Strong Conservative Women

Strong Conservative Women ... and the weak man-things who enable them -- that's a joke, by the way: [WARNING! (especially for Gentlest Reader) This is one of those posts in which I'm pretty much compelled to use crude language.] as the women commenting in that thread are neither strong nor conservative. Rather, they're feminists, which is to say they're "liberals," who simply don't like to call themselves feminists and don't want to recognize and eliminate from their minds the control that "liberalism" has over them. They conflate their willfulness for having strong wills, and on the strength of their willfulness imagine themselves to be strong women -- small children are willful, but no one in his right mind imagines that to be a virtue, either of children or of supposed adults.

Most of the women in my family are, or were when they were alive, strong women (in my family, it's some of the younger ones, the ones marinated in feminism and "liberalism" all during their “education” who are weaklings, for all their willfulness). I *know* a strong woman when I see one, and these are not.

Gack! Pity the weak, PWed schlubbs who may have chosen to put up with such harridans and shrews.

===
First, consider the song itself: consider its sappy sentimentality; and especially, consider its horrendous message, which amounts to: "Oh! These things just chance to happen (to poor little angels who "don't deserve this," because of those "plans," you know?) ... and, oh, by the way, you all need to celebrate as Heroines Of The Ages all the vapid and selfish dips who manage to choose to not murder the poor little bastards they have chosen to cause to exist."

Again, I say: bullshit! On multiple levels: bullshit!

Gentle Reader may (or may not) have seen Chris Rock's act in which he mocks the mindset of persons who want to claim moral credit for doing what one is *supposed* to do (as see here, warning: language). Essentially the same mindset or attitude is at play in this song, as with those "baby daddies" Mr Rock is mocking, who want credit because "I take care of my kids." In this case, it's "Celebrate me: I don't murder my babies." To paraphrase Mr Rock: "You self-centered twit! You're supposed to not murder your babies!"

But, there is another, and more insidious, level of total wrongness about this song: it glamorizes getting yourself knocked up. If the reader is offended by the "ugly language" I am using to discuss the second-ugliest thing people commonly do to other people, than the reader can push off: I just don't give a damn about your tender sensibilities. Forcing a defenseless human being to enter this world as a bastard is an ugly and hateful thing to do, made worse only by murdering the child before its birth.

For a number of years now it has increasingly bothered me that seemingly every "Contemporary Christian" act has a number in its repertoire whinging about how "judgmental" Christians are toward the "fallen women" in our midst. I think there is a federal law requiring these numbers!

Would to God in Heaven that we -- the church and society as a whole -- were "judgmental" about this! The reason that so many of today's young (so-called) women, a majority of them in fact, are, to put not too fine a point on it, skanks is precisely because no one is willing to be "judgmental" about what used to be called "easy virtue;" no one is willing to state the blunt truth of the matter.

Feminists -- that is, the "liberal" identity-group grievance-mongers who target (initially) the female sex for subversion -- like to assert that in the bad old days before “liberalism” gave us all the freedom to do whatever we wish without consequence, it was the men who ostracized and shunned the "fallen women" in the community. In fact, it was not the men, but the women who dealt harshly with such a woman; rather, the men dealt with the boy or man who was the cause of her "fallen" state, and gave him to understand that he could either take up his responsibility to the bastard-child he'd caused or he could find himself another place in which to live. But, for about the past three generations, women in general have declined to negatively sanction the women and girls who opt for "easy virtue" -- for, women, in general, have fallen in a big way for "liberalism" and its grievance-mongering of totally invented grievances, and men, in general, have declined to insist that women return to the sanity of the real world. [In fact, rather than insist upon sanity, most men in America have followed the women into that insanity and have in the process feminized themselves -- most men these days aren't men: not only do they not understand the masculine virtues, but they fear and loathe such virtues.]

