuper thmart or something, when nothing she has said has shown this to be true.
Either way, thank God I live in Texas. The women may not be any smarter, but atleast they’ve been raised right.
Svar
July 26, 2011
“Yeah, what Terry said. I can barely read Chels’ comments anymore, I just skip over them.”
Good idea, Joanna.
terri
July 26, 2011
I wear flip flops too, Joanna. I make sure my feet look good (I love red toe polish), and I have flip flops in every color. I have a few pair like this, and they always match my clothes. I have to have some kind of heel, even if it’s just a wedge heel. I wear plenty of cute skirts, too.
Flip flops can be fashionable and feminine. FL is too hot for much of the year to wear shoes. I wear shoes in November through February, LOL.
Svar
July 26, 2011
“Okay, but I live in a climate that requires flip-flopped feet. It’s dang hot here. Who wears shoes here? Nobody. Everyone wears flip-flops.”
It’s either flip-flops or cowboy boots where I live.
Alte
July 26, 2011
We ought to be getting dressed appropriately not just for our spouses, but for your neighbors in general.
This is how I feel, as well. Perhaps it’s a European influence, but I see people walking around here in their PJs and hair rollers, and I just cringe. It shows contempt, or at least indifference.
I don’t mean that I’m trying to seduce every man I meet, Terry, but that I do generally want them to know that I care enough about their opinion that I attempt to be dressed neatly and in a feminine manner when leaving the house, even if I spent the day working in the garden. I feel the same about the women I value, as well, which is why I generally change into clean clothes, brush my hair, and wash my face before leaving the house to visit with female friends.
I feel it is a courtesy I offer to other people, and I would appreciate it if others would reciprocate. I suppose you could say that I feel it is a reflection of community.
David Collard
July 26, 2011
Svar, DA is right. It is beta to worry too much about pleasing a woman sexually.
Svar
July 26, 2011
David, DA meant that it is beta to merely want to please a woman sexually, not worrying too much about it.
David Collard
July 26, 2011
Svar, I was being tactful. It is beta to even think about that. Besides, it is mostly beyond a man’s control. Why do you think feminists make such a big deal about it, including the trolls we get here?
terri
July 26, 2011
We ought to be getting dressed appropriately not just for our spouses, but for your neighbors in general.
I don’t have a problem with that mindset, per se, but I know that far too many women are inclined to look like hags around the house and then fix themselves up to go out.
If your first inclination is to look good for your man and the people closest to you, then of course you’ll tend your appearance when you go out.
However, the reason so many women look so terrible in public is because they don’t bother to fix themselves up at all, for anybody, ever, unless they have someone they want to impress..
Svar
July 26, 2011
“Svar, I was being tactful. It is beta to even think about that. Besides, it is mostly beyond a man’s control. Why do you think feminists make such a big deal about it, including the trolls we get here?”
True, I see what you mean.
Alte
July 26, 2011
Well, I’m generally neat at home, as well, but sometimes I’ve been out in the garden or washing the car, or whatnot, and I clean up before I leave the house. Like we were painting this weekend and then went out for a quick lunch, and we both showered, changed, and dressed before we left the house.
However, the reason so many women look so terrible in public is because they don’t bother to fix themselves up at all, for anybody, ever
That was the point we were originally making about Dworkin’s awful appearance: she clearly doesn’t “fix herself up” at all, for anybody. We suspect that’s for anti-male reasons. Even in her photos she looks positively gross, and not even just severely obese.