We're the same age

A couple of days ago, I stumbled across an article written by a British journalist named Kate Mulvey entitled "I regret belittling men; at 63, I’ve ended up alone."

It was a painfully honest and achingly sad analysis written by a woman who is exactly my age.

The most telling paragraphs in the article were as follows:

"I’m convinced that the reason I’m still booking a table for one at the age of 63 instead of having settled with a significant other is because, like so many women of my generation, feminism has ruined my love life. Instead of empowering us, those ideals of the second-wave feminists made us believe marriage and domesticity were to be avoided like the plague and that men were competition rather than partners.

"I might have a successful career as a writer and broadcaster, but I have never had children or been married, and my longest relationship lasted eight years. I regret this; I had always imagined I would end up married with two wonderful children and living in a house in the countryside. I have paid a hefty price for my so-called liberation."

Curious about the author, I read a few more of her pieces, including one written a couple of years ago entitled "I was shamed for being single at 61 – so I bought myself a ring and invented a fake fiance, it helped me bag a date." (The title pretty much sums up the premise.)

She writes: "For the last eight months, I have been wearing a divorced friend’s engagement ring and pretending that I am getting hitched to a photographer called Max. No, I have not lost my mind and yes, it’s a bit extreme but I am one of those modern glitches, an aging spinster, at 61, who has never managed to tick the boxes of marriage and kids." (Apparently the logic here is that men like the challenge of pursuing the unattainable.)

Ms. Mulvey seems to have a thing for much younger men (in yet another article, she describes dating men decades her junior) and expresses disdain for older men who are "balding," as if that's a turnoff.

I dunno ... having read a number of Ms. Mulvey's pieces, I find myself torn feeling very sorry for her. I hope she finds a nice man (her age) soon.

When Chuck Norris.....

This cracked me up.

Happy International Women's Day

In case you somehow missed it -- and yes, I've manage to remain ignorant of this celebration for the past 56 years -- today is International Women's Day. I hope you'll join me in celebrating the accomplishments of screeching harridans everywhere.











These, folks, are "empowered" women. Obviously there's been a Prozac shortage (doubtless due to the evil male patriarchy) that needs to be addressed.

Now compare this to truly great women I admire:

• My mother, who overcame brutal childhood poverty and starvation, educated herself, married a good man, raised four kids, and did it all with dignity, class, and humor.

• My daughters, who demonstrate young women can be ethical, moral, responsible, hard-working, and overall terrific examples for anyone.

• Millions upon millions of ordinary women who stayed faithful to their husbands, raised great kids, and contributed to their communities without becoming shrieking harridans in the process.

By the way, if you look at the Wikipedia page for International Women's Day, it makes no bones about its communist origins. In fact, it depicts a poster from 1975 which bears an eerie resemblance to all the Soviet Communist propaganda posters of the time. No accident, of course.

So here's an idea: If you want to help empower women, ignore the shrieking harridans and work toward saving ISIS slaves, women caught up in sex trafficking, or common-sense charities that go a long way toward lifting women out of poverty.

Need a good laugh? Read this

Some days, you just need a good laugh. That's what happened when I read this article:

'Feminist' snow plowing cripples Stockholm

It seems Stockholm had put in place a "gender-equal" snow removal plan. Please go read the whole article, but here's the gist:

The city government is intent on putting as much civic energy into clearing bike paths and sidewalks used by environmentally- and fitness-minded women as into the roads frequented by male-dominated motor vehicle traffic.

But chaos reportedly was the result for both genders. ... Buses (also, it turns out, heavily used by women) were stuck by the hundreds on roads blocked by stalled cars. Light rail trains moved at half speed, forcing stranded commuters to walk for hours to get home from work, slipping and falling on glasslike sidewalks and bike paths. Others stayed home with children as schools shut down.

Daniel Helldén, a Green Party member who is vice mayor for traffic, was quick to blame the record snowfall (15 inches in a day) rather than the new policy. ... He explained the rationale for gender-equal snow removal: “It hurt more when you fall when walking and cycling, while those who drive are comfortable no matter whether it’s snowing. It is about three times as many pedestrians who are injured than motorists in weather like this. … But there is also an accessibility argument that the city should be accessible to all. Snow and ice keeps many at home. Above all, it affects women who increasingly are walking and cycling more than men.”

Fredrik Antonsen complained on his Iotakt blog: “The Green Party's policies — whether it's about energy, security and defense, schools or snow removal — is a policy that does not work when reality intrudes on it. The Green Party is a party that dreams, that is so naive it hurts. Yesterday's snow chaos had been difficult without the Green Party's ideas, but became even harder when the ideas became reality.”

BwaaahahahaHAHAHAHAHAhahaha snort hack gasp.

Okay, I feel much better know.

Why Father's Day is really about mothers

Here's my WND column for this weekend entitled Why Father's Day is Really About Mothers.

Happy Father's Day to all you dads!

UPDATE: Reader Dave posted a beautiful column at this link. Well worth reading.

Men who hate women

Oh please.

