In response to “Such a Nasty Marxist,” my Canadian friend, David Maharaj, reminds me that repulsive as female feminists are, male ones are even worse.
I couldn’t agree more. My thanks go out to all you manly men who’ve resisted, defied, mocked, ignored or otherwise trashed the feminists’ toxic agenda. Are you still opening doors for ladies, yielding your seats to them, or standing when they enter the room? Thank you. Are you teaching your sons to treat women with true respect rather than with the brutal “equality” that feminism dictates? Kudos to you. Do you refuse to deny the obvious differences in the sexes despite PC’s orders to the contrary? Bravo! Do you revel in your God-given physical strength, your masculine orientation, your courage, honor, initiative and other male traits? Way to go! Do you love your wife as Christ does His Church, protecting her and your home and children as God designed you to do? May He richly bless you in this difficult task!
America desperately needs many things: repentance and spiritual revival, love of liberty, rejection of all Marxism. But among our most devastating shortages are manly men who will vanquish the cultural and political nonsense enslaving us.
Now, gentlemen, go lift some weights and smoke a few cigars.
Becky is, to judge from what she writes, a solid libertarian, and definitely not of the bleeding heart variety, but there is more than a whiff of oblivious privilege in what she wrote today.
I don't necessarily disagree with the first sentence, but after that she descends into an unbecoming display of female entitlement. Everything she talks about are traditional male obligations that provide women with certain traditional privileges. These developed in concert with certain traditional female obligations that gave men some traditional privileges, but she makes no mention of these and indeed they disappeared from society some time ago. Shall we bring them back? Ms. Akers doesn’t tell us either way, and the omission, to one who has taken the Red Pill, is rather glaring.
What possible benefit does she think she is going to get if men open all her doors? Is she that keen on saving the one tenth of a calorie that would burn up if she had to make the effort herself? Can she not simply eat an extra peanut each morning to stock up on all the energy she will need to open her own doors in a society where male privileges no longer exist?
Men giving up their seats to perfectly healthy women does provide something more of a palpable benefit, which makes it all the more maddening that she argues for it without a hint of any sort of obligation that women might have towards men. Why should men have to stand while women get to sit on a crowded subway? As a thank you for privileges afforded, such as in times past, it makes some sense. But without compensating female obligations, it feels more like some sort of Original Sin that men are born into and for which we must atone.
Blacks being forced to give up seats for whites on a bus, to hold open doors for whites, to put themselves in danger to protect whites, would be seen as gross racism, as a society of unequals, where whites were first class citizens and blacks were second class citizens, if citizens at all. However, if we also forced whites to cook for blacks, to clean their houses and to provide baby sitter services for blacks with children, the situation becomes a matter of personal taste. Maybe you like the tradeoffs or maybe you don't, but at the very least there are tradeoffs. Becky Akers does not so much as nod her head in the direction of any sort of tradeoff, nor does she provide any reasoning as to why men should stand while women get to sit. She merely cheers on the sad schmucks who continue to toil long after their salaries ceased to be paid out.
If opening the door for women provides the barest of tangible benefits, men standing when women enter the room provides none whatsoever. Standing upon another’s entrance is what inferiors do for superiors. We stand when judges enter the room; we stand when the president enters the room; we stand when our boss enters the room. It seems to me that not all of these are legitimate, but they all serve the purpose of physically reinforcing a hierarchy, of reminding the inferior of his place, of getting him to believe in and accept his own inferiority.
What possible purpose does it serve for men to stand when a woman enters the room, but for no one to stand when a man enters, if not to enforce an idea of female superiority and gynocentrism? When I enter a room it’s with a purpose, and I neither need people to stand to acknowledge my presence nor hold the door for me when I leave. I wish only to accomplish my purpose and then make tracks for the next room, where my next goal lies. If I were a monarch I would be annoyed by the entourage of attendants and courtiers and other hangers-on who performed such empty formalities.
If women want me to stand when they enter a room, then I must insist that they kneel and perform that labor which God in His wisdom saw fit to make so many women loathe to do. There is no contract without consideration on both sides. If you can’t provide what I’m looking for, ladies, then you’ll just have to subsist on mere freedom of movement and forego those delusions of royalty burdening your ego.