Blog Archives

Double Standards

Wymyn group photo



Two events of the last days have thrown a rather funny light on the hypocrisy, hate and ugliness of the feminist crowds.

In the first episode, a bunch of leftist (or lesbian) exhibitionists gave life to a topless manifestation in New York, inviting (cough) modest girls fat, ugly, angry women at war with nature to show themselves in all their ugliness, manboobs (yes, feminists have manboobs; to call them everything else would be sexism…) and all.

If that was an unconscious desire to attract the attention (in the sense of “attraction”) of men, they certainly failed. An ugly feminist is transparent to a man when clothed, and utterly repulsive when bared. If the men’s gaze goes from going through them to going in the opposite direction, I am not sure this is an improvement.

I will spare you the pics. They look like an obscene parody of femininity. Actually, they look like an obscene parody of lesbianism. They reek of the desperation of very ugly sluts who would so like to be whoring around, if they only found the men to do it with. One solitary girl among them has a passable body. Methinks, an exhibitionist, or aspiring actress in search of publicity. She was put at the head of the crowd, in an attempt not to be ridiculed entirely. Again: one looks at the pics and, in a way, understands the perverted mechanics of lesbianism. Ugly, spiteful, hateful, and rejected by men. Oh, and perverted, too.

In the second episode a stunning beauty, the actress Sofia Vergara, is invited to stand on a rotating platform during a not-so-profound TV award ceremony watched by millions. She is elegant and, at least for most people, appropriately dressed. As the platform rotates, we are – all of us: men, and women – showed in a light-hearted, half-joking way the graceful, elegant, utterly un-provocative miracle that is female beauty, God’s Goodness at work. It is no coincidence that in Italy very beautiful women are called, joking on what people learnt in philosophy class, “proof of the existence of God”.

This particular beauty stands there, as the speaker talks about the ability of TV to fascinate the viewers and mixes in the usual tosh about “diversity”. The audience hear him speak but very few, I am sure, really listen to him, because the woman on the platform is, literally, a show-stopper. The platform rotates, allowing the viewers to observe her beauty from every angle, not differently from the way a viewer could walk around the statue of a beautiful woman, or a painter or photographer would observe the model in front of him.

There is nothing obscene in her. There is no baring of breasts, no twerking, perhaps the slightest accentuation of her beauty, but no meaningful provocation of any sort. Beauty is gratifying in itself, and true beauty can never be lewd, because lewdness itself would damage its beauty. Most of the time, the woman simply stands there.

Would you believe it? An army of tweeting feminists – the same ones who, you can bet your watch on it, would applaud nudity in public, and ugly nudity at that – complains Vergara has “objectified” herself. To which yours truly comments: nondum matura est.

Observe the feminist non-logic: a bunch of ugly bitches can expose their ugliness for all the world to see; and this is not disgusting and obscene, but actually good. Then, a very attractive woman stands in front of a camera in the most elegant of manners, and this is not a vision of harmony and a triumph of beauty; no, this is actually bad. They (the feminists) can be obscene, because they’re ugly. She (Vergara) can’t be decent, because she’s beautiful. Feminist non-logic at work. The new frontier of decency.

I suggest that women stop en masse to be “objectified”. Models and mannequins will have to weight at least 100 kg, and look like Elena Kagan. TV ads will have to show rolls of fat very prominently, or not be aired. Feminist land whales will be allowed to stand on a rotating platform, half naked, whilst a presenter explains to the viewers how empowered, and therefore beautiful, they are. And woe to those who dissent, and say that facts are facts, beauty is beautiful, and feminists are ugly.

Actually, we can think this further: as long as a woman tries to remain attractive for her husband, how can she be sure he does not stay with her merely for her beauty – that is: for the “object” – rather than for her wonderful qualities of, say, emancipation, empowerment and constant bitching? Stop worrying about your weight, ladies! Stop the objectification of your beautiful self! Starting from today it’s crisps and muffins like there’s no tomorrow. Your husband will (have to) be grateful that you have forced him to see your “inner beauty”, and that he has been taught to stop “objectifying” you! Or else!

The ugliest among you will be allowed to strip half-naked on TV!

Hey: who is everyone to judge?


The Wrong Kind Of Joke.

No, it's not a joke.

No, it’s not a joke.





And the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof;

And the rib, which the LORD God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man.

And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man.

Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.


From the Disgrace-in-Chief’s interview to Il Messaggero (another left-leaning newspaper, if you want to know): the first Q&A is reported only to give the context. Please focus on the second Q&A. Emphasis mine.

