A woman’s greatest enemy is oftentimes another woman. Worse than men, it is women who oppress other women. Or, maybe it would be more accurate to say that women are the most reliable henchmen for those who would keep all women in line. Yes, I repeat, it is women who frequently wield the cudgel that forces other women into humiliation and submission.
Why do they do it? All I can say is that some women are like some parents: they don’t want their children having it any better than they did.
Your eyeballs just dropped out of your head, didn’t they? Parents not wanting their kids to have it any better than they did? Aren’t parents supposed to want the best for their kids? No. The answer is ‘no’. Many parents believe that if it was good enough for them, then it is good enough for their kids, and their kids should be grateful for what they have. Very few parents actually encourage their kids to shoot higher than the social/financial status that their family currently enjoys.
Women are just the same. Mothers rarely encourage their daughters to live their lives outside of the norms that they (the mothers) have embraced. If a young woman wants to pursue a career instead of marrying and having kids, you can be sure that 95% of mothers will be opposed to it, unless marriage and kids can somehow be incorporated into the plan. The young lady will be pressured to produce grandchildren, no matter what her own wishes, and preferably find a suitable marriage partner with whom to do it before baby is born.
It starts with mothers pressuring their daughters to marry and have kids. Even if men in society did not push that narrative on women, women’s mothers would. I will add a brief footnote here, and say that my own mother was one of the few mothers that I have ever heard of who did not push her daughters to marry and produce kids. In fact, she encouraged us to not be too desperate to catch one, pointing out that one day we might just find that we can live very well without one, thank you. My mother, by the way, was herself pressured to marry when she did not really want to. Instead of putting us through what she went through, she chose to encourage us to not build our lives around the insane hunt for a man and a family.
For many women, though, marriage and children is a very comfortable arrangement. They don’t want to be career women, or single women, and it is their right not to. However, there is an historical tendency for people who are satisfied with the way things are of resenting those individuals who refuse to confirm. There is also a tendency for individuals who have been forced out of a comfortable existence that suited their temperament and tastes, to yearn for those halcyon days, even if those days were less than ideal in reality. Hence, the working woman becoming an outspoken advocate of stay-at-home motherhood.
As long as a woman does not try to force all women into the box she lives in, or would like to live in, her point of view is perfectly all right. Different strokes for different folks, and all that. It is only when such women go around attacking other women that a problem arises, and men are usually the reason for the aggression.
Brigitte Macron is twenty-four years older than her husband, Emmanuel. Her strongest detractors (based on postings from the USA) appear to be young women. You would imagine that, no matter what her husband’s politics, other women would refrain from going low and ridiculing her for being a ‘granny wife’. You would also imagine that young women would see her as an older woman who got lucky and, throwing caution to the wind, snagged her self a young stud. She could be an inspiration; instead she is maligned and called a pedophile by other women, younger women. What the hell is going on? Is she just an easy target for political detractors? Or, are these women attacking her because they see her as an outsider in the marriage and children game? Charlie Hebdo also got in a swing at her, publishing a cartoon in which she is depicted as pregnant alongside her husband, the new President of France. The caption reads, “He will work miracles”.
Here we see an example of the ugly side of women’s hen-instinct. Brigitte Macron can be seen as a prime example of what other women often view as a threat: a woman who doesn’t play by their rules. In my opinion, part of the hostility directed at her comes from simple jealousy. Another part of it comes from what such women perceive to be a threat. Both parts equal the same thing: this woman is a usurper, an outsider, and a danger to the established system. A youngish male of thirty-nine, particularly one with position and money, should be making himself available to women in the twenty to thirty-something age range. He is prime breeding material and prime husband material, but he has been poached by a woman who should be looking for a geriatric husband (thus keeping her out of the competition for prime husbands). Moreover, she is no longer fertile, so what right does she have to go after a young, virile man?
When the chips are down, a woman’s right to a partner is still viewed as an expression of her fertility. Even in the eyes of other women, once a female of our species is no longer capable of reproduction, it is considered her duty to step aside and allow a younger woman, one who is capable of reproducing, to take her place in the dating game. Unlike the case with men, a mature woman bagging herself a sexy young thing is seen as a corruption of the natural order. By contrast, when a man hooks up with a woman 24 years his junior, it is seen as perfectly normal. In fact, it is taken as a sign of his still viable virility. A few women – heck, actually a lot of women – will probably make ‘gold digger’ comments behind the back of his much-younger-woman, even if she has plenty of her own money and status, but the outrage will be minimal, and the insults will be whispered. She is, after all, another woman, and other women have the right to find good nesting, too.
