When I read what the gals at Bread n Roses, I wonder if they even know so-con women.
Because their descriptions of them have nothing to with any of the ones I know, certainly not with me. I don't think they have the first clue about the thought processes of socially conservative women.
Now, to give them some of the benefit of the doubt, they may very well have met the so-con women that they've described. And I can't say that I know every kind of so-con woman there is. I tend to know conservative Catholics.
But some of the things they write about so-con women are patently absurd, in my view.
And here at BnR, we are lucky to have the good guys. The men who like to hang out with outspoken women.
To be a so-con activist, you have to be outspoken. There's no other way. Social conservative women can be very outspoken.
Oh, I know the next thought in their heads: it must be because they're doing what they're told by male authority figures.
Honestly, NOBODY and I mean NOBODY is putting me up to this. This blog, my participation in the pro-life movement, my writings, NOBODY is saying I have to do this, or that I have to say this.
Everything on my website, on my blog and on the message boards comes straight from me.
I wonder what they consider to be the social interactions that lead up to a so-con woman becoming a pro-life activist. Do they seriously believe that their husbands wake them up one morning and say "honey, you're going to go to this pro-life demostration and say these things". Their conception of social conservative women is utterly simplistic.
And they claim to speak for all women?
I don't know if I could ever convince feminists that social conservative women can be just as independent as social liberals. When you have a bogey-man called the patriarchy to explain away any non-socially liberal behaviour, it's hard to get them out of that mindset. It's like when certain communists are confronted with non-communist beliefs, they call it "false consciousness". People are only deluding themselves into thinking what they think.
You can't make people see otherwise if that's what they believe.
brebis noire wrote:
I've had a few very wonderful men as mentors and bosses and they taught me as much or more as they would've done for any guy. They were really something.
(And of course, if it weren't for feminism, all of that learning and exchange would not have taken place. So stick that in your pipes and smoke it, so-con ladies
There's this notion among feminists that if you are an anti-feminist, that means you have ZERO common ground with feminists.
There's also the idea that because a movement has brought some good changes, you are eternally obliged to support it.
There are many people in the world who are anti-Christian, but they have common ground with Christians. Take these feminists. Christianity introduced the notion that women are equal by nature to the world, and that implies that they should be no moral double standard.
If we apply this poster's logic, all these feminists should be Christian.
Of course it doesn't work that way. An individual can agree with some parts of a movement, while opposing it in general. It is not illogical to do so.
Gigi writes:
I am also confused as to why women advancing in the world equals dragging men down?
This statement hinges on the definition of "equal".
For the feminist, if women are not given the exact same outcome as men, they are not equal.
It's pure foolishness. It can never happen. For one thing, you cannot have women be 50% of all professions. Not even close. Women are prone, by psychological and biological makeup to prefer some jobs and not others. They do not want to make up 50% of all welders and waste management executives. Secondly, it's a fact of life that women have the kids, and they will be responsible for childbearing, they like childbearing, in general, and they will not all individually merit the same professional status as men. Collectively speaking, women will not attain the same level of professional advancement as men. A woman who has taken two years off to have kids is set back two years in her seniority. She has not merited those two years.
Feminists see this as a problem. I see this as a fact of life. The implication is that it is somehow WRONG that women cannot attain the same level of professional status as men because of their own choices. I say that's fine. Whenever you make a choice, there's an opportunity cost. You are not entitled to the consequences of the choice you DIDN'T make, i.e. stay in the job and not take time off to have kids.
The whole system of requiring that there be equal outcomes is part of what drags everyone down.
The solutions to this problem are not conducive to either men or women.
Affirmative action is one example of how it "drags men down". A woman is strong enough to get the job, but people who push affirmative action are dragging men down when they approve of less qualified women taking the job.
Another example: make it a requirement for universities to have 50% of students in the hard sciences be women. There's nothing wrong with women entering the hard sciences. Some women are very talented in that field.. But most women prefer a discipline that involves some kind of emotional connection or dealing with the public. I'm not putting women down by saying this, it's an objective fact. Why drive women into disciplines that they don't prefer in the first place? Sure, it might make them more money, but will they be any happier? And will displacing men, who are more prone to liking hard sciences make things better?
Another example of how feminism drags men down: the constant male bashing. Saying one loves the men in one's life does not detract from the implication in the feminist discourse that women's ills are the fault of men and that these ills have their origins in masculinity. If the patriarchy is the root of all evil, somebody must be at fault.
anne cameron writes:
The thing I don't "get", and which puzzled the very bejayzus out of me is this learned helplessness or dependency some people develop. And yes, mostly these people are women, and mostly they are so-con women, but not exclusively.
I don't know anyone who's learned "helplessness". Dependency? I think all humans depend on people, and if they don't, their desire for self-reliance is exaggerated. Men need women just as women need men. Men just won't come out and say it.
k'in writes:
The fact that men & women, as equals, can have wonderful platonic friendships is a foreign concept to a socon woman.
Again with the outdated stereotypes.
Men and women can have platonic relationships. But it's not always a good idea that they do so. Some men and women have zero chemistry with one another. But some men and women who are friends,do. It's not a good idea, in that case. That's how adultery often begins. I suspect things like avoiding adultery aren't high on a list of priorities for them. But if you value faithfulness, you do not the things that do not lead down an emotional path of too great an emotional involvement.
I just find it interesting that I'm still getting traffic for my post on "angry" so-con women. I suspect that a number of Bread n Roses posters are googling my blog name (judging from my sitemeter), or they access the blog while masking their IP, because I get a lot of traffic from "unknown" IP's when I publish these posts on Bread n Roses. Then I read the board and find some of the points I've touched upon just happened to be addressed.
I'm glad I'm getting all this traffic. There's nothing I like more than an audience. I just find it interesting that the point of Bread n Roses was to create a haven away from so-cons like me. Now, they're still all safe on their board, no nasty remarks from me to deal with-- and I don't begrudge them for that, it's natural to want to commune with kindred spirits-- I just find it quaint that some of them would seek out my blog. And then address what I've written. Like they feel there's a need for rebuttal.
I have an inkling that they might be having a conversation in the background about what is written-- somewhere my I don't or can't go. Perhaps through PM's, chats, or possiby even a private board.
There must be something about this blog.
UPDATE: They're linking to me now. I thought it was a policy of lefty message boards not to link to so-con sites.
UPDATE #2:
Updated October 25th at 2:25 pm Eastern.
Will someone kindly inform Mandos that the comment they made did not make it to my moderation file? It has not been censored.
