Leftist Catfights, Feminism, And The Evil Of Female Suffrage (Achtung! Language!)
Rose McGowan has started another very noisy catfight with Alyssa Milano. The language is not very ladylike, but then again none of these women are ladies, so this is par for the course.
To an external observer, this kind of behaviour says a couple of things:
Firstly, the vitriol and acrimony that acidic women can mobilise dwarfs everything that men are able to muster, against even their worst enemies.
Secondly, this acidic behaviour is seen, at its most vitriolic, in women of the alternative kind: feminists at large, assorted leftists, promoters or enablers of any kind of “rebel” behaviour (McGowan was once in a relationship with a chap called Marilyn Manson. Look him up…).
Feminism is just pure, unadulterated poison. It makes of women toxic, repulsive war machines, whom men find as amusingly disgusting and strangely fascinating to behold as the Bearded Woman and the Cannon Woman.
Feminism is, also, the easy escape for women who, once beautiful, start to fade and look for other ways to gratify their vast egos. Just to make an example: I don’t remember Natalie Portman ever talking about feminism when she was in her prime. But when she started approaching her Forties, and started to see roles she would once have competed for going to younger women, she miraculously discovered Hollywood’s sexism. Ouch! Should she ask to be electronically erased from her role in the Episode I of Star Wars, a role clearly obtained thanks to her being an extremely pretty, ready-to-eat, white chocolate truffle? Or was she so thick that she didn’t know it, and realised it only when her beauty started to fade?
Feminism, like all forms of leftism, destroys everything that it touches. It makes of women who could have grown to be sweet wives, mothers and aunts, living a happy life and giving happiness to those around them, resentful, bitter, ugly beings whom even other women look at in repulsion.
Enjoy your online feud, McGowan and Milano. Of the two, McGowan is the lesser witch, and she might slowly be on her way to recovery from witchdom. But she is one of the driving forces behind #metoo, so she is toxic all right. And no, her past is no justification for #metoo, or anything leftist or stupid.
I look at the ocean of poison these women can unleash, and wonder how it was that women were allowed to vote.
I wonder, in fact, how difficult it is to see that reasonable and feminine women will always have their own interests protected by men – and their own big, beautiful hearts and big, beautiful emotions, kept in check by the more rational thinking of their fathers, brothers, and husbands – much better than if they are allowed to vote, unleashing on themselves wave after wave of mass feminism, mass abortion, mass divorce, mass dissatisfaction and, ultimately, mass betrayal of their God-given role as women.
Reflect on this without the spectacles of the uncritical thinking of this age, and realise that female suffrage has allowed women to relentlessly work against themselves, creating an ocean of frustration completely absent in the contented, feminine, gentle, soft and giving hearts I remember in the old women in my extended family when I was a child. How miserable they would consider the life of today’s “liberated” woman, working 60 hours a week in her Forties as she keep trying (without success!) to persuade men that she has a wiener, wondering how she never found the “right guy” as the clock now ticks furiously (answer: because you were toxic to him!) and being slowly, but every year more clearly, eaten alive by the two abortions she had in her youth.
Were the men, and women, of past generations more stupid than we are today?
I think the contrary is the case.
They understood life. We don’t.
Posted on August 23, 2020, in Catholicism, Conservative Catholicism, Traditional Catholicism and tagged Abortion, Divorce, Feminism. Bookmark the permalink. 26 Comments.
The 19th Amendment was the work of the devil directly opposed to God’s given role for women. We are now all paying the price for this disobedience big time. Abrogate the 19th Amendment now!!!
This is a train that’s left the station. I agree with the principle, as a matter of fact some women friends and I were discussing it the other day. But would you advocate that Catholic women who love hearth and home not vote in November?
Certainly not! They are the best part of the female electorate!
The idea is to get, one day, to have all women not vote, not merely the good ones!
The train may have left the station, but the train is about to crash and the station is about to collapse.
