Speak for yourself, Dennis:
As a result of the repudiation of Judeo-Christian values, we are witnessing the ascendance of the feminine in Western society.
You can almost hear the lisp in his voice as he hisses out the word "feminine". It is from such men that the equation of "feminine" with "weak" was born, and Dennis will do nothing to gainsay that persistent nonsense. However, lest you think he's dissin' the ladies, dig this:
There are two reasons for this. One is the overriding belief in equality, which to those who reject Judeo-Christian values means sameness. Judeo-Christian values emphatically affirm the equality of the sexes. In fact, given that the creation story in Genesis proceeds from primitive to elevated, the last creation, woman, can easily be seen as the most elevated of the creations. Every man knows how much a good woman helps him transcend his animal nature.
If there is one complete dead-ass cert in the history of reactionary anti-feminist conservativism, it is that any time anyone, be they Phyllis Schlafly or Dave Sim, is about to launch into an acid fulmination against the evils that women do to a society that naturally should be men's, they preface it by saying that of COURSE, they think women are GREAT. In fact, women are BETTER than men! Why, without women, men would still be living in caves, ha ha! (Ronald Reagan made this very statement, in fact, to a Republican women's conference, to their great lack of amusement.) So, you know. Don't think we're sexist or anything! Women are in fact "the most elevated of the creations", says Dennis! Now shut up and listen, he adds, as I explain why everything about them is bad and that they're turning us into a nation fallen.
The truth is that men and women are profoundly different. One of these differences is that women generally have a more difficult time transcending their emotions than men.
Reason, you see. It's not just a made-up thing that humans invented to give them justification for what they were going to do anyway: it's a real and eternal thing, with its own absolute reality, and it's the reason that men, who have controlled society in most of the world for the last 10,000 years, have launched so many rational endeavors, like the Spanish Inquisition and the Holocaust and global war and innumerable genocides and nationalist crusades. And, I dunno, foot-binding. Women, on the other hand, are governed by their emotions, probably because of The Curse, and so they can't think up grand schemes like these, schemes unsullied by the stench of emotion.
There are, of course, millions of individual women -- such as Margaret Thatcher -- who are far more rational than many men
Another nearly ironclad rule of conservative anti-feminist writing: whenever you want to pretend that you think women are human, cite as your example Margaret Thatcher. She was extremely 'rational', because she made lots of positive, forward-looking, unemotional decisions like dismantling the welfare system in England because poor people should have to fend for themselves, crippling its educational system because it wasn't profitable enough, and launching a pointless war against Argentina because the honor of the motherland must never be smirched.
but that only