Thursday, March 2, 2017

Feminism, Women’s Liberation, And Reality

     If you haven’t yet acquainted yourself with romance writer and commentator Bre Faucheux, repent of your sins and get over there at once. Her YouTube channel is equally to be valued. Here’s a recent, piercingly important piece from it:

     Bre speaks in parallel to many of the points made by Hans G. Schantz in his novel The Hidden Truth. (Remember this segment? I doubt I’ll ever forget it.) Much of the unhappiness contemporary American women suffer stems directly from the acceptance of Women’s Lib / Feminist dogmas:

  • That women who accept the traditional feminine role – see here for details – are “oppressed;”
  • That paying work is more important than marriage, homemaking, and motherhood;
  • That the benefits conferred by a wage job justify leaving one’s children in the care of third parties.

     Numerous studies and surveys suggest that those dogmas are at the heart of American domestic malaise. Women who accept them have more trouble finding life partners, have fewer children with statistically more birth defects and other maladies, and often spend their latter years regretting the choices of their youth.

     Men are being negatively affected by this bilge, as well. Many are straining to find wives who will give them children and a home to defend and value. Some are straining to find reasons to be involved with women at all. Given the legal system’s hostility toward men, some have decided not to bother.

     Feminism and Women’s Liberation were born in East Coast universities, encouraged along by socialist and communist activists who perceived the value to their causes, and spread by indoctrination – often buttressed by complete falsehoods – to female students unlucky enough to come under the allegiants’ tutelage. Here’s but one example of how stridently demanding the apostles can be. Though there’s been some reaction against this, notably in “heartland America” where the influence of coastal trends is lessened, the matter is grave. The damage it’s done is massive, and unlikely to be repaired in a generation or two.


     If you remember this essay, you surely remember the embedded citation from E. William Brown’s Black Coven. The longer I ponder it, the more certain I become that one of Brown’s major reasons for writing the book was to depict a society in which women behave naturally: i.e., in accord with a woman’s innate abilities, characteristics, and drives. He notes more than once how much happier are the women of that world than those of the world from which he came (ours).

     Have another snippet from the same book. Wizard Daniel Black has arisen for the day – the previous evening having been spent, ah, productively; see the snippets from the previously linked tirade — and is about to greet one of his coven-mates:

     Cerise was lounging in the tub with the jets on, her head lolling on the rim and her eyes half closed. I waved Tina toward the showers and walked over to surprise her with a kiss.
     “Mmmm. Hey, stud,” she purred. “You have a good night? You’re looking kinda worn out there.”
     “So are you, Cerise.”
     “Yeah, my girl was a little needy last night,” she agreed. “But I took care of her. Oh shit! Tina, is that you?”
     “That’s right, Cerise. Daniel marked me good, didn’t he?” She pranced over to the tub and twirled to show off her new additions.
     “Guess you got promoted too, if you’re in here and using first names. So are you the big lug’s mistress now, or did he get kinky and go for harem girl?”
     “Mistress!” She beamed. It’s like a dream come true, Cerise. I never thought I’d be lucky enough to have a great wizard’s babies.”
     “Babies? You lucky girl! Hey Daniel, what do I have to do to get you to knock me up too?”
     “Ahem. I, uh, didn’t realize that was something you wanted, Cerise.”
     Tina giggled. “Silly man. What woman doesn’t want babies?”

     Pretty in-your-face about it, eh? Mind you, Cerise is a half-demon who gets her power by consuming the souls of the enemies she kills. Now enjoy this snippet from the sequel, Extermination. Daniel is discussing his witches’ family plans and their impact on the home he’s built for them:

     I gestured to the empty wing across the field. “That, my dear, is enough space for a couple dozen rebellious teenagers and all their personal hobbies. I have to admit I’m afraid [Tina and Avilla] are going to get into a contest over who can have the most children, but if they do we’ll be ready for it.”
     Tina beamed up at me. “Thank you, Daniel. That’s perfect.”
     Elin’s expression turned wistful. “I see. Yes, that’s probably a wise decision on your part. Even Cerise has expressed a certain eagerness in that regard, despite the fact that it would mean an absence from the battlefield. If they have the longevity I expect, the three of them could eventually produce quite a large family.”
     Tina’s brow furrowed in concern. “Just the three of us? What about you, Elin?”
     “There are already enough monsters in the world, Tina,” Elin said, sounding a bit dejected. “I see no reason why I should add to their numbers.”
     Tina blinked at her uncertainly for a moment, obviously struggling to figure out what she meant. Then she got it and frowned.
     “Oh, stop it,” she said crossly. “Elin, you’re smarter than that. Cerise is more of a monster than you’ll ever be, and you don’t hear her moping around feeling sorry for herself.”
     “Cerise doesn’t get hungry when she looks at children,” Elin objected.
     Tina was completely unfazed. “No, she just hungers for souls. Is that supposed to be better? What have you done that’s so terrible?”

     And in the interests of getting you to read the books, the three of which are inexpensive and endlessly entertaining, I shall omit to tell you what Elin, a half-faerie / half-grendelkin who was truly raised to be a monster, is so ashamed of. Suffice it to say that she, too, would love to have babies – the babies of the strongest sorcerer in the world, who healed her of a mortal injury that defied all other remedies without asking recompense, beyond all question the best man she’s ever known: Daniel’s babies. Even though that’s what Tina will soon have and Cerise and Avilla seek with equal fervor.