Every single one of you knows how I feel about feminism. But the opposite position can be taken too far. Consider this remark I just read:

"Feminism is witchcraft. It is of satan. Look at the rebellion of women around the world. Women are a threat to society, to families, to Men and to children. Their rebellion is growing. As they gain education, they turn even more evil and rebellious. They are usurping the roles of Men in society and the Church. One can understand why the Muslims keep their women under control. Look how many children have been murdered by their mothers. In the hundreds of millions. Look at what has happened to America since women started to vote and holding office. The Eve factor ie deluded rebellion against God, is still alive in her female descendants. This is why Men must dominate women. For their own good and that of the world. The coming of the antichrist must be near. Women will receive him with great gusto. That tells you who is really behind the feminist movement."

Criminey, I'd hate to live next door to this guy... much less be married to him. This smacks of plain old-fashioned misogyny.

Don't forget your "menstrual activist gear"

A couple of days ago, I read with enormous amusement the following article: University offers female students extra credit for not shaving their armpits.

It seems students in Arizona State University's (cough) Center for Feminist Research on Gender and Sexuality Group can "receive extra credit for defying social norms and refusing to shave for 10 weeks during the semester." The students keep a journal. One young lady reported the experience to be "life changing." (I think this young lady needs a more exciting life.)

Being truly equal opportunity activists, male students can participate (by shaving "their bodies from the neck down") to become "activists" in the realm of body hair.

Just think -- parents are paying tens of thousands of dollars in tuition for this stuff. (Or students are going into debt for the same amount for these kinds if enriching activities that anyone can do for free.) According to one student, "The experience helped me better understand how pervasive gendered socialization is in our culture. Furthermore, by doing this kind of activist project I was no longer an armchair activist theorizing in the classroom. So much is learned by actually taking part in the theory or idea we learn in the classroom, and we could benefit from this type of pedagogy being taken up by similar classes." (Is that armchair activist or arm hair activist...? Just asking.)

And after graduation, this will help her get a job HOW? "Look, I haven't shaved! I recognize how pervasive gendered socialization is in our culture! I'm no longer an armchair activist! Hire me!"

(By the way, the Center for Feminist Research on Gender and Sexuality also sells "awesome menstrual activist gear" just in case your wardrobe could use some sprucing up. I would have showed a picture of the T-shirt they sell, but it's so vulgar I didn't want it to soil my blog.)

Sigh. And to think our feminine girls will be missing out on these "life changing experiences" by NOT attending such places as Arizona State University. The poor deprived things.

Which begs the question -- where DO Gender Studies majors find jobs after they graduate? Besides university Women's Studies departments or Starbucks or "pity" jobs with the government, that is? I'm quite serious -- who hires them?

Useless degrees vs. practical skills

A couple of days ago, our friend and neighbor Enola Gay put up a blog post about her 17 year old son's ambition to become a butcher. As homesteaders who frequently call upon the services of butchers, I can think of no finer and more useful profession. This young man has a solid career path open to him which virtually guarantees employment no matter how dire the economy.

But someone, it seems, took exception to his path in life and wrote a comment on her blog post, to wit:

Why don't you get Mr. Dumb Ass, er, I mean, Mr. Hand Grenade into a college so that Mr. H.G. won't be yet another loser walking around armed waiting to go postal when the world, which he is not prepared for, overwhelms him and he realizes that he is a working class cog and will never get ahead or have anything on a butchers wages.

(Master Hand Grenade is Enola's nom de plume for her oldest son.)

The words were vile, of course, but Enola handled the snarker with her usual class and grace.

Now hold these thoughts in mind for a few moments while we switch to another scenario.

My husband brought to my attention a blog which mentioned a recent college graduate named Andria who has an “Honors BA in Social Justice and Peace Studies” and is pursuing a Master’s degree in Gender Studies.

And how are these lofty degrees serving her? She writes: "I have a honors BA and I’m defending my MA thesis in two weeks. I am also apply for jobs and I can only find stuff in the service industry. I applied for a Hotel Front Desk Clerk job today. My degrees mean NOTHING. I am at the end of my rope."

Andria may sneer at the service industry, but it begs the question: Where does she want to work? Or perhaps more pointedly, where does she EXPECT to work? Who hires Gender Studies majors?

I don't mean to be snarky or to denigrate certain areas of study; I genuinely want to know. Who hires Gender Studies majors?

It makes me wonder what on earth Andria was thinking when she decided to devote five or six years of her life and possibly acquire a heavy student loan debt in order to obtain degrees which are hard to utilize in the best of times but essentially become useless in a bad economy. Did she think through her career path ahead of time? Did she look into the number of paying jobs available to Social Justice, Peace Studies, and Gender Studies experts?

As Vox Day so cuttingly put it, "And she just figured this out NOW? She has a degree in 'Social Justice and Peace Studies.' She will soon have a second degree in 'Gender Studies.' She's very lucky the service industry will consider hiring anyone with a pulse, because any employer looking at those degrees has to knows she is a walking, talking, sexual harassment and/or discrimination lawsuit waiting to happen. In fact, a Gender Studies degree actually has negative value, given that credentialed feminists are considerably more likely to cause disruption in the workplace. It's bad enough to acquire garbage degrees in economic boom times. It's even worse to do so in the middle of a five-year depression."

This is harsh, yes, but I see his point. I don't know if I'd be inclined to hire her either.