The "liberals" managed this moral subversion of most of the women in the nation by appealing initially to their vanity: "Oooo! You're so nurturing and compassionate (for, you are a woman! so much better than men), and wouldn't it be such an even more nurturing and compassionate thing (and so, an even more greater demonstration of your moral superiority!) to make those mean, old, nasty, judgmental men stop picking on these poor, poor, little angels who "turn up" pregnant. My God! It's bad enough that they use these poor dears to satisfy their beastly urges, but they to paint them as tramps, too! It's unspeakable!"

But, of course, it wasn't the men, but rather the women, who made the "poor dears" social outcasts and gossiped unmercifully about them. And, harsh as it was, it served a socially necessary purpose: it kept bastardy numbers low. For, very few women have the personal courage to act in ways they know will make them unwelcome in the society of other women.


In my initial comment in that thread, I'd indicated that I'd stopped listening to the song at the 24 second mark -- I've heard that song a hundred times, since everyone and her sister has a variation on the same theme. As soon as I heard "Poor little girl, scared half to death" I knew where that song was going. And it does.

Does Gentle Reader *really* not understand that when the typical self-centered dip-shit drama-queen with her mind permanently stuck on the "Junior High" setting ingests songs like this, which glamorize what we now call "teen pregnancy," she's going to think to herself, "Ooo! I can do that!"

===
And, because no post of this sort could possibly be complete without some well-deserved mockery of the willful refusal to reason, I'll now analyze, with a view toward placing them in the context of our disintegrating culture, some of the more amusing of the vituperation directed my way in that thread.

Do keep in mind, Gentle Reader, that in my comments above (which I hope they were both scathing and informative) and those which shall follow, the scorn I express is not directed at real women, not at intellectually and emotionally and spiritually mature women, but rather at girls-in-old-bodies whatever their precise calendar-ages: at the sort of flakey, selfish, self-centered, princess-complexed, "snowflake" drama-queens with their minds permanently stuck on the "Junior High" setting, and who just happen to comprise a majority of the female sex presently dwelling in the US of A.

First, of course, it wouldn't be fair to not quote what I'd written that became the excuse to demonstrate their Grrrl-Powrr:

Ilíon: Maybe it is a beautiful song [as the commenter previous had said], after all, but at the :24 mark I decided it’s not worth my time.

“Poor little girl scared half to death” - bullshit! more like “scheming little vamp who deliberately got herself knocked-up and now - after the deed is done - is finally thinking about the repercussions.”

Now, admittedly, this comment is blunt and is not at all "nice," in that pseudo-non-judgmental manner in which the "liberals" have trained most American women to think.

But then, I'm not at all "nice." I don't intend to be.

Tammy Cracker: Like I said, you’re a creep.
Anyone who says things like, “bullshit! more like “scheming little vamp who deliberately got herself knocked up” is a creep.

Your level of hatred for women is palpable.
I’m guessing you bully your wife or girlfriend the same way.
Creep.

Tammy (I'm not sure whether this is the same Tammy): Never mind.
I can spot a bitter divorcee a mile away.
I’m sure your ex’s parting words were, “Good riddance to bad rubbish, you creep!”.

Tammy Cracker: I bet his ex got the house and the kids too.
And he has to pay child support. LOL!
I can smell a bitter creep a mile away.

jclady: I would like to know why you have such a low opinion of women. Why do strong women pose a threat to you?

I quoted these (which aren't that amusing, I admit) for two main reasons:
1) they lead into some of the following sets, which are very amusing;
2) they demonstrate a stereotypically feminine vice with respect to reasoning; specifically, the *refusal* to reason, but rather to emote. And, also, "projection;" in this case, projecting their own freely-chosen irrationality onto me -- it *can't* be that I have reasons for what I said, it can only be that I speak out of anger or rage or fear (and from especially fear of "strong, independent women").
3) they evince the standard feminist hatred of men and utter disregard for the welfare of children -- gather in what these shrews are crowing about! It doesn't matter that they only imagine my "ex got the house and the kids too. And [that I have] to pay child support." What matters is the unadulterated bile -- these women despise men.