Ann Barnhardt’s position regarding women and the privilege of voting. Her post is titled, “The one about Women’s Suffrage” and I think it’s worth a read. I’ve posted part of it knowing it’s too long to make the post list but I thought you’d enjoy.
Peace and Grace.
“Ex umbris et imaginibus in veritatem”
Here’s the excerpt from her piece:
But here’s what I wanted to share with you – and this will be of particular interest to all of you readers who only read me because you hate me so much. I know you’re out there, and remember, the first step out of addiction is to admit that you have a problem. You all will want to screen capture this, or PDF it and save it on a thumb drive which you then bury in a mayonaisse jar. This post will absolutely, positively disqualify me from ANY public position or office anywhere on earth for the duration of my life aside from self-employment.
Mr. Cowbama and I were talking about the evil of government regulation and how it almost always does far more harm than good when Mr. Cowbama thought he had me in a check-mate. He smugly said, “So you think the 19th amendment should be repealed, then? You think giving women the right to vote was a bad thing?”
Quoth I in retort,
“Oh, HELL yes.”
Mr. Cowbama wasn’t expecting that!
Will it ever happen? Nope. But it sure is fun to dream. Do you know when things really started to go – literally – to hell in this country? When women were given the right to vote seperate and apart from their husbands. What a disaster. This is when the war against marriage and the family began in earnest – and it has taken less than 100 years for both institutions to be almost completely destroyed. And it all started with the damn suffrage.
Here’s the deal. Up until women’s suffrage, a man was the head of his marriage and his household, and his vote represented not just himself but his entire family, including his wife and his children. When men voted, they were conscious of the fact that they were voting not just for themselves and their own personal interests, but they were also charged with the responsibility of discerning and making the ultimate decision about what was in the best interests of their entire family. Wow. Isn’t that nuts? Men being . . . responsible?
As soon as the 19th amendment was passed, men were effectively castrated, and in many, many cases disenfranchised by their wives. No longer was the man the head of the household. No longer was he responsible for his wife. Now the wife was a “co-husband” at best, or a flat-out adversary at worst. The notion of a man making the final decision about what was best for his wife and family per his God-given vocation as husband and father was now over. Now all he was good for was bringing home the bacon – but even that wouldn’t last.
Women are made with a healthy, innate desire to be provided for and protected. I know this because I am a woman, despite the pair of enormous brass balls I have to carry around. Those are merely an anomaly. Please ignore them, and no, you may not touch them. I just polished them last night. Back to the point, women want someone or someTHING to take care of them. For this reason, women tend to lean socialist, and are generally in favor of the expansion of government when the government promises to “provide” for them.
If you have read me for any length of time you could probably write this next paragraph yourself. Satan has used this healthy feminine dynamic, perverted by suffrage, to systematically replace men with the government as the providers in society. A woman no longer has any need of a man. Marriage no longer serves any practical purpose. A woman can whore around and have as many fatherless children as she pleases, and Pimp Daddy Government will always be there to provide. Men have learned well from this, too. Men can also slut it up to their heart’s content knowing that the government will take care of their “women” and raise their children for them. Fathering children no longer binds a man to a woman in any way. Men didn’t vote to societally castrate themselves, and never would have. No – in order for this system to have come about, women’s suffrage was an absolute necessity. Women themselves voted the system into place which objectifies and devalues both them AND their children.
Next, the issue of disenfranchisement. I believe that the 19th amendment actually DISenfranchised more people than it enfranchised. Many, many married couples quickly found themselves voting against one another. The man would tend to vote for the more conservative platform, and the woman would vote for the more socialist platform. When this happened, the effective result was the nullification of BOTH individuals’ votes. What this did was massively reduce the voting influence of the married household, and magnify the voting influence of the unmarried – and the unmarried tend to be younger, and thus more stupid, and thus vote for big government. It was all part of the plan, kids. All part of the plan.