All this makes Master Hand Grenade's choice to become a butcher seem wise, forward-thinking, and intelligent. Not incidentally, since I'm well acquainted with this young man's character, I'd hire him in a heartbeat for ANY job, including hotel front desk clerk.

For those who think Gender Studies majors are somehow morally superior to "working class cogs" like butchers, please check back in ten years and let's compare Master Hand Grenade's and Andria's career paths.

Something to think about for young people thinking about their futures. Think practical, folks. Think practical.

The Death of Pretty

Recently my friend Enola Gay posted a wonderful essay on training her sons to be men. (Knowing her older son as I do, I can testify she and her husband are doing a wonderful job.)

We have no sons, but we have daughters… and the counterpart to training sons to be men is training daughters to be women.

I am the most fortunate woman in the world for having the husband that I do. Don is the ultimate head of our household, and as such he takes seriously his duty to train our girls to value their purity and treasure their virtue.

It’s funny. When our oldest daughter was a baby and I was facing the Great Unknown of raising children in a decadent society, I remember commenting to a friend, “If I can just get her through high school without her getting pregnant, I’ll consider that a success.” Oh the naïveté of that comment! Little did I realize just how much influence we could have on our daughters. As parents, we can do so much more than “merely” get our daughters through high school without getting pregnant. Instead, we can raise them to be virtuous and decent young women, someone any man would be proud to call “wife” some day.

There are many ways to guard the virtue of our daughters – not only guard it, but instill the values in our girls so they learn to guard their own virtue.

• Dads. The presence of a father is the Number One way to raise girls with virtue. Girls raised with an involved father are far more likely to develop the (cough) self-esteem (I hate that phrase) necessary to see themselves as more than the sum of their body parts. Girls raised without a father are forever seeking male attention… and sadly, the easiest way to garner attention is by acting and dressing seductively.

• Homeschooling. Deprived (ahem) of the example of skankily-dressed peers, girls (and boys) who are homeschooled are far more likely to retain the values of their parents. I find it amusing that this fact – homeschooled children are more like to retain the values of their parents – is somehow construed among some progressives as evil (go figure).

• Feminism. I don’t know how it happened, but feminism has been changed from its original lofty intent (equality for women) into something dark and sinister. The old argument feminists used was that women should be valued for their brains, not their bodies. Okay, fine, that’s not such a bad goal. Our culture has embraced feminism with an almost rabid devotion – and what has happened as a result? Young women are dressing more abysmally than ever before, advertising their bodies and (presumably) hiding their brains.

I find it interesting how hostile feminists are to femininity. Last year I spoke to one of the founders of the Ladies Against Feminism site, and let me tell you, she had some stories to tell about the nasty-grams they get from feminists! The women who run this site had to go “undercover” to escape the threats – yes, threats – against their safety from rabid feminists who apparently want to eradicate the voice of anyone expressing a non-feminist viewpoint.

• Pop culture. I don’t know about you, but I don’t see a lot of value in pop culture. It seems very few women can develop their talent for singing, acting, or other performance arts without descending into skankiness. What good is a pretty face and beautiful voice and attractive body if you act like a slut? I greatly admired Audrey Hepburn because she managed to combine gracious femininity and talent without the need to strip naked to prove her point. She was a true Lady.

One of the major “unintended consequences” of feminism in our society is its effect on men. Men no longer feel the biological need to defend and protect women. When women routinely dress like sluts, men want to bed them, not protect them. But when women dress modestly, even the most hardened male tends to show a little more respect.

Maybe that’s why I’m such a Jane Austen and Charlotte Bronte fan. These women railed against the suppression of women in their day – but their characters did not lose their femininity despite that.

Anyway, all this was sparked by an interesting essay sent by a reader entitled The Death of Pretty by Pat Archbold. It distinguishes between the traditional views of “pretty” women vs. “hot” women. The original source, National Catholic Register, kindly gave me permission to reprint the essay here.
______________________________

The Death of Pretty by Pat Archbold

This post is intended as a lament of sorts, a lament for something in the culture that is dying and may never been seen again.

Pretty, pretty is dying.

People will define pretty differently. For the purposes of this piece, I define pretty as a mutually enriching balanced combination of beauty and projected innocence.

Once upon a time, women wanted to project an innocence. I am not idealizing another age and I have no illusions about the virtues of our grandparents, concupiscence being what it is. But some things were different in the back then. First and foremost, many beautiful women, whatever the state of their souls, still wished to project a public innocence and virtue. And that combination of beauty and innocence is what I define as pretty.

By nature, generally when men see this combination in women it brings out their better qualities, their best in fact. That special combination of beauty and innocence, the pretty inspires men to protect and defend it.

Young women today do not seem to aspire to pretty, they prefer to be regarded as hot. Hotness is something altogether different. When women want to be hot instead of pretty, they must view themselves in a certain way and consequently men view them differently as well.

As I said, pretty inspires men’s nobler instincts to protect and defend. Pretty is cherished. Hotness, on the other hand, is a commodity. Its value is temporary and must be used. It is a consumable.

Nowhere is this pretty deficit more obvious than in our “stars,” the people we elevate as the “ideal.” The stars of the fifties surely suffered from the same sin as do stars of today. Stars of the fifties weren’t ideal but they pursued a public ideal different from today.