     I trust the point is made.


     When feminism was strictly about acquiring equality before the law, it was harmless, even beneficial. The trouble began when Women’s Liberation arose to corrupt it. The combination has morphed over the years into a completely toxic brew that, if not defeated to the point of extinction, could doom this nation.

     To that end, both sides – men and women – must be willing to give a little:

  • Women must cease to regard (and treat) men as the enemy, inherently predatory creatures who seek only to use women for our own purposes.
  • Men must cease to regard sex as freely available without commitment.
  • Women must regard wage employment as something to be sought only if necessary: i.e., should they fail to find a suitable husband or should the family come on hard times that can be redressed in no other way.
  • Men must cease to expect their wives to contribute financially to the household.
  • Both sexes must return to the original Western treatment of marriage as an enduring bond that demands devotion, patience, endurance, and humility from both spouses. Divorce must once again be stigmatized as a sign of failure on the part of the divorcing spouses.
  • Abortion, whether or not it remains legal, must be regarded with horror and revulsion.
  • May I also suggest a return to the “family that prays together?” I hope so. Note how much stronger are the marriages and families of Christian and Jewish spouses who take their faiths seriously and pass them on, as gently as possible, to their progeny.

     The reality of our time demands nothing less, for Western Civilization is dying from failure to reproduce. In failing thus it’s making great holes in the world, vacua that the savage and amoral are eager to fill; one need only look at Europe in this Year of Our Lord 2017 to see the consequences. I submit that the reasons are on open display. Whether we’ll act on what’s before our eyes is the only remaining question.

5 comments:

  1. I have a female acquaintance who is 'of a certain age' who says'We used to be superior but now we're just equal'. Perhaps this explains why the women's 'liberation' has prove so disastrous for women. They've been liberated right out of being the family nexus/glue and into cubicle slavery. Nice.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Yes, you're entirely correct. One of the reasons I started writing was because I saw so much absurd propaganda in the way female characters are written today, and I wanted to show the younger generation something a little closer to reality. Of course, Daniel Black's story is specifically an experiment to see if I could make a 'harem' story that's actually a good story, with plausible character motivations and interactions instead of the weird nonsense that sort of tale usually relies on.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Good to see you here, William. I hope the fourth "Daniel Black" book is progressing nicely. I'm eager to read it.

    ReplyDelete
  4. "...one need only look at Europe in this Year of Our Lord 2017 to see the consequences..."

    Why travel so far from home? The U.S.A. has more than enough "sanctuary cities" and distraught urban centers to illustrate what happens when "the savage and amoral" occupy the holes left when - no way around it - Whites take flight. Now that, in combination with aborting 55 million (legal-) Americans, how could we be anywhere other than on the brink of Civilizational extinction?

    Oh, wait...Mexico, er, Mexicans (and now Muslims) to the "rescue."

    For some reason ("tax revenues"?) Uncle Sam felt it was better to enable degeneracy (so streets could become welfare-fueled gang-war zones) and turn a blind-eye (and defang Border Patrol) to invading Mexicans+++ (unlimited illegals awaiting suburban contractors at Home Depot) than "suffer" a stalled (Euro-) American population (i.e. White, again).

    "Feminism" was benign once, just as "Islam-in-America" is still still somewhat benign (yet the Muslim Bro-hood has even bigger Big-Plans than the Marxist 1960's ladies could "concieve" of). Those Big-Plans (every "underground" Totalitarian ideology has their own adgendas and timetables) REQUIRE subterfuge; require a Trojan-horse/frog-in-water strategy to soften the Host (country). Feminism used the egotistical appeal to "you're so much better/smarter/more capable than mere diapers & dishpans," then graduated to the nuclear-family-destroying Invisible/Omnipotent-Hand-of-Oppressive-Patriarchy, which translated means: (All)Women-Must-Rebel-Against-All-Men...NOW, as Karen Straughan identified it in "The Red Pill."

    There is CLEARLY a "100th monkey" thing happening along these Trad-Wife/Trad-family lines. The Eve-of-Extinction vibe is bubbling up from our collective unconscious out into our conscious minds. Look at all the folks talking out loud about it! Heck, I even gave up my egotistical first+last blog-name for "Housewife 3.0." (A novella-in-planning will illustrate what I believe is a completely new Theory of Female- & thereby Relationship-Contentedness applicable to the current-year and beyond!).

    Of course it's no coincidence that, given a strong masculine candidate-turned-President like Donald Trump, more of us are following his example of formulating bold ideas followed by actually putting them into action!

    ReplyDelete
  5. Just wanted to thank you for the reference to Brown's work. I've now read all three Daniel Black books and am looking forward to the next.

    I do have one minor complaint though. The author's tendency to say "Cerise and I" when it should be "Cerise and me" threw me out of the story every time I ran into it. The I/me thing apparently eludes many people:-(.

    ReplyDelete

Comments are moderated. I am entirely arbitrary about what I allow to appear here. Toss me a bomb and I might just toss it back with interest. You have been warned.