Charlotte Allen Exposes A Nerve

I get it Charlotte. I think I have a pretty good idea of the motivation for writing that article. I wouldn't classify it as humor, you don't need to call it humor. It is perfectly OK to write an article that is critical of women. In fact, I think the reason your article caused so much upset is that certain things you say are, in fact, right on the mark and every one knows it, whether they choose to acknowledge it or not.

I don't think you came to the right conclusion, that women are dim. However, I understand that this was an opinion piece, and what you were expressing was your exasperation at the display of silly behavior at a time where perhaps a more sober analysis of the qualities of a presidential candidate would have been desirable.

I think it is very important that you wrote that article for two reasons.

1. Women have been given free reign to beat up on men and criticize them based solely on the fact that they are men. Where men have been successful, conventional wisdom amongst the "feminist" crowd is that their success was achieved by the suppression, and came at the expense of women. While this may be true in some cases, applying this logic to absolutely everything under the sun is certainly not, and that is exactly what is happening in today's society.
   
   It is leading us as a society to draw some pretty upside down conclusions about what is desirable and exactly which societal goals are worth pursuing. We live in a world of limited resources and whether we like it or not, we often have to choose between a and b. Ideally, we would, as a society, do a cost/benefit analysis of a and b and allocate resources to whichever gave us the greatest net benefit.
   
   The beauty of a free society and its alter ego, freedom of speech, given the fact that there are usually opposing interests in choosing a or b, is that each side of the opposing interest can be counted on to expose the costs of the goal they dislike and highlight the benefits of the goal they prefer. Only then can we make an informed decision on which path we ought to take.
   
   "Feminists" and I use quotes because I believe it cynical to describe a group of women who show nothing but disdain for just about everything feminine, "feminists", seek to silence any discussion which may portray women in an unflattering light. However, women do have qualities and characteristics that may put them at a disadvantage in certain situations and therefore make them the less optimal choice. Those same qualities and characteristics may make them the preferable choice in other scenarios. The only way we can make those decisions is to allow the debate to occur.
   
   Since, as you pointed out, it can be a fatal, career ending decision for a man to attempt this discussion, as in the case of the former President of Harvard, it will require women to start the debate. If there weren't any truth underlying what you said, your article would not have provoked such a response. For example, if you had written that the sun really revolves around the earth, or that gravity makes objects float upwards, you would have been regarded as a dodo, but I suspect the response would have been much more muted. You touched a nerve.
   
   
   
2. Believe it or not, all that above was still my first point. My second point is this. Women as a group will never live up to the expectations or achieve the goals set for them by "feminists". This is because the underlying premise of feminists is that men are inherently better than women and therefore only by doing everything men do, as a group, will we have attained equality and our rightful roles in society.
   
   Furthermore, absolutely no distinction is made as to the worthiness of the male behaviors feminists wish all women to emulate. How many movies have there been where slutty women are revered because their slutty behavior is deemed to be more male? I am not even sure this is an accurate portrayal of men in the first place, but regardless of the facts, I have read many a "feminist" opinion exalting the promiscuous and callous dating behavior of more than a few on-screen heroines.
   
   Woman, deny thyself, act like a man. Well the problem with this is that women make lousy men, and by spending all of their time and energy on trying to be men, we have created a void where there shouldn't be one. Is it a wonder that our schools are failing, our kids are fat, and that the population at large doesn't have the energy or desire to pay attention to community affairs? Who would after working all day outside the home and then coming home to face the household chores and needs of the kids?
   
   Guess what folks, by allowing the "feminists" to convince us that traditional women's roles were less valuable than men's we are allowing our society to rot from the inside out. Because nature hates a vacuum, the void left by women is being filled - in many cases by the schools, the government, which may or may not be desirable, by the local drug dealer on the corner, by MacDonald's, Carl's Junior, Jack-in-the Box, special interest lobbyists - none of whom have the level of interest or the motivation to succeed a woman would have in caring for her own family and community. It is, at best, a second rate solution which will ultimately make us a second rate society and nation.