M: You speak, perhaps, little about women, and when you speak about them you take on on issue only from the point of view of motherhood, woman as spouse, woman as mother, etc.  But women by now are heads of state, multinationals, armies.  What posts can women hold in the Church, according to you?

Francis: Women are the most beautiful things that God created.  The Church is woman.  Church is a feminine word [in Italian].  One cannot do theology without this femininity.  You are right that we don’t talk about this enough.  I agree that there must be more work on the theology of women.  I have said that we are working in this sense.

M: Isn’t there a certain misogyny at the base of this?

Francis: The fact is that woman was taken from a rib … (he laughs strongly).  I’m kidding, that’s a joke.  I agree that the question of women must be explored more deeply, otherwise one cannot understand the Church herself.


What on earth is this?

1) What is the joke? Is he joking about his provocative (but truthful) answer to the woman, or is he saying that the word of the Lord is a joke?

If it’s the first, it smells of great cowardice not to explain things to the end, and make clear a couple of things about the God-given order of the Universe, and the equality of dignity in the diversity of the roles (look, I am quoting a V II Pope here).

The problem is, Francis says it in a way that will induce many to believe that he thinks the Genesis account is a joke . This is so like Francis, I am not surprised.

2) So, the Church has not understood itself for 2000 years? And will not be able to do it unless and until she “explores more deeply” the “question of women”? Why does this man think that there be any “unexplored question” concerning women? Did the Blessed Virgin feel she did not know enough? What about the great female saints, and the countless saintly women who have lived a life fully deprived of “deeper exploration” these 2000 years?

Can’t you see that Francis is once again selling the Church to the enemy with honeyed and suggestive words implying that the Church of Christ has some homework to do to satisfy some, well, unsatisfied feminist?

Let me stop here. I feel the adrenaline level rising already.


Abortion and its logical consequences.

It's not even a caricature

Extremely tragic but at the same time instructive story from EWTN.

In Mexico, several women are processed for killing their own babies after birth. The feminist organisation protecting their interests (“Centro Las Libres”, which unless I am mistaken means “Centre of the Free Ones”, tells you something already…) claims that the mothers should be convicted not for homicide, but for……. illegal abortion.

Now I know that abortion is in itself the killing of a life, but I certainly can say whether he who has been killed was unborn or born. This seems to escape the “free ones” for whom the killing of one’s own baby (born alive and breathing and subsequently deliberately killed) is pretty much the same as, well, an abortion of kind.

The reasoning goes to a great length to explain the logic of the abortionists (as the “free ones” most certainly are), but leaves room for some disquieting questions.

If a mother can kill a foetus unpunished, they seem to think, why should the killing of their own babies be considered so differently? The mother could have legally killed the foetus up to a certain point in time and she would have only committed a less gravely punished offence after that time. Why then punish her for homicide if she decides to “abort” her baby after, ahem, the foetus happened to breathe? Isn’t it undeniably true that the right to kill her own baby has been ….. given to her by law?

Paradoxically, the reasoning is less absurd than it would appear, in the sense that it enlightens the absurdity of a right to abort. There can be no doubt that most Western legal systems allow the killing of a human life to go entirely unpunished, whilst severely punishing the mother for doing what she was perfectly allowed to do until a few months before.

The mothers have obviously been convicted for homicide because the law says that they are not the owners of the baby’s life. Exactly this is the point. If the mother is not the owner of the baby’s life after birth, how can she be the owner of the baby’s life before birth? If a legislator is Nazi to the point of deciding that a mother is allowed to kill her own child, is it so surprising that the feminists group above mentioned would claim for every mother the right to kill her own new-born baby without incurring in a conviction for homicide? And if a legislator doesn’t want to be Nazi after the child’s birth, why is it Nazi before that event? Where’s the logic?

Who is thinking more logically here, the feminists asking the legislator to continue to allow what it already allows (or punishes less severely) or the legislator providing a strong defense for the life of the unborn whilst totally ignoring that he was a life even before being born?

I fully agree with you: the defense of the women attempted by the feminist group is atrocious, appalling, undeniably Nazi and utterly oblivious of the importance and dignity of life in front of the oh so important convenience of the mother. But so is abortion, which is fully legal.

I hope that this will open the eyes of some people in Mexico and abroad. Sometimes the atrocity one is not ready to accept is the way of opening one’s eyes toward the atrocity one has been ready to condone for too long.


%d bloggers like this: