Tag Archives: stupid

Brainless, Faithless, Heartless, Mindless

Romans 1:31 describes a particular group of committed ungodly  people this way.  I’ll give three translations of the same passage:

 …without understanding, untrustworthy, unloving, unmerciful…

…they are senseless, faithless, heartless, ruthless…

…void of understanding, faithless, without natural affection, unmerciful…

Our cultural arbiters’ latest lesson on the state of women’s rights:


Hardly clothed beefy Beyonce dancing/contorting along with a cohort of other hardly-dressed women at some awards show, and, reportedly making it impossble to avoid the visual assault of gyrating behinds right in your face. The song ending with Beyonce silhouetted before a gigantic lighted word: FEMINISM.

(Notable that she was a tiny little woman dwarfed by that word?)

In other words, girls, this is feminism.  What you just watched is the essence of feminism.

The essence of feminism is…the objectification of women…by women? You’re a thing. Happy now?

So being a true feminist means empowering yourself by means of being as sexually provocative, as sexually explicit, and as sexually active as possible, as early as possible. Without consequence, in fairy feminist land. And that’s all.

Explain to me again why anyone wants to be called a feminist?

Forgive me, but there is no term more amorphous today than “feminism.” No two feminists seem to share the same definition. I have seen no–not one–discussion on the blogosphere or other social media wherein at least one woman is not compelled to explain what feminism ISN’T, really.  You thought it was Gloria Steinem and her fish/bicycle, or lesbianism, or being pro-abortion.  Silly, it’s not any of those things.

It’s what I want to believe it is.  It’s just fairness and equal pay for equal work. That’s all.

Those other things like:  the absolute right to abort your child, the absolute right to free-for-me-but-taxpayer-funded contraceptives, contention between the sexes, bisexuality, lesbianism, male-hating, goddess worship, gender vs. sex, “rape culture”, eternal conflict over the “division of domestic labor”, patriarchy, victimhood…don’t have anything to do with feminism.  Because I don’t want them to.

Yet I hear mainstream women, Christian women, declare proudly that they are feminists. You know, what they mean by feminism.

Isn’t it time to acknowledge that the thing you want feminism to be isn’t what it really is? Maybe you should split off and found another movement which is about fairness and harmony. Cause that sure ain’t feminism.

And the essence of feminism sure isn’t about letting women be women, and letting little girls be little girls.

Bad Decision

It’s sad.  Because among other things, I think feminism has robbed feminist women of sexual satisfaction.

It’s convinced them that it is merely a mechanical act, a pressure valve.

Or a power play, wherein your partner is a thing to be used and exalted over. Sound familiar?

Feminism has made the object of sexual satisfaction the self, robbing women  of emotional connection with a partner. Like it or not, the point of sex is for two people to complement each other by being united into one. Real sexual intimacy is an act of the will involving the whole person, body, soul, emotion.

And they have separated sex from its intrinsic component—fruitfulness. Sexual intimacy is designed to potentially result in reproduction.  Modern women are persuaded that their greatest fear is a child. That their greatest enemy is a baby. It is the worst possible thing, and an abject failure. It has made us fear our fruitfulness instead of glorying in our design.

The kind of empowering sex they promote makes it all about me, not about him or about us.


Brainless, faithless, heartless, and mindless sounds like a fitting description of feminism. Hello–Feminism is Marxism, plain and simple. Intentional violent struggle between opposed groups for the purpose of bringing about change in the power structure.

Where’s the violence?  Do 50 million count? Ladies, when oppression falls, it’s not the women who are the victims.

On Being a Parasite

“[Housewives] are mindless and thing-hungry…not people. [Housework] is peculiarly suited to the capacities of feeble-minded girls. [It] arrests their development at an infantile level, short of personal identity with an inevitably weak core of self…. [Housewives] are in as much danger as the millions who walked to their own death in the concentration camps. [The] conditions which destroyed the human identity of so many prisoners were not the torture and brutality, but conditions similar to those which destroy the identity of the American housewife.” – Betty Friedan

(Someone must have cleaned her house. Can you feel the elitism?)

“[Housewives] are dependent creatures who are still children…parasites.” ~ Gloria Steinem, “What It Would Be Like If Women Win,” Time, August 31, 1970.

“A parasite sucking out the living strength of another organism…the [housewife’s] labor does not even tend toward the creation of anything durable…. [W]oman’s work within the home [is] not directly useful to society, produces nothing. [The housewife] is subordinate, secondary, parasitic. It is for their common welfare that the situation must be altered by prohibiting marriage as a ‘career’ for woman.” ~ Simone de Beauvoir, The Second Sex, 1949.

Who is the parasite?

Whose hoped-for world view requires a paradigm shift in the order of the whole world until now?  Whose requires, before it can be operational, that almost every single member of society be indoctrinated into a mindset which is contrary to that which has been built by the consensus of all societies everywhere?

Who is the parasite?  Which woman is living upon the structure of the work of the other woman?  Without women everywhere occupying their natural or Biblical or traditional roles, keeping society running and thriving, the feminist would not be able to survive.  She stands on the shoulders of a societal structure created by God, manifested by the lives and work of multitudes of women before her, and disdains them.

The activist feminist is a spoiler, a crank. She is an elitist, a nasty parasite, a spoiled child.  She is very much a first-world creation; no one in the 2nd world on down would have time for such gratuitous fluff.

And don’t get me started on the utter privileged elitism of the anti-child wing of the movement. That’s another blog or hundred.

So again, why do we want to be feminists?