If you find that insulting, too bad. It needs to be said, often and at the same volume as the ones shouting the other nonsense. At least then we will have all the sides represented and once the hysterical "feminists"¹ settle down, perhaps it will be possible to have a national discussion on just what kind of a society we want to be.

RH

Link to article - I link to the comments page in the title of the blog page. Interview Transcript: Charlotte Allen on Outlook Article, Reaction

Feminists Run The Schools - Teach Anti-Male Hate - Note From RH. When my son was in the 4th or 5th grade in Cupertino, California I gave a ride home to a sixth grade boy my son rode bikes with. I had asked the two how their day at school had gone, and we came to discuss the school principal. It might have been that my son had gotten in trouble, I can't remember exactly. This 6th grade boy then made the comment that Mrs. Zellner doesn't like boys. (Mrs. Zellner being the school principal). I thought this was a very odd remark and asked him why? He said, "I don't know, she just doesn't. She always gets the boys in trouble." At the time I didn't take it very seriously - I was holding down a full-time job and didn't have time to ponder the state of male/female relationships in public schools.

Then came the episode where this principal recommended putting my son on medication to stop his disruptive behavior. I didn't, thank god, and my son grew up just fine. (I do not mean to imply that there are not children who have a real disorder and who need medication. Just that as a parent, approach this with skepticism, and for god's sake get a doctor to do the diagnosis, not a principal with a feminist agenda. )

That episode started me thinking, but I wrote it off to be THAT PRINCIPAL and not a growing national trend. I still don't know how prevalent it is within our schools, but I have heard some pretty disgusting stories. Too bad we don't have people in society who look into this sort of thing, professionally, I mean, as their job.

Be an American: Hate Modern Feminism

When Rape Fantasies Involve Conservative Women, Feminists Are Silent

The Catalogue of Anti-Male Shaming Tactics

Picture This: September 11, Multiculturalism, and the War on White Male Heroes
¹ Yes, this is an intentional jab meant to get a rise out of hysterical feminists.

Vacuuming, The Road to an Enlightened Future

Betty Friedan’s original call to arms compared housework to animal life. In The Feminine Mystique she wrote, “[V]acuuming the living room floor -- with or without makeup -- is not work that takes enough thought or energy to challenge any woman’s full capacity. ... Down through the ages man has known that he was set apart from other animals by his mind’s power to have an idea, a vision, and shape the future to it ... when he discovers and creates and shapes a future different from his past, he is a man, a human being.”

I do not take assaults on vacuuming lightly. Although, Miss Friedan is no longer with us, her inferiority complex is still alive and well, and may well show up at your doorstep in the middle of the night to force you to get a job outside the home. Only then will you be fulfilled. You are just too stupid to realize it right now.

Vacuuming, it seems, is not challenging or intellectually stimulating to Miss Friedan. Women who vacuum are accepting their roles as oppressed, helpless ninnies. How does the quote from the "feminist" bible illustrate my assertion of this being a matter of an inferiority complex, rather than evidence of oppression of women?

Assume for example, that it is the repetitive nature of vacuuming that she objects to. However, pretty much every occupation, from the lowly janitor to the awe inspiring investment banker, has some degree of boring, repetitive tasks in their job description. Yet because these jobs are performed outside the home, they are somehow more worthy than repetitive tasks performed by women inside the home. (Yes, the investment banker has other responsibilities, but housewives don't vacuum 24/7 either, now do they?)

