Search This Blog

Saturday, July 18, 2009

Charlotte Allen Exposes A Nerve

I get it Charlotte. I think I have a pretty good idea of the motivation for writing that article. I wouldn't classify it as humor, you don't need to call it humor. It is perfectly OK to write an article that is critical of women. In fact, I think the reason your article caused so much upset is that certain things you say are, in fact, right on the mark and every one knows it, whether they choose to acknowledge it or not.

I don't think you came to the right conclusion, that women are dim. However, I understand that this was an opinion piece, and what you were expressing was your exasperation at the display of silly behavior at a time where perhaps a more sober analysis of the qualities of a presidential candidate would have been desirable.

I think it is very important that you wrote that article for two reasons.

  1. Women have been given free reign to beat up on men and criticize them based solely on the fact that they are men. Where men have been successful, conventional wisdom amongst the "feminist" crowd is that their success was achieved by the suppression, and came at the expense of women. While this may be true in some cases, applying this logic to absolutely everything under the sun is certainly not, and that is exactly what is happening in today's society.

    It is leading us as a society to draw some pretty upside down conclusions about what is desirable and exactly which societal goals are worth pursuing. We live in a world of limited resources and whether we like it or not, we often have to choose between a and b. Ideally, we would, as a society, do a cost/benefit analysis of a and b and allocate resources to whichever gave us the greatest net benefit.

    The beauty of a free society and its alter ego, freedom of speech, given the fact that there are usually opposing interests in choosing a or b, is that each side of the opposing interest can be counted on to expose the costs of the goal they dislike and highlight the benefits of the goal they prefer. Only then can we make an informed decision on which path we ought to take.

    "Feminists" and I use quotes because I believe it cynical to describe a group of women who show nothing but disdain for just about everything feminine, "feminists", seek to silence any discussion which may portray women in an unflattering light. However, women do have qualities and characteristics that may put them at a disadvantage in certain situations and therefore make them the less optimal choice. Those same qualities and characteristics may make them the preferable choice in other scenarios. The only way we can make those decisions is to allow the debate to occur.

    Since, as you pointed out, it can be a fatal, career ending decision for a man to attempt this discussion, as in the case of the former President of Harvard, it will require women to start the debate. If there weren't any truth underlying what you said, your article would not have provoked such a response. For example, if you had written that the sun really revolves around the earth, or that gravity makes objects float upwards, you would have been regarded as a dodo, but I suspect the response would have been much more muted. You touched a nerve.


  2. Believe it or not, all that above was still my first point. My second point is this. Women as a group will never live up to the expectations or achieve the goals set for them by "feminists". This is because the underlying premise of feminists is that men are inherently better than women and therefore only by doing everything men do, as a group, will we have attained equality and our rightful roles in society.

    Furthermore, absolutely no distinction is made as to the worthiness of the male behaviors feminists wish all women to emulate. How many movies have there been where slutty women are revered because their slutty behavior is deemed to be more male? I am not even sure this is an accurate portrayal of men in the first place, but regardless of the facts, I have read many a "feminist" opinion exalting the promiscuous and callous dating behavior of more than a few on-screen heroines.

    Woman, deny thyself, act like a man. Well the problem with this is that women make lousy men, and by spending all of their time and energy on trying to be men, we have created a void where there shouldn't be one. Is it a wonder that our schools are failing, our kids are fat, and that the population at large doesn't have the energy or desire to pay attention to community affairs? Who would after working all day outside the home and then coming home to face the household chores and needs of the kids?

    Guess what folks, by allowing the "feminists" to convince us that traditional women's roles were less valuable than men's we are allowing our society to rot from the inside out. Because nature hates a vacuum, the void left by women is being filled - in many cases by the schools, the government, which may or may not be desirable, by the local drug dealer on the corner, by MacDonald's, Carl's Junior, Jack-in-the Box, special interest lobbyists - none of whom have the level of interest or the motivation to succeed a woman would have in caring for her own family and community. It is, at best, a second rate solution which will ultimately make us a second rate society and nation.
If you find that insulting, too bad. It needs to be said, often and at the same volume as the ones shouting the other nonsense. At least then we will have all the sides represented and once the hysterical "feminists"1 settle down, perhaps it will be possible to have a national discussion on just what kind of a society we want to be.

RH

Link to article - I link to the comments page in the title of the blog page. Interview Transcript: Charlotte Allen on Outlook Article, Reaction

Feminists Run The Schools - Teach Anti-Male Hate - Note From RH. When my son was in the 4th or 5th grade in Cupertino, California I gave a ride home to a sixth grade boy my son rode bikes with. I had asked the two how their day at school had gone, and we came to discuss the school principal. It might have been that my son had gotten in trouble, I can't remember exactly. This 6th grade boy then made the comment that Mrs. Zellner doesn't like boys. (Mrs. Zellner being the school principal). I thought this was a very odd remark and asked him why? He said, "I don't know, she just doesn't. She always gets the boys in trouble." At the time I didn't take it very seriously - I was holding down a full-time job and didn't have time to ponder the state of male/female relationships in public schools.

Then came the episode where this principal recommended putting my son on medication to stop his disruptive behavior. I didn't, thank god, and my son grew up just fine. (I do not mean to imply that there are not children who have a real disorder and who need medication. Just that as a parent, approach this with skepticism, and for god's sake get a doctor to do the diagnosis, not a principal with a feminist agenda. )

That episode started me thinking, but I wrote it off to be THAT PRINCIPAL and not a growing national trend. I still don't know how prevalent it is within our schools, but I have heard some pretty disgusting stories. Too bad we don't have people in society who look into this sort of thing, professionally, I mean, as their job.

Be an American: Hate Modern Feminism

When Rape Fantasies Involve Conservative Women, Feminists Are Silent

The Catalogue of Anti-Male Shaming Tactics

Picture This: September 11, Multiculturalism, and the War on White Male Heroes
1 Yes, this is an intentional jab meant to get a rise out of hysterical feminists.

2 comments:

The Glamorous Housewife said...

I tried to find the article you are discussing and I couldn't find it. Do you have a link?

Retro Housewife said...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/29/AR2008022902992.html

Link to the article...