Unless they are too old to nest. Or refuse to nest. The single woman of child-bearing age who is not interested in bagging a husband is, if anything, seen in an even worse light than a mature woman. She is a threat with a capital ‘T’, because she, too, is not playing the game by the rules set out for her by ‘society’, by reproductive nature, and by other women. The automatic response from those women whose identities and status revolve around being married-with-children, is that she is out to steal any man she can get her claws into.
False, again, ladies. A women who doesn’t put a high priority on catching a man is usually a woman who has high standards. That is why she is not married, and this basically means your man is of absolutely no interest to her. She can do better than that, and if she can’t, she’s already proven that she’d rather go without. However, the myth of the ‘homewrecker’ is still alive and well today, primarily among conservative women. This irrational fear explains why there is now a whole political movement in the conservative/alt-/far-right whose aim it is to convince young women of the glories of marriage and having large families. Sadly, it is the women of the conservative/far-/alt-right who doing the leading in this charge back to the kitchen.
This is what happens when women voluntarily choose to reduce themselves to being nothing more than the sum total of their reproductive and sexual organs. Glorying in their menstrual cycles, thinking their vaginas have super-powers because new life is birthed through them, believing that getting pregnant and giving birth is a miraculous accomplishment on a par with splitting the atom… well, you can see why anyone who challenges enslavement to their own reproductive cycles would be seen as threatening.
It should be noted that the married-with-children crowd are probably as enslaved to their libidos and sexual urges as their men are, though those urges are primarily predicated upon where they are in their menstrual cycle. Women like to pretend that only men are that bound to base biological urges, but the opposite is actually true. Marriage provides them with someone to discretely satisfy their sexual appetites at those times, and they therefore cannot imagine that other women are not as enthusiastic about the mutually convenience institution. So long as women continue to pin their identities on their reproductive capacities, they will always view any women who is not equally driven by her biology as a threat. And, sadly, they will continue to revile and insulted those other women in the crudest possible ways.
Now that we have established women’s own complicity in keeping what is commonly called ‘the patriarchy’ alive, we have to ask ourselves if these women who are now jumping on the ‘traditional housewife’ bandwagon have even the vaguest idea of where this is all headed, or if they even care?
“Women’s virtue is man’s greatest invention.”
―Cornelia Otis Skinner
The strange thing about the notions that women on the conservative/far-/alt-right hold regarding the greater world is that they don’t see the parallels between what they are advocating as the roles of women in our society, and what other cultures that they view as repressive and dangerous advocate. They lambaste Islam for subjugating women, yet they want what amounts to the same thing done our own women.
No, that is no overstatement or exaggeration. In Islam, men are the heads of the house, and women exist to bear and rear children. Islam advocates the spread of Islam through womb-power, that is, large families, while the conservatives and the far-/alt-right see having large families as the the only way to keep the white race and western culture alive. In Islam, women are not supposed to leave the house unless dressed correctly. Conservatives and the alt-/far-right tell women to put on makeup and high heels, and to wear dresses and skirts. Both Islam and the conservative/ far-/alt-right coalition dictate that a woman should dress in a way that pleases men, and not for convenience or her own comfort. Both Islam and the conservative/ far-/alt-right coalition believe that men alone must make the decisions in the family and in greater society.
Do these misguided women honestly not see the irony of their position? They dread the takeover of our society by Islam because they see it as repressive, yet what they are advocating is, in essence, a society where their position and lack of rights is basically the same. Do they not realize that in any male-dominated society, women quickly lose the right to protection from marital abuse, rape, and abandonment? I suspect that half the problem lies in the fact that these young women do not remember how things really were back in the days they so idealize. A woman would marry a man who then fooled around behind her back – something that she only discovered when she ended up having a hysterectomy due to untreated venereal disease – and have no choice but to stay in the marriage. Divorce was not only frowned upon, it was difficult to get. If one of the parties contested it, it could be denied. If she did get out of the marriage? Well, she’d be branded a ‘divorcee’ and all of her old friends would be barring their doors to her, in fear that she would now be out to poach their husbands.
Forget about finding a job outside taking in other people’s laundry.
An interesting fact: the example I gave above about discovering infidelity through hysterectomy is not fictitious. It is the true story of a former opera singer that I once met.
So Why Do Women Let Gay Men Tell Them How to Behave?
Another bizarre thing that is happening to the conservative/far-/alt-right is the influx of gay and transgendered men into their ranks. I can understand that gay and transgendered people might share certain values with them, such as economic and cultural perspectives, and even concepts of monogamy and family. However, and this is a big ‘however’, why do conservative/far-/alt-right accept it when these individuals start telling them that a woman’s place is, basically, in the kitchen and in the delivery ward? It makes about as much sense as letting gay men tell straight women how to dress.
Which is precisely what they do, by the way. The vast majority of high-end clothing designers are gay men. Make-up artists? Gay men. Hairstylists? Gay men. Painful shoe designers? Gay men.
From that alone, you would think women would have figured out that gay men are not their friends. The mystery is why women on both sides of the political/social spectrum hang on their every word, and clamor after every bad, misogynist design these men produce. From a conservative/far-/alt-right standpoint homosexuality has, until recently, been seen as a threat to the notion of the traditional family, which begs the question of why these individuals are now being elevated to such a high status within their movement.
I am going to speak a truth here that is pretty damned ugly. What I mentioned above about homosexuality being seen as a threat to the traditional family holds equally true in Islamic countries, and it is a belief that is not without reason. Homosexuals who engage solely in homosexual behavior do not reproduce. If reproduction is the all and end all of your beliefs and culture, this lack of reproduction is unacceptable. On a very primal level, the homosexual is subverting the natural order by engaging in sexual activity of an unnatural, non-reproductive nature. Like masturbation, which is also frowned up, and even forbidden in such societies, it is a waste of potent human seed. Furthermore, not all homosexuality is due to an individual’s hard-wiring – and this is where women of the conservative/far-/alt-right who are embracing the ‘traditional family’ movement need a wake-up call.
Ancient Greece. Sparta. Do those places and times mean anything to these women? The problem is, most young women today are not well-read enough to be familiar with the social structures of ancient societies, so they don’t have a clue as to the ultimate form a male-dominant society can, and does, take.
To be brief, ancient Greece is known for the prevalence of male homosexuality in its societies, which, like it or not, was an outgrowth of the belief that women were so inferior to men that they were only to be used for reproductive purposes. For pleasure, men went to other men – though the extent of it varied from region to region. Sparta was notorious for it. Athens had a culture where young men of not yet marriageable age were often taken as lovers by older men. Once they were old enough to take a wife, the relationship ended. Eventually, they themselves would end up taking a young man as a lover.
In ancient Rome, male bisexuality and homosexuality was perfectly normal and acceptable, as long as specific rules were followed. Women did not have a monopoly on men, as a man could freely choose a male lover if he so wished.
So, in some ways, women were in an even worse situation than in ancient Greece. In ancient Greece women were at least acknowledged as necessary for breeding, and thus had some sad claim on their husbands. In Rome, a man was free to go any which way he pleased, thus greatly reducing the pool of available men from a woman’s perspective.
Sad to say, our society is currently headed down the same path as ancient Rome, regardless of whether we take the road to the political left, or the road to the political right. The left has already embraced it. The right, with its male-dominance, will create it by the same process that the Spartans did.
So, why are women so enthusiastically allowing gay men to tell them how to behave, again? And, why are they embracing a movement that is now actively usurping the rights and services that were once intended solely for the safety and security of women?
In at least two Canadian cities, women have been ordered to leave shelters after refusing to share quarters with non-transitioned transsexuals. When the chips were down, the women’s shelters involved in these two cases choose the rights of men who identified as women, but who had not yet undergone the final surgical procedures, over those of two women who had been born as women. In another city, a shelter that is devoted exclusively to battered women has had to fight for the legal right to provide shelter to females alone. I understand that a transsexual woman might have need of a safe haven, however the LGBT community should be providing that shelter. That women, many of whom have been battered or abused, are now being turfed from safe houses that were created for them in favor of, well, people who are physically male, regardless of what they identify as, can only be seen as women being forced back into second-class citizenship.
Is this what women truly want? If not, why are they once again stepping back and allowing men to even take over their identity as women? Is there something in women that makes them submissive to men, any man, gay or straight, simply because he is a man? For the record, I don’t care about a person’s sexual orientation, as long as they are a good person. I don’t care if a man wears a dress, or if a man is in the bathrooms when I want to use them. I do object to gay men telling straight women that they should be submissive to their husbands, and calling women who choose not to marry ‘crazy cat ladies’. I also object to women being thrown into the street because a fully-functional male wants to spend the night in a women’s shelter. Allowing this to happen doesn’t just deal a serious blow to women’s rights, it sets women’s rights back all the way to ancient Greece, and a time when women were considered so low that men preferred having sex with each other to having to touch a woman.
Is this really what women want? Because, when they reduce themselves to being nothing more than the net value of their sex organs, that is what is going to happen. It is already happening.