For some reason, mowing the lawn seems to be ok, despite the obvious similarities of pushing a noisy electrical device across a flat surface for the purpose of making said surface look better. I can't recall a mannabe ever complain about the oppressive qualities of lawn mowing. (As most of us know, lawn mowing is usually a man's job. )

Additionally, I would like to take issue with the statement that vacuuming is unworthy because it doesn't require much thought. It is precisely that reason that I love vacuuming! I do some of my best thinking when I vacuum. The idea for the Retro Housewife site was conceived and developed while removing dog hair from the living room floor with my trusty Dyson. Where else can you get such extended periods of uninterrupted thought? Phone rings? Don't hear it! Solicitor at the door? Can't hear that either! Other household members (including the dogs), hold off their requests and questions until you are finished. You are truly alone with your thoughts... if you actually have any thoughts, that is.

Maybe that was Miss Friedan's real problem?

RH

Hooking Up, Mannabes and Other Morons

Mannabe n, (s): Moronic homo sapian females, typically self identifying as feminists, who reject everything intrinsically feminine and adopt stereotypical male behavior without judgment or assessment of the value of such behavior. Often employed by newspapers and institutions of higher education.

Here I am up in Lake Tahoe enjoying an impromptu winter vacation with my family, when I happen to pick up a copy of a small local paper with the intention of perusing the real estate ads and dreaming about owning a vacation home up here. I had to postpone my day dream, however, because the cover story "Hooking Up - Have Relationships Been Replaced?" was just too tempting to pass up.

I flipped to page 14, where the cover story article was promised, and read the title "New book draws fire for claiming that sex hookups can damage young women". I had to read the title three times to make sure that I was reading it correctly. My common sense told me I was misreading it, because I was interpreting it to mean that the book was saying frequent casual sex was bad for young women, and somebody was criticizing that. OK, THAT certainly can't be, it must somehow be that somebody wrote a book favorable to "hook ups", and sane and reasonable people were criticizing that premise. I re-read it again, one word at a time, and sure enough, my initial understanding was correct!

HEH?

Have people lost their minds? The author of the book, Laura Sessions Stepp, apparently was so bold to imply that today's teens and young tweens' practice of frequent, noncommittal casual sex may not be in the gals best interest. Sounds reasonable enough, I mean we expect to have our own fork at a restaurant, right? You wouldn't tap the guy at the next table on the shoulder and ask him for a sip of his water, or the lady in front of you at the ice cream stand if you could have a lick of her ice cream cone, (I mean unless you knew them well enough to do so.) It seems to follow that it would be just as silly to get hot and sweaty between the sheets with somebody you barely know or feel little or no obligation towards (and vice versa!).

It seems to me hygiene alone should make people at least cautious, I mean, even an amoral, atheist robot should agree on that point, right? Not to mention the fact that anyone with an iota of self respect would use discretion when allowing another person into their most personal sphere! For God's sake, a landlord will run a background check on prospective tenants, and will demand at least require a 30 day notice when they move out! But to expect to know the last name of the person you just had sex with, or expect to hear from him again is asking too much?

But apparently, certain so-called feminists decry this viewpoint as anti-feminist, as a throw-back to an earlier, restrictive moral climate and one which instills sexual shame. Men, so their warped rational, get to be promiscuous so women should be able to too! Hmm. I wonder whether, if men cut off one of their toes every leap year, whether these feminists would do so as well...? dunno, but it wouldn't be surprising given their idiotic stance on this hooking up thing. And it just irritates me that they call themselves feminists, because they are anything but. They want to be men. (And it doesn't seem to matter whether they are like good men or bad men, because both exist in the world, you know..)

They are simply Mannabes.

Girls, and women for that matter who try to convince themselves that they can have sex with a man without consequence or emotional attachment are big, fat, fuzzy liars and should repeat to themselves "denial, ---- ain't just a river in Egypt" at least 10 times every morning. (If they can, it only means that they have managed to dehumanize themselves enough to do so.)

Women who are defending this practice suffer from low self esteem, and are the type who would take a few puffs of pot or other drugs just because their friends do and they just want to fit in, and now they have to justify the whole mess somehow, so they claim it makes them free and equal and liberated, because more than anything, misery loves company, and misery is actively looking for company amongst the naiive youngsters of today. It is a load of Bull. There I said it.

RH