Dreaming of right-wing women

Dear Hannah,

I don't believe (whatever Paul and Schopenhauer said) that women in general are stupid, but if it's a rumor it isn't the men's fault.  The women seem to have brought it on themselves.  If some men were to start calling women ugly nobody would believe it, because women are one of the only things we stare at so hard that we drive into ditches.  But even if men tried spreading this lie, the truth of a general statement lies in its probability.   Too many women are beautiful for us to call them ugly.  We might even say the concept of beauty revolves around women*.  But are too many women smart enough to say they aren't stupid?

Women have a great defense here, and it's that only some women are speaking for women --  a fact that's true for every other group since the beginning of history.  A part has to represent the whole or you end up with chaos.  The problem with womankind's representation is that femininity isn't a representative organization at all, or even an organization.  And the women who speak for women are never elected by womankind to do it.  The question then becomes, who speaks for women, and on what authority?  The feminist of the modern age, empowered by the media, is much less an envoy than a usurper.  She speaks for her whole sex when she represents easily far less than half**.

My case in point.

When Donald Trump became the president nearly two months ago it was said that "women" went crazy over it, and when they went crazy they "all" took to the streets.  Every paper went nuts for our women's resistance.  Coverage was extensive.  Women in stupid pink hats  infested our streets on both coasts.   Nobody was sure exactly what they wanted except that Donald Trump had to go and paid leave ought to be mandatory.  They'd won the right to vote and now that they'd won the right to vote they were uncomfortable with the conclusion of their voting.  Nearly half of American women had voted for Trump.  The worse half simply didn't believe in the existence of the better.

Aside from this absurdity there were others.  Out of kindness we'll maybe skip over The New York Times running a headline in praise of them titled "We are dissidents; we are legion." We'll ignore the fact that Legion was the name of a horde of demons in the Bible, and that Jesus had sent them into a herd of pigs, and the herd of pigs stampeded in a fury, and the fury led them off of a cliff.  It's impossible to say how they missed this.  We'll ignore that Legion is from the most-read book in the whole world, and these chapters at the end are the most read of them all.  

We'll ignore that a Wall Street firm decided to build them a statue, and the statue was of a little girl, and the little girl was placed in front of the Wall Street bull, and that they intended for her to be taking a stand against the "patriarchy of finance."  We'll ignore that The Bull doesn't represent Wall Street itself, and that it actually represents "a bull market," and that a bull market represents prosperity.  So we had a little girl, who isn't allowed to vote because she's not smart enough, standing in the way of success.  An unintended metaphor that only a moron could botch -- and then tout in all the papers.

We'll ignore how she fails at symbolism and get right to how she fails at her own senses.  We'll ignore that liberal women don't know that if pregnancy is a massive disruption to a marriage it's also a massive disruption to our businesses and worse to our military, and that they believe women are just as good in fighting and sporting and drinking as men.  We'll ignore yet another article in the The New York Times, saying that what women want isn't more female CEO's, but no CEO's in the world altogether -- that nobody should be driven to the top by greater incentives, and all progress should happen in a world without leaders.  We'll ignore women nobody wants to have sex with demanding we keep our hands off their vaginas; and that we should keep our politics out of their vaginas while they're putting their vaginas into our politics.  We'll ignore the mollycoddling given to women who get cat-calls, and the cold shoulder given to children who get literally dissected.

They say this is what women believe and do, and that if we support women we'll support all this nonsense.  Then they threw "A Day Without A Woman," a day when they refused to support us in any way whatsoever.  So International Women's Day came and it went, but it wasn't a day for us to celebrate all women.  It wasn't even remembered as A Day Without A Woman.  It was remembered as the day millions of American men woke up -- and thanked God so many women in their lives were smart enough to be Republicans.

Your father,

*All the romantic poetry in the world is an attempt to describe women using things that are immeasurably beneath them.  Solomon's describing his lover's teeth as a flock of sheep is almost laughable; and his calling her breasts "fawns" borders on the grotesque.  What in the world are we supposed to compare women to? What could possibly be a compliment when they're the crowning feature of the universe?

**I've read several books that said suffragettes were never the majority of women.  They were simply obnoxious and motivated and organized and violent -- like the Bolsheviks and the Snowflakes and the Nazis.  My sister once asked me how a population could ever consent to anything as terrible as a Middle-Eastern dictatorship.  But how could the Arabs stand up to Saddam's tortures when we couldn't even stand up to a few women's tantrums?  We ought to cut the Iraqis some slack.

The history of women in protest hasn't been flattering to their humanity or their intelligence.  The earliest and most typical protest of theirs was probably invented by (note:) a man named Aristophanes, who described a city of women refusing to have sex until they got what they wanted -- a noble purpose, in this case, of avoiding an unnecessary war.  Unfortunately this tactic was foiled forever when another Greek, probably Archimedes the engineer, ruined all their plans by announcing the discovery of right hands.

From the moment it arrived feminism has been crippling the foundations of Western Civilization.  Edwardian England was a place for oratory and sharp but tolerable debates between members of Parliament, until women began "asking" for the vote by pelting men like Winston Churchill and his feminist wife, who were not even against the female vote, with things like rotten fish.  You can read about it in the first book of The Last Lion.  Their disgusting intolerance of opposing ideas, their shouting over speakers incessantly, and their constant interruptions of every important meeting set the stage for the modern Social Justice Warrior -- whose misbreeds win their arguments by making arguing impossible.


  1. "All the romantic poetry in the world is an attempt to describe women using things that are immeasurably beneath them."

    Sure enough.

    "Solomon's describing his lover's teeth as a flock of sheep is almost laughable;"


    Consider this -- many years ago, me car died on the highway (fortunately, not too far from my city). On the ride home in the tow-truck, I was struck with how beautiful the fields of wheat and young corn we passed were as compared to the wood-lots. I mean, I do love trees very much (and my quite urban property is mostly wooded), but a world of nothing but forest would be hideous. The woods are beautiful *because* of the contrasting fields and meadows.

    So, my point is, a healthy grain field is beautiful. And a healthy flock of sheep on a grassy hill is beautiful (especially if one's culture is pastorial). So, given that "[a]ll the romantic poetry in the world is an attempt to describe women using things that are immeasurably beneath them", how is it "almost laughable" for a man descended from shepherds to describe his lover's teeth as a flock of sheep?

    "and his calling her breasts "fawns" borders on the grotesque."

    Again, why? Does it border on the grotesque to liken a woman's grace to that of a great cat?


Post a Comment