The merits of hotness over pretty is easy enough to understand, they made an entire musical about it. Who can forget how pretty Olivia Newton John was at the beginning of Grease. Beautiful and innocent. But her desire to be desired leads her to throw away all that is valuable in herself in the vain hopes of getting the attention of a boy. In the process, she destroys her innocence and thus destroys the pretty. What we are left with is hotness.

Hotness is a consumable. A consumable that consumes as it is consumed but brings no warmth.

Most girls don’t want to be pretty anymore even if they understand what it is. It is ironic that 40 years of women’s liberation has succeeded only in turning women into a commodity. Something to be used up and thrown out.

Of course men play a role in this as well, but women should know better and they once did. Once upon a time you would hear girls talk about kind of women men date and the kind they marry. You don’t hear things like that anymore.

But here is the real truth. Most men prefer pretty over hot. Even back in 6th grade I hated the “hot” Olivia Newton John and felt sorry for her that she had to debase herself in such a way. Still do.

Our problem is that society doesn’t value innocence anymore, real or imagined. Nobody aspires to innocence anymore. Nobody wants to be thought of as innocent, the good girl. They want to be hot, not pretty.

I still hope that pretty comes back, although I think it not likely any time soon. For every Taylor Swift, there are a hundred Megan Foxs, or Lindsay Lohans, or Miley Cyruses etc.

Girls, please, bring back the pretty.

Head of the household

I have a deep dark secret to confess: I enjoy reading feminist literature.

Well, to be more specific, I enjoy reading literature that bashes feminism (maybe I should call it anti-feminist literature). I just do, that’s all.

If you haven’t yet read the Flipside of Feminism, I highly recommend it. And at the moment I’m re-reading a book called Women Who Make the World Worse by Kate O’Beirne. Today's blog post was inspired by O'Beirne's chapter on daycare. The author discusses the pervasive feminist mindset that children do better away from the constant, smothering care of their mothers. Preschoolers should be thrust into institutionalized day prisons in order to learn egalitarianism. Or something.

Ms. O’Beirne quotes a passage from another book called The War Against Parents by Sylvia Ann Hewlett (which I haven’t read but would like to) as follows: “Important strands of liberal thinking are antagonistic to the parenting enterprise. Scratch the surface and you will find that many folks on the left don’t particularly like marriage or children. In their view, the enormous quantity of other-directed energy absorbed by families gets in the way of freedom of choice, and ultimately of self-realization. This is particular true for women, which is why some radical feminists tend to see motherhood as a plot to derail equal rights and lure women back to subservient, submissive roles within the family.”

It was the terms “subservient, submissive roles within the family” that annoyed me. What would a radical feminist have to say about the dynamics of the Lewis household, for Pete’s sake, where I freely admit my husband is my hero? Not only my hero, but the acknowledged head of our household?

Yes, he’s the Head of this family, and frankly I like it that way.

However much feminists want to deny biology, the fact remains that men and women are different.  (Shocking, I know.) I like to think that God in His divine wisdom came up with the spiffy concept of a division of labor for the sake of efficiency.

Feminists call this oppression.

But why is it oppressive to look to one’s husband for guidance and strength, rather than to feminists? Why can’t it be a freeing thing for a woman to lean on her husband?  Isn't it nice that women don't have to "do it all," including leading their family?  (Unless they're without a husband, of course.)

Perhaps it’s because feminists can’t acknowledge how men – True Men – don’t throw their weight around, either physically or psychologically.

I’m reminded of an old story. Apparently a heavyweight boxing champion and his friend boarded a subway train with standing room only. Shortly after a new passenger came on who pushed and shoved his way rudely past the other standing passengers. The boxer was shoved so hard he almost fell. But he did nothing except straighten up and re-grip the overhead strap.

His friend was annoyed. “You’re the heavy-weight boxing champion!” he scolded. “You could have decked that guy! Why didn’t you?”

“A heavy-weight boxing champion doesn’t have to deck that guy,” the boxer replied. “He’s strong enough to know when not to throw his weight around.”

It’s that way with men who truly assume the mantle of Head. My husband doesn’t have to throw his weight around, physically or psychologically. Such behavior merely indicates insecurity and would not garner respect from his wife and children. True men don’t force their wives into submissive, subservient roles. They know diamonds are too valuable to treat like glass.

I am the Heart of this household, and as everyone knows, a body is no good without a heart, just as a body is no good without a head. We need both, and the fact that I view my husband as my Head in no way diminishes my importance as his Heart, which is my role. But someone has to have the final say in a house for peace and order to prevail, and that job goes to the man.

A wise Head takes advice and counsel from his Heart. Don and I discuss all household decisions and mutually agree on nearly everything. But if there is a dissenting opinion between us, and unless I can demonstrate why my opinion is superior, then I defer to his guidance.

Oooh, sacrilege to the feminist cause. Feminists, presumably, must always have the last word, which I interpret as meaning feminists try to make their husbands submissive and subservient.