Tammy Cracker: HA! I knew it. Mr. creep got burned.
But of course, it’s ALL HER FAULT.

His wife(property) wouldn’t put up with his hate-filled bullshit, so she left. Probably for the safety of the kids too. ...

Let's see: this foolish shew "knows" that I've been romantically burned because ... well, because she and her sister shews have agreed to agree that I've been burned. I mean, really! Read the thread for yourself -- there is nothing there (or anywhere, for that matter) to rationally support the proposition that I have been romantically burned.

Shoot! Even the woman who *didn't* marry me didn't burn me. We were still pretty good friends in almost daily contact until she started getting serious about some other guy, and then again after one or the other "burned" the other until she started getting serious with yet another guy. Whom she married, and who (according to what she later told me, and I have no reason to doubt it) "burned" her. Now, if she had asked my opinion *before* she got involved with the second one, I'd have advised against, since while I didn't actually know the guy, I knew of him. But, sadly, women generally don't care about the opinions of men, and particularly about the opinions of the men who care most for their well-being, until it doesn't matter.

Snowball the Sourpuss: Maybe he moonlights as a pimp?

Tammy Cracker: Moonlights? That’s his full time job. heh heh.
He couldn’t get a woman unless he paid for her.

HCWAG: It’s interesting to me when I run into a guy who still believes in chattel. I makes you wonder all kinds of things. Mostly it makes you wonder what kind of woman it takes to burn a man this badly. ... You are probably the insecure lowly type of guy who has to console yourself by repeating “I’m a real man” to yourself at night. ...

Snowball the Sourpuss: Okay. Listen, dude, have a wonderfully cream filled life of donuts and porn. I’m outta here too.

BigFurHat (whom I presume to be biologically male): ... It’s almost as if you never got laid….. hehe

Tammy Cracker: Mr. Creep is a loser. And I’m guessing on his third or fourth wife, some burka-wearing type who bows to his glorious nothingness.
Either that, or he ordered a Russian bride. Pimps like to control their bitches.
Loser. Not a conservative.
Loser who has mommy issues.

Tammy Cracker: ... What do you get, like five or six hits a year from the former prostitutes that you hired? ...

This group of remarks is the most amusing ... I really could (and perhaps ought) write a whole post devoted to the attitude on display here.

The first, and most important, thing to notice is that while these people imagine that they're insulting me as being somehow worthless because they imagine I "can't get any," what they're really doing is showing that they think of themselves and/or one another as sluts. That's a pretty extreme claim, but bear with me.

Consider, first, what they imagine about me -- that I "can't get any," unless I pay for it. Therefore, they imagine, I have no worth. I, being male, can attain human worth only via the power of The Magical Pussy (I *told* you I need to use crude language) ... which *they* possess and withhold at will from me, even if only in their imaginations, because I'm so worthless anyway.

Now, consider this from the other direction -- they, being female, and in possession of The Magical Pussy, which alone bestows worth upon male persons, have great worth and power (this echoes another common theme of feminism) *precisely* because they possess The Magical Pussy. That is, they have willfully fallen for the feminist lie that the power -- and worth -- of womankind lies in, and only in, sexual activity and orgasm. They have willfully fallen for the feminist lie that women can, and naturally do, dominate and control men via sex (it's also true that a lot of men choose to fall for that lie).

They have denominated their worth in terms of "putting out" and in their (imagined) ability to control men either by actually "putting out" or by implying that they will "put out" if a man jumps through the right hoops. What I'm getting at is that even if such women are physically virgins, in their minds/spirits they are sluts, for they reject and devalue chastity. And love. For, how can a man love a woman whom he knows views "making love" as simply an efficient tool for ruling over him?