I also agree with the principle, but we must remember it was men who granted this right to women or, should I say, shirked their responsibility. Until men get their act together and start acting like men, we will continue to collapse into chaos. The difficultly is that the majority of today’s millennial pajama boys are completely incapable of being manly. I don’t see any possibility of returning to a natural patriarchy without violence. When that happens, every one of these women will wish they had a man, and every pajama boy will wish he was one.
Natural patriarchy *is* without violence. A well-ordered family does not need it. Violence – which is also present in women – is an aberration, a pathology, not the physiology of a social order based on patriarchy.
Mundabor, Natalie Portman is an excellent example.
Unfortunately, the poison of feminism has spread throughout society so that even Catholic women who consider themselves conservative have been influenced by it. Many put their jobs first and put their kids in daycare without a thought. And this generation of husbands have been suckered into doing the housework. I cringed when sent a photo of a loving husband wearing an apron with his infant strapped to his chest while he made himself lunch! His stay-at-home wife must have been “too tired” to do so.
I remember the guy telling me how happy he was that he was giving a contribution to women’s emancipation by staying home with th ebaby so that the wife could chase her career.
I am still shivering.
Kipling explained it well in his timeless poem;
The Female of the species
When the early Jesuit fathers preached to Hurons and Choctaws,
They prayed to be delivered from the vengeance of the squaws.
‘Twas the women, not the warriors, turned those stark enthusiasts pale.
For the female of the species is more deadly than the male.
” would you advocate that Catholic women who love hearth and home not vote in November?”
That’s a silly question. The author’s correct point is that political enfranchisement of women was an error to begin with. The original error, if I might. Headship is not the privilege of the man, it is much more than that. It is his duty, for which he will answer.
Adam doesn’t get a pass for abdicating to Eve’s shenanigans. Neither will we.
I don’t think it was a silly question. I think it was an interpretation of my words that went beyond my intent. Actually, I had not even thought of the possibility until I read it.
You are absolutely right: headship is the *duty* of a man. Which is why “emancipated” males make men cringe.
These days questioning women’s right to vote is equivalent to throwing a bomb into a crowded elevator, but too bad! I agree 100%. It has been the women’s vote, particularly single women who have voted in society’s radical Marxists through the Democratic Party. It is anathema to say this because of course “personal liberty” or whatever. But for the common good of society, which should be paramount, a subset of women have proven unable to vote wisely in the interests of themselves and society. And here we are. Western civilization is crumbling and dying from the radicals who attack everything decent and stable in society and defend the indefensible. To see women supporting the defunding or elimination of police is extraordinary. Such idiots should neither be allowed to vote or govern because they’re just too damned stupid and irrational. They are a danger to other women and children particularly. I would gladly give up my right to vote if it prevented the likes of a Hillary Clinton getting in power or myriad other evils from manifesting. Feminism has always had the stench of Marxism around it, and that is the end goal- the deposing of men entirely with the state as the utopian replacement. It is deeply contrary to nature for men and women to be in constant conflict. But for the Marxist it is a winning formula. With each radical concession to women, is there a reciprocal gratitude and happiness with the newfound freedom? No. They’re more miserable than ever. Must have something to do with the types of men they have generated and attract: emasculated, apathetic, immature and/or brutish.
We can’t unring the bell but the saving of western civilization depends on successfully fighting the coarse ugly Marxist vision that ruins everything it touches.
You are a wise woman.
A wise woman know that he position in society and in the family does not depend in the least from her having the vote, just as the position as the man in society does not depend in the least from him being able to be pregnant.
Notwithstanding the fact that todays world has definitely gone astray in the area of marital relations and family, much of it fueled by modern feminism, when I read articles like this… I don’t know… Let’s say that my instinctive assotiation is – what a fairy tale. Yeah, if ony women were feminine, their men would be nothing short of a prince charming, they would take care of women’s interests better then those women themselves. You bet they would. As if in the old days man didn’t cheat on their wives, as if they didn’t beat them, as if they didn’t keep the money they earned for drinking and gambling even though their wife and children were hungry. I mean, it must be so after all as is traditional catholic teaching that only women inherit the original sin and no men.
You seem unable to understand the difference in lifestyle and general satisfaction, for both sexes, that returning to a traditional model of societal organisation would yield.
Also, yours is a straw man argument: no one said that all men are Prince Charming. But if there is no Snow White around, you can be sure that no Prince Charming will come forward.
Patriarchy works. Emancipation doesn’t.
You see, that wouldn’t be quite so as you claim. Because both my mother and my father up to their twenties lived in as traditional patriarchal society as it gets (there was no electricity, no shops, they worked the land and lived of their produce, they made clothes of the wool from their sheep). So, their stories about their youth give me a glimse to such society which is not theoretical but rather real and experiental. To make a long story short, some stories of my mother about how some women were treated by their husbands are quite chilling. And it was not all that rare, quite the contrary. And I still remember the women from the generation of my mother telling me in my childhood – learn my daughter, learn, so that you have your money when you grow up and you don’t need to pray your husband for the female sanitary towels. Such warnings from them, which were quite widespread, indicate that their husbands were not quite understanding and taking care of their needs, even a basic ones, as you claim they would be in a patriarchal society. 😉 I think it is much more correct to say that patriarchal society was not ideal and had its problem, but that modern feminism makes doesn’t make things much better, just in another way.
We are saying the same things.
Your family merely had more problems than mine.
Still: it is wrong for a woman to think that having her money will be a solution to her problems. She will merely barter some problems with some others.
We are not saying quite the same thing, because you would insistently have it that I am talking about instances, like problems in *my* family, while there is societal level which I don’t grasp. And I am teling you that through my parents I do have an experiantal glimps into such life as a *society*. It is not that *my* family had problems, the chance would have it that my grandmother and grandfather who are central figures in such stories from the old had quite harmonious marriage. It is their neighbors and relativs that are protagonists of the stories of marital abuse. And it was not quite that rare as I said. It went so far that my grandmother warned her daugters that when they marry they have to suffer being poor or hungry, if that is what everyone suffers, but they should never let anyone beat them. And that was quite revolutionary in those times, and she said so even though it was very hard for a woman to realize an existance without a man.
But I do think that we say the same thing when you say that resolving finantial problems of women by modern feminism brought other problems, possibly even greater. That is precisely my point. I do see around me many divorces, many children suffering, many women used by man for sex because they are “in a relation” but who do not want to marry them and those women would like to be married, many women working “two shifts” one at the paid job and another at home, etc. But notwithstanding that one should not fool himself idealizing patriarcy as a fairy tale. This is after all a fallen world, even according to catholic teaching. Or even better – precisely by catholic teaching.
This is another straw man, as no one idealises Patriarchy. Patriarchy *works better*, is all.
Besides, reflect that this desire of financial independence is what led to divorce.
The focus, in past times, should have been on being more careful in picking a husband, not in condemning patriarchy because of the bad husbands.
Sorry, honey, but you’ve had too many sandwiches already. You’re cut off.
Mare Ivic, I think your points are interesting. I believe it does not hurt to look at other systems, or focus on other problems. I sincerely wish people would not laud Ann Barnhart. I am embarrassed for her. Perhaps she is attractive to some men, but she seems to me unable to settle herself and work toward a fulfilling life. What is her life purpose?
If one fights everything, the energy spreads too thin. One should choose some serious, Catholic fights. History has known leaders of both sexes. (Granted, more men than women.)
Women make bad voters. So do men. Such is the human condition.
I do not agree with all she says, but when I die I wish I had the same hands of cards that she will have.
The bad voters stuff is just a platitude, that does not address the issue explained in my post.
I would point out that there is no such thing as a fatherless child. Every child of course must have a biological father. If they are called “fatherless” it means the father has taken off and abandoned his reponsibilities.
It could also mean that the mother find it more convenient not to say who the father is. Faster council house from the government, more money from the taxpayer.
Pingback: CATHOLIC HEADLINES 8.23.20 – The Stumbling Block