And here’s something most feminists don’t have: Domestic harmony. Because Don and I each understand our unique and critical roles in our marriage, we are blessed with domestic harmony that is the envy of many. But we are not unique in this. All our happily-married friends do the same thing. It’s like we’ve discovered the “secret” to happy marriages that no modern-day feminist will ever admit has worked well for, oh, several thousand years.

Don and I had an interesting conversation with a neighbor last night. She’s in the middle of reading my book. Naturally I asked for her candid opinion. The first thing she said was, “It’s a praise fest for Don.” What she meant was, my admiration for my husband permeates the entire book.

The discussion segued to the tendency for women to bash their husbands (one of my pet peeves). If you get a group of women together without their men present, just about the first thing they start to do is gripe about how stupid their husbands are.

My mother never did this to my father. I never do this to Don. I pray my daughters will never do that to their future husbands.

See, I tend to look at things from the opposite perspective as these griping women. I tend to assume that every woman has the potential to be as happy with her husband as I am with Don. This attitude is confirmed by many of my friends' attitudes toward their husbands. To hear our neighbor Enola Gay talk about her husband is a beautiful thing.

But to feminists, this is anathema. A happy, harmonious, and (worse) traditional family arrangement can no longer be admitted as the best environment for raising children. It is no longer politically correct for a woman to honor her husband because it’s interpreted as (cough) subservient and submissive.

Remember the parents (Charles and Caroline) of Laura Ingalls Wilder? I once saw it written that Caroline went wherever Charles took her, but Charles would only go where Caroline let him. In other words, they worked together as a team. Being the Head of a household doesn’t mean a man is a nasty dictator. In means taking wise counsel from others, primarily one’s Heart, to discern the best path for a family to take. So an important task for a woman in choosing a husband is to pick a man who truly understands what it means to take his place as Head of the household.

Much of the hostility toward stay-at-home moms appears to stem from the notion that home is an awful place to be. And frankly if I had to live with a feminist, I would agree – it would be an awful place to be. But a home ruled over by a domestic diva is a lovely, warm, welcoming place, a refuge from an often cruel world, an anchor of peace in a tough economy, a haven of tranquility against the rigors of the outside world.

And men know this very very well, because they are the slayers of dragons and our knights in shining armor whose efforts permit us to create those homes.

The Flipside of Feminism

I was asked to review a new book by Suzanne Venker and Phyllis Schlafly called The Flipside of Feminism. This was no hardship since – as all of you know – I’m no fan of feminism anyway.

But my oh my, this book surpassed all my expectations by light years. It was riveting. I couldn’t put it down. I based a couple WorldNetDaily columns on it (here and here). Let me tell you, if you want the ultimate guide to the damage feminism has inflicted on our country, this is the book for you.

The subtitle for this book is “What conservative women know – and men can’t say” and those words were never more true. Women – not feminists but true women – know darned good and well what kind of mess feminism had made. But men cannot speak against it. If they do, they are instantly branded as misogynists and hounded into oblivion. It’s a cruel situation in which men find themselves. Therefore it is up to conservative women to speak – and speak loudly – against the tyranny of feminism (and I don’t use that word tyranny lightly).

The book details the astounding turnaround in this nation over the last forty years, which amounts to nothing less than national brainwashing. The mainstream media and nearly every public school and university are bastions of feminist thought and support. The book details the damage feminism has done to girls and women. It illustrates how young women are encouraged to shed their virtue and embrace a heartless succession of hookups as expressions of their “equality.” It demonstrates why the ultimate purpose of feminism is to eject women from the home – to abandon their children – and enter the workforce. It pounds home the uselessness of men and why women (and children) simply don’t need them.

In short, this book outlines the tremendous and continuing damage feminism has done to our nation. I cannot recommend this book highly enough. It has earned a coveted spot on my bookshelf and will continue to operate as a resource and an arsenal against the covert influence feminism has on my daughters.

In praise of men

A reader left a comment on my blog post Marriage and Rush-Hour Traffic as follows:

I'm just to the right of conservative and tend to adhere to traditional labels and values, but I have to admit I bristle at being called "simple" while women are considered to be "complex." And "simple" usually means "sex, food, and admiration." I'm sure a hundred books have been written on the subject and it's an issue far more "complex" than can be discussed here; however, I think men are a lot more complex than they are given credit for. Indeed the very character or the very nature of a man tends to result in an outward display of "simplicity". There's a lot going on below that surface that women don't know about or choose not to explore because it makes them uncomfortable or because they simply don't want to deal with it. It doesn't help that men are labeled "simple" because it predisposes women and wives to believe there's not complex worth discovering. All I'm saying is that there's probably a vast treasure trove of complex ideas, behaviors, and (dare I say it?) emotions lurking below the surface within your husbands that'll likely remain locked up forever because of current labels and gender expectations in our society.

I thought now would be a good time to clarify my position on the simple/complex issue because I don’t want any misunderstandings about my attitude and philosophy toward men.

If you’ve read many of my WND columns or if you’ve been following my blog for any length of time, you’ll know I’m a huge fan of men. So when I refer to men as “simple creatures” I do NOT mean it as an insult. Far from it! “Simple” can be extraordinarily profound.