When the first Superman movie was in the theaters, we went to see it. Sitting behind us were three youngish black women (who were loud and obnoxious as black-women-in-groups in public frequently are). At the scene where Superman surrendered his superpowers so that he could "make love" with Lois Lane, one of these women said, "Imagine giving up all that for a piece of tail!" Now, it's sad that this woman apparently saw herself as only "a piece of tail," and yet, was not her attitude more healthy -- that is, less self-delusional -- than the attitudes of junior-high-girls-in-old-bodies who imagine that they possess The Magical Pussy? Think of how much good would be done in America were Oprah to announce that there is no such thing!

And, of course, even aside from the issue of chastity and love, one of the big problems with denominating one's worth in terms of "putting out" is that nookie is just nookie. Think of the problem as systematic inflation due to a continuous influx of new "money."


Another amusing thing about this is that sluts really have no business looking down their noses at whores. The individuals in both groups have set their own worth in terms of "putting out" ... but the sluts are too stupid to get paid for it.

jclady: ... And to take things a step deeper, your screen name of “ilion” screams to me I LION. Self-esteem issues?

Two things:
1) What an ignorant, as in dunceville uneducated, personage. I wonder, would it make her head explode to mention Homer?
2) That worship of "self-esteem." Women (not *real* women, of course, but this sort of willfully immature girl-in-an-old-body) are all about "self-esteem." But self-respect? If they've even heard of that, the most positive response you'll get is a "Whateeveerr!"

Rightwingfeather (sex unknown to me): I have been following this thread and I am not sure I understand where you, ilion get off on calling the women on this site, “weak, immature, or bitter.”

Your comments show a lack of respect for women in general, but I think that they are more revealing of your psychological makeup than any conservative ideals you seem to think you embrace.

Look beyond your reflection in the mirror, you may be surprised at how others see you. You have been had by a woman and now you are an angry bitter soul. It is not becoming of you, you opinions, or your “blog.”

This one is amusing because:
1) I'm quite sure I have at no point expressed an opinion on whether those harridans and shrews are "bitter." And the "weak, immature" statement has a context, specifically to assert that they are the exact opposite of what they've asserted of themselves; to wit: "you can call yourselves “strong conservative women” all you want, but you’re weak, immature, “liberal” girls";
1a) I made reference to their willful irrationality, which is actually far worse than being "weak, immature, or bitter";
2) Once again, because I am a American man who *dares* to say something that a group of American women don't want to hear, I *obviously* "show a lack of respect for women in general" and have other psychological problems;
3) And, again, I "have been had by a woman and now [I am] an angry bitter soul" ... because, well, because the girls have decided that that is so.

Tammy (apparently not Tammy Cracker): Oh, and Mark Spitz is gay.
That should send Mr. Creep into convulsions.
They are identical twins.
In fact, maybe Mr. Creep IS Mark Spitz!!!!

The only shocker here is that it took them so long to get around to this irrational accusation. This is generally the first thing out of the mouths of such junior-high-girls (whether in young or old bodies) when a mere man dares to express opinions of which he has not been given express permission to hold, much less voice.

Tammy Cracker: OMG. I went to the link of LOSER CENTRAL.
No comments. ...

Snowball the Sourpuss: What do you want to bet scored more hits on his counter today then he has in that last 2 years.

Combined.

Rightwingfeather: @Snowball
I was thinkin the same thing.
Now he is off patting himself on the back (or something).

Tammy (apparently not Tammy Cracker): Don’t comment on his site.
You’ll be harrassed by him. I know.
Jim(you know who)went immediately to my email when I posted on his site.

DON”T POST THERE. He’s obviously a loser who wants attention.

Apparently, it takes too much effort to notice that there is no hit-counter on my blog.

Also, I ask you, Gentle Reader (you've been reading and commenting on my blog for some time), do you have even the faintest idea what this 'Tammy' character is talking about? I don't mean the risible assertion about getting harrassed by me if one posts on my blog, I mean the claim to have posted on my blog. Do you think 'Tammy' is that troll (who uses various male names) who periodically tries to insult me or my guests?