Daily Archives: January 27, 2014
I thought this is a parody of feminism. It isn’t.
Some interesting tenets of feminism are exposed here with a candor that allows us a deep – if deeply disgusting – look at the moral desert that is a modern feminist – nay: a feminist of all ages; the word itself should be banned from neutral conversation and land in the region of mocking words, like “dyke” and “faggot”-.
Some of the pearls of wisdom:
“Every time I hear someone say that feminism is about validating every choice a woman makes I have to fight back vomit.”
Curiously, I have the same reaction whenever I hear the word “feminism”. Whenever something is said that is in contrast with God’s command that the woman be first mother and nurturer, and the husband first protector and provider – for which respective role God has provided them in a clearly distinct way -, we are deep in feminist territory; though admittedly many do not smell the stench anymore, or they think there might be a “good feminism” and a “bad feminism”. And yes, a woman may obviously work if circumstances allow. Heck, Joan of Arc was a working girl, and men were ready to go to march to their death for her.
But God’s plan first.
“Do people really think that a stay at home mom is really on equal footing with a woman who works and takes care of herself? There’s no way those two things are the same”?
For whom should the doctors, then, care? Is a woman so good for caring for the health of children on whose mothers she looks down as “not taking care of themselves”? What is the good in caring for the product of other people’s vomiting-inducing behaviour?
“Oh, but life is important”. Well, then…
Besides: how does a mother not take care of herself? Because she follows God’s and Nature’s call and works in a partnership with her husband, where the dignity is the same, though the roles are different? And why exactly would a woman who does not want to do what is most obviously natural in a woman – giving birth – be on a superior footing? And if she does – so if she thinks it is important – why should this obviously very important role cause her not to be on an equal footing?
Boy, this dyke here must be an Anglo. Try this in Catholic countries and hear (most) people laugh at you.
“We have baby showers and wedding parties as if it’s a huge accomplishment and cause for celebration to be able to get knocked up or find someone to walk down the aisle with”.
Being knocked up is not so difficult, and one thinks even the ugliest feminist – if she finds a man horny and drunk enough on the occasion – might accomplish this feat. Some men aren’t very discerning and, like dogs, if there’s no alternative they will eat the scraps. Still, what is astonishing is that even the fundamental basis of society, marriage, should be looked down upon. Not, mind, in favour of “free couples” who still care for raising children. This female here doesn’t want even that.
Boy, that must be an ugly one. She certainly doth protest too much.
“I want to have a shower for a woman when she backpacks on her own through Asia, gets a promotion, or lands a dream job”
Eh? Ah? What?
Sound the Dyke Alarm. This is the complete negation of nature’s obvious design. It shows an utter inability to understand how God shaped the world, and why. It is denial of the very fabric of humankind.
On the contrary, I say that the woman who backpacks through Asia, gets the “promotion” (wow, are we spiritual) and lands the “dream job” (ditto) will deeply regret wasting her life with trifles when she realises this cost her the chance of a happy, fulfilling, God-given family life. Not many men would even consider a romantic relationship with such a drake. Women are supposed to be sweet, nurturing, forgiving, wonderfully giving beings. Not backpacking career freaks.
Unless, of course, the female in question is a feminist so rabid and so ugly she doesn’t have any chance at all, then no sane or insane man would ever tie his destiny with hers.Or else, obviously, a dyke. Then she can go backpacking, and good riddance. Afghanistan is beautiful, they say.
“I hear women talk about how “hard” it is to raise kids and manage a household all the time. I never hear men talk about this.”
You don’t say? Astonishing! And I bet they do not talk about “women’s issues”, either!
Sports, cars, politics, and women. That’s it. Oh what a disgrace, a man! Why, oh why are they not like women!
Thanks, dear Lord, that in your Goodness you have given me a wonderful mother; the utter and complete opposite of this wretch here.
Fox News’ Adam Shaw has a brilliant article about Francisnomics, that strange mixture of kindergarten economics and plain socialist bollocks with which the man has been – or so he thinks – enriching the world these last ten months.
I invite you to follow the link and read the article, and reflect on the message this young but very promising man conveys. In doing so, I would suggest that you focus on the laudable mentality of the man, not on his age; on his willingness to take responsibility for himself rather than whine and wait for income redistribution; on the very fitting observation that it is easy to be a hotel suite socialist.
But then again if you want to insult the man simply because he is young, and the Pope is old, go on. It shows you are looking at the age, not the argument.
I am amazed at how there can be people around still insisting in saying: “what the Pope is continuously saying is not what he is really saying”. Heavens, the message is clear enough, and if one does not understand the Peronist drive of this man I doubt if he has ever understood anything in life, at all.
Obviously, being Francis, he will always say from a small corner of his mouth the contrary – or some small correction – of what he is shouting with the rest of it, but it is truly naive to think Francis does not have the end result in mind; that is: the way he very well knows the entire world will understand his – actually clear enough – slogans.
Can you imagine G.W. Bush announcing he will visit Pope Benedict to “explore inequalities”? Ever wondered why? When was last time Fox News published an article stating Benedict’s “disdain for those who are not content to soak in poverty or to submit to socialism”? A coincidence, do you think?
Francis is a disgrace when he wants to teach Catholicism, and is still an utter disaster – though certainly lees damaging to the faith – when he wants to talk about everything else. Kindergarten populism is his only inspiration, because his own popularity among the crowds of every religion and none – even Catholics, provided they are no fond of Tradition – is his first and last priority.
Perhaps at some level he persuaded himself that what advances his own popularity contributes to the creation of a better world, but this is certainly no excuse. In fact, you can say exactly the same of Hitler, or Pol Pot, or the Italian Red Brigades.
It is very good that a Pope who talks rubbish like almost no other Pope in the past (John XXII comes to mind; but the club is certainly very exclusive) is bashed in public like almost no other Pope of the past. People – and particularly Catholics – must wake up to the reality of a man whose incompetence in whatever he says is only surpassed by his vanity and arrogance in thinking the world needs to know whatever comes to his mind.
The Vatican has apparently announced he is now working on an encyclical about the environment.
Make the popcorn.
No doubt, Obama will be delighted.