When people say women are complicated, it’s not a compliment. To me, the adjective “complicated” denotes a weary acknowledgment that women are moody, emotional, hormone-laden creatures whose moods cannot always be anticipated or soothed, and who are triggered by a bewildering array of stimuli that “set them off.” And since it is not usually in a man’s nature to tune in to whatever subtle (and changing – always changing) cues his woman is giving off and expected to read, then women are described as “complicated” because it’s the most apt description out there.

I have a deep appreciation for the simple things in life. So deep, in fact, that I wrote a book about it. The essence of simplicity is making good, sound, intelligent choices. When a man embodies the manly qualities I admire (read this to see what I mean), then those choices make life easier for those around him. Some might consider it a "simple" thing when a man works to provide for his family – rather than cluttering up his decision with emotional baggage as women tend to do – but his dedication simplifies life for his family. Ain’t it cool?

And men are simple to please. They really are. Please don’t misinterpret this to mean I believe men have no depth or complexity to them. Of course they do! Instead I think it’s a blessing that for all the hard, nasty, dirty, ugly work men do, all they ask in return is for us women to appreciate and love them. I find that incredible.

I find men are straightforward; they don’t expect those around them to be mind readers (as women often do). Their yes means yes and their no means no.

To a man (I don’t mean a “male” but a true man), their word is their bond and their sense of honor is strong. Those are simple and profound qualities. Can you imagine how much worse off we would be in this world if men didn’t have the qualities they have? Men are the ones who make the simple decision: defend their country and/or their loved ones, or die trying. Men are the ones who make the simple decision: work hard or let my family (and my honor) suffer. Men are the ones who spend their entire lives making simple, profound, honorable choices that ease the burdens of those around them. Is it any wonder I love men?

The person who left this comment wrote, “There's a lot going on below that surface that women don't know about or choose not to explore because it makes them uncomfortable or because they simply don't want to deal with it.”

He’s right, of course. Because men don’t verbally “angst” all the time like women do, women often forget men have feelings and emotions. But men suck it up. Men don’t complain. Men deal with it. Men don’t burden those around them with an endless stream of petty woes as women frequently do. You’ve heard two women talking for hours and hashing and re-hashing and RE-hashing and RE-HASHING the same ol’ same ol’. But men don’t do that. They are creatures of action, of results. Their instinct is to fix a problem, not to dwell on it endlessly.

Of course, sometimes “fixing” a problem can have devastating consequences. Post-traumatic stress disorder is a very real affliction and comes from witnessing and dealing with horrors. But men throughout history have fought wars to protect family and homelands. Without their ability to “suck it up” until such time as they can “let it go” and deal with the emotional aftermath, history would be very different. (And we’d probably all be speaking German.)

And what helps a man heal is the love of his wife and children: the respect they give him in the home and the praise and admiration he receives from those he loves. Throughout history, women have helped their men heal because the men had the strength and bravery to tackle the problem, and women had the compassion and gentleness to help heal the hurt.

That’s why men and women complement each other. Feminists would like us to believe there are no differences between the genders except for physical attributes. They are wrong. Men need the gentle nurturing qualities of women. Women need the strong protective qualities of men.

Unless they’ve been emasculated by a domineering and/or feminist woman (wife or mother), or unless boys are raised in a culture which denigrates their genetic predisposition to respect women, work hard, and provide for their families, then most men rise to the occasion. Most men are wonderful creatures whose strength and protective instincts we take for granted until those qualities are needed - or worse, gone.  If our society continues to emasculate men, if the boyish instincts are not guided into appropriate channels, then our society will lose an enormous part of what made our country great.

And that’s why I love men.

Women Against Women (conclusion)

Here is the conclusion to my series on feminism.

Women Against Women (Part 4)

Here's Part 4 of my Women Against Women rant.

UPDATE: Melody left such a nifty comment on this post that I felt I had to bring it forward so it wouldn't get buried:

I learned how to lie in self-defense in kindergarten. It went something like this:

"Melody," said the teacher, "what do you want to be when you grow up?"

"I want to take care of a pretty house." (Keep in mind that I was only 5 years old.)

"But you can do anything you want! What do you want to do?"

"I want to take care of a pretty house!"

"Sweetie, you can be anything you want to be - you don't have to be a (insert derisive tone here) house wife."

"But I want to take care of a pretty house!" (cue tears)

So, in self-defense, whenever asked, "What do you want to be when you grow up?" I would answer, "I want to be a lawyer."

It took a while, but I finally reached my dream - I get to take care of a pretty house, teach my children, take my time to cook nutritious meals and pamper my husband. THAT'S truly "having it all."

Melody

Whoo-hoo Melody! You rock, woman!

Women Against Women (Part 3)

Here's Part 3 of my Women Against Women rant.

Women Against Women (Part 2)

Here's Part 2 of my Women Against Women rant.

Women against women

Here's my latest posting on RegularGuy.com called Women Against Women.  It's Part 1 of what will be, I dunno, maybe four or five segments.

Women are not as intelligent as men

A reader took exception to a line in last week’s WND column as follows:

"Women were once respected for their morals, purity, values, strengths, intelligence and vigilance in guarding their reputation. Now they are "respected" for having an abortion. Go figure."

I agree with everything above except intelligence. Its a nicely sentimental, but untrue.