Quit Insulting Women

There is plenty of debate on the issue of abortion.  Here are two small items I wanted to add to the discussion.  The first because I’m amazed at the bold faced absurdity and the second because it’s something I’ve never heard mentioned before. Both offerings from the pro-abort side ought to be offensive to women…

There is a new publicity campaign out there, the sense of which is that abortion is painless, easy, even pleasant.  Its designers are counting on an astonishing level of brainwashing and stupidity.  It is insulting.

Emily Letts “filmed” her own abortion in order to show women a “positive abortion” story. I write “filmed” because it is extremely “edited” down to about 28 seconds of her idiotic smiling face as she coos about how cool it is. We see nothing of the actual abortion. Unseen is: the length of the procedure; any visuals at all of her body below the shoulders—which is off camera or  afterward frantically  covered by a nurse; pre-op; post-op; pain. It took her six weeks to get to her video equipment and film her post comments.

And let’s just say her interviews and comments in the media have the potential to set the  intellectual status of women back about 100 years.

Take a look at this:
The 8 Biggest Lies About Abortion, Debunked by the Year’s Most Important Rom-Com


The author, Elizabeth Plank, is the Executive Social Editor at PolicyMic. This is unequivocally a progressive author and a progressive forum.

In this article we learn that the following are myths:
Abortion is painful.
Abortion is dangerous and often leads to death.
Abortion clinics are gross and scary.
Abortion leads to depression and tears couples apart.

And so on, all myths!

Do I need to refute the absurd claim that having a baby removed from your body surgically is not painful? Or that chemically forcing labor and delivery at home is not scary or painful?
On the same page we are offered another article: Politician Opens Up About Her Abortion-Shuts Down Republicans Who Think They Can Speak for Women.

Conservative men are chastised for condemning abortion on the grounds that it is presumptuous for them to encourage women to continue with their unplanned pregnancies. How dare they when they cannot know what it is to have your life derailed? And more honestly: How dare you comment on my sex life?

At the same time, liberal men are commended for extolling the ease and virtue, the panacea, of having an abortion. Joinin’ the fight for women’s rights!

I think I see a problem.

If conservative men have no business discouraging abortion for women, then liberal men have no business promoting abortion for women. If men on the right are presumptuous to lobby against abortion, then liberal men are presumptuous to tell me or my daughters that abortion is no big deal. That when you have an abortion, you are standing up for women’s rights against their oppressors.

Then men have no business speaking on the experience of abortion at all.

Why are liberal men permitted to pontificate on the benefits of abortion? Male advocates of abortion make it sound as though having an abortion is easier than having a tooth out. How is this not dismissive of women’s experiences? Why is this not as arrogant as when conservative men decide “what we can do with our bodies?”

You try having a small human surgically removed through your reproductive organs, a procedure requiring anesthesia, sharp instruments, strong drugs, bleeding, and extended recovery time. Not to mention the necessity of transitioning from a state of pregnancy to non-pregnancy suddenly and in an unnatural manner, with the attendant physical and psychological changes. Recovery takes weeks or months.

You may want to be a cool guy who is, sort of, all supportive of modern women, but you, sort of, really don’t have a clue about what you’re talking about. You will never know what you are talking about, so be quiet.

I am pro-life and anti abortion.  But I cannot imagine how any woman is not outraged at both these things. The extent to which the abortion industry and its promoters insult you every day is undeniable.



Marriage = A Sleepover with My Best Friend?

     I think the following slogan was invented by a woman, and probably a woman under 40. At least I hope so.

    Marriage is like a sleepover with my best friend every night.”

     Yikes. There are so many problems here.

     First of all, I don’t want to have sleepovers now that I’m an adult.

     When I was a child, I went to a bunch of sleepovers, or “pajama parties”. We stayed up most of the night, ate lots of junky food, goofed around, and kept most of the people in the house awake. Maybe some of you did each other’s nails or gave each other makeovers. Someone usually insisted on a séance and pretended she saw a famous dead person’s face on the TV screen. We kept our pajamas on.

     Does this sound like an enjoyable night with your spouse?

    Is your highest relationship goal to have a best friend who can sleep over every night?

     I get it: the point is that your spouse is supposed to be your best friend. Your spouse should be your best friend, in that he should be the one person with whom you share all your confidences and your private thoughts. You should understand each other; you should enjoy each other’s company.

     But the difference in kind between a good friend and a good spouse is a chasm.      

     Do you expect a spouse to be only like a “friend?” Much like you, except that you get to have sex with him or her?  Is your spouse like the one good buddy who shares interests and hobbies with me PLUS a bonus: sex?

     Sounds like “friends with benefits”.  We know how well that concept worked out.

    What I’m hearing in this meme is that I should want a spouse to be of the same kind as me, someone with whom, from the start, I share a lot of common interests and experiences. Someone who already looks at life very much as I do….Someone more or less possessing my same-sex characteristics.

     If I’m male I want her to share my worldview and interests in my own male-oriented way, but I get to have that big extra with her. If I’m female I want him to feel the same way I do and care about the same things in my female-oriented way, but I get to share that special bonus with just him!

      But men and women are intrinsically different in deep and fundamental ways. There are ways in which we can’t fully understand each other. We are designed to be complementary. That means we need those differences. A woman needs the otherness of her husband, and a man needs the otherness of his wife. But that is a good thing. The mystery is pretty engaging and exciting.

     When we are joined together, we each gain perspectives beyond our own. Together we become a new entity which is greater than either one of us alone, and greater than two individuals linked together in any other way. Marriage between two people who are truly joined into one, joined in all aspects of their being including spiritually, is a supernatural thing.

     True friendship is also a wonderful thing, but it simply doesn’t have the capacity to become what marriage is intrinsically. And aiming for friendship in marriage is just setting your goal in the wrong place.

     Yes, you and your spouse should be best friends and so much more.