Best, Don

This reader started out signing him/herself as “Don,” but later changed to “Donna.”

Historically she’s correct, of course. So I replied:
“Hmmm - you may be right.”

Embolded, she sent the following email:
Because women should NOT be respected for their intelligence. They have many qualities, but compared to men, intelligence is not one of them. Best, Donna

Curious as to how far she was willing to defend such a position, I replied:
Interesting perspective, and one with which I'll have to disagree. We're just as intelligent as men - but in different areas.

Following is the remainder of our email exchange as it escalated over the next couple of days.

Donna:
Well, as a Christian woman, I think men are the superior intellect. One of the obvious reasons why they should rule the house and the nations.

But kindly name for me one area in which the female mind is equal to men. Politics, technology, philosophy...what?

Best, Donna

Me:
Communication (largely verbal). Relationships (empathy, sympathy). Attention to details (why we make such spiffy keepers of the home). Not "strong" traits, but just as necessary.

Donna:
Well, lets examine these for a moment.

Communications: If I reflect opon the greatest speeches in history, not a single one was spoken by woman. On the other hand, I can watch any number of talk shows hosted by women, for women, and the conversation is vacuous compared to that of men (even stupid men).

Realtionships: The last 50 years have been disasterous for women (and children) for their failure to understand the most basic rules of relationships: Men don't buy the cow if the milk is free. (Men had a grasp on this from the beginning.)

Attention to details: ?!? You mean like "color cordination" and "cobwebs"! Men simply don't care....thats why they have helpmates...for the little and mundane.

Best, Donna

Me:
I find your attitude extraordinary. I don’t believe I’ve ever met another woman who is so determined to find women inferior based on extreme examples of feminism’s ill-effects. You cite illustrations which damn *all* women derived from the rancid achievements of those poor saps who have been suckered into the feminist mentality. This has far less to do with native intelligence than it does brainwashing, in my humble opinion.

I like to think women DO bring some good into this world – yeah, I know I’m weird – and I’m sorry that you can’t recognize that, in which case, we’ll have to agree to disagree. Meanwhile, I’ll continue to admire the women physicians, the women scientists (Jane Goodall?), the women humanitarians (Mother Theresa?) who bring light into this world despite being lowly females.

Donna:
I never said women were inferior. Nor did I say women don't contribute. I merely addressed one aspect: intelligence compared to men.

But you've demonstrated very well how women cannot keep a coherent argument going. And how when their beliefs get challenged (and unaswered!) they get testy and hysterical.

Go have a cofee with your friends and emote.

Me:
Funny, I thought I had given three examples of female intelligence which you then dismissed as inferior. My apologies, I guess I misunderstood. Must be my lack of intelligence.

I’ll be posting these emails on my blog because I think readers will be interested in your perspective.

Off to emote with the weeds in my garden. Have a nice day.

Donna:
Thanks for posting the emails. It will let many know exactly what you are (all 3 people who will read it).

Best, Donna
________________________

Comments are welcome from all three of my readers. It's important to "let many know" exactly what I am.

.

Conversations with a liberal

The following is an email conversation between my favorite liberal detractor, a very polite fellow who sends thoughtful emails from the liberal side of things. He’s replying to last weekend’s column on Selective Feminism.

Hello Patrice! You're absolutely right about how wrong many feminists are. The extremist ones are always making wildly exaggerated claims about women's "oppression," and some are guilty of misandry, the equivalent of misogyny. Radical feminist Marilyn French has stated that "all men are rapists, and that's all they are." And some of these feminist wackos actually believe that all sex between males and females, even between consenting adults, is rape and should be prohibited, and that all reproduction should be by artificial insemination.

But the "Keep 'em barefoot and pregnant, women's place is in the home" conservatives are just as bad. They want to roll back all the progress that has been made for women. They are a kind of American Taliban.

I recently read an interesting book by Phyllis Schlafly, of whom I'm no admirer, in which she mocks radical feminists, makes fun of the whole feminist movement, and completely distorts and misrepresents much of what feminists say and do. She just sets up all manner of straw men (or women).

For example, she claims that one of the bad things about feminism is that so many women no longer stay home to take care of their children, and pursue their own careers. Supposedly this has a very bad effect on children. Day care facilities are bad, very bad. Women should be at home taking care of their children.

But what she conveniently fails to mention is the fact that many married couples have to have double incomes, and they would never be able to get by otherwise. These are the economic realities of today. Get a grip on reality, Phyllis.

And I'm still convinced that homeschooling is a very problematical thing. If parents have the skill and ability to teach their children everything they need to know, then it's alright. But too many of these parents are members of the evangelistic religious right, and they don't want their children exposed to ideas they don't like, such as the idea that the Bible isn't literally true, the world wasn't created in six days and is only 6,000 years old, which is 1,000 years after the ancient Sumerians invented glue, dinosaurs existed side by side with people, and that Adam and Eve, and Noah etc really existed.

They're also deathly afraid of having their children hear that what consenting adults do in private is nobody else's business, and that homosexuals are just ordinary people who deserve the same rights as every one else’s, and should be left alone as long as they harm no one else.

Their narrow-mindedness, intolerance and self-righteousness is appalling. I don't mind people being Christians. I don't hate them because of this. I just disapprove of their whole social agenda. I don't want to take any rights away from them, or interfere with their religious observances.

But I'm just as opposed to the stupidly multicultural and politically correct indoctrination in so many public schools today. Students should be taught to think for themselves, and to be ready and willing to disagree with other people without being disagreeable.

My own upbringing and early education was like neither. I wasn’t taught to be a homophobe. Homosexuality wasn't even discussed! It wasn't an issue back then. I wasn't taught that only Jews will go to heaven; my family has never even been observant Jews. Judaism teaches that God does not judge us by what religion we happen to follow. He does not care whether we are Jews, Christians, Muslims, Buddhists, Hindus or whatever. We are judged by our actions and our actions alone.

My parents never even mentioned abortion when I was growing up in the 50s and 60s. It was a very different world back then.

Many conservatives whose websites and blogs I respond to consider me a terrible liberal, even a communist, even though I'm anything but that. But when I email far left ones, they think I'm much too conservative!

And in a separate email:

Another thing I meant to say about homeschooling is that it can deprive kids of the chance to be exposed to kids from other religious backgrounds and with different opinions and attitudes. It can give them a narrow and limited outlook on life by depriving them of the exposure to different worldviews. And the chance to discuss things and disagree with others, or possibly to come to realize that some things other people say might make sense, and that they may have a point.

In an ideal world, kids would just be educated rather than indoctrinated, either with a multicultural and politically correct viewpoint in which they are taught to be paranoid about offending others and being offended, and that the whole history of the world is one of evil, greedy and crude whites oppressing all non-whites, etc and all that garbage, or a strictly religious and evangelically conservative viewpoint in which the Bible is literally true, and homosexuals are evil perverts doomed to hellfire, and that abortion must be ended at all costs, and that any one who does not subscribe to their narrow religious views is doomed to hell, and that liberals are evil atheistic moral relativists, and hedonistic immoral people who are out to undermine the nation's morality.

Kids must learn to think for themselves, and not see things in black and white.


My reply:

Goodness, you had me worried there! For a moment I thought we actually agreed on something, in which case, of course, I'd wonder what I did wrong (smile).

While I don't agree with the more excessive "keep 'em at home" conservative extremists, I believe a LOT more people can live on one income than you might suspect. But people have become accustomed to luxury. The wife works to provide money for extras. If people learned to be frugal and live within their means, more women could stay home. And believe me, a lot of women *want* to stay home. And yes, I happen to think daycare is bad. We've worked our fannies off since our kids were born to make sure one parent is at home - I've worked nights, swing-shift, etc. to make sure our kids never darken the door of a daycare.

We have an appointment to have our taxes done today, so yesterday I just finished crunching all our income and expense numbers for the past year. I learned something very interesting. If we exclude the very modest amount of money I make from writing (and let the records show, I don't get paid by WorldNetDaily), then we are $70 below the federal poverty level for a family of four. We have plenty to eat, our girls are in music lessons and other extracurricular activities, we have a lovely home and a small farm. Don't tell me people can't live modestly and have one person at home. It can be done if the priorities are in the right place.

Now here's something interesting – you segued from feminism into homeschooling with nary a blink and went on an oppositional rant worthy of the stuff I spew in my columns. Goodness me, you must have had a *seriously* bad experience with some homeschoolers along the way because I've never seen homeschoolers like the ones you describe. I can honestly say the homeschoolers I know – and I know a lot – don't fit your stereotype in the slightest. My literary agent just asked me to write a book on parenting because she admires how our girls are turning out, and a lot of how they're turning out has to do with homeschooling (lack of exposure to peer pressure and learning to treat one's parents with shocking disrespect, principally). I could as easily hand that assignment to any homeschooling mother around me because their kids are turning out just as admirably.

You speak of conservative Christians as if we're interested in turning this country into a bullying, intolerant Theocracy along the lines of the Taliban. Nothing could be further from the truth. We are horrified and appalled at how things are "progressing" in this country, but the vast majority of us *just want to be left alone.* We want our liberties as outlined in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights to be left untampered. The government has no interest in leaving us alone, though, so we must fight. We fight to homeschool, we fight to keep our kids unpolluted by what we see as the evils of the world rather than forcibly spoon-fed things in public school, and we fight to keep such basic rights as gun ownership and freedom of speech/religion/etc.

Believe me, homeschooled kids are exposed to a whole lot more stuff than you think simply by virtue of not being locked into a classroom with one age level for eight hours a day. Parents of homeschooled kids tend to take their kids with them everywhere and meet all sorts of people. We don't keep them locked in a trunk in the basement. They're in the real world – talking, socializing, working, volunteering, learning, seeing, growing. Studies have demonstrated over and over and over and over that homeschooled kids grow up to be highly socialized, competent adults. They just happen to become adults with their parents' morals intact...which, you must admit, is the dearest wish of most parents, *yourself included.* We just happen to differ on what those morals might be.

That said, I'll admit I find it fascinating to get a glimpse into liberal thinking through your emails. I'm quite serious. Frequently I'll ask my husband, "How can they THINK like that?" and you provide me with answers, for which I'm grateful.

Okay, off to get our taxes done. Joy.

Best regards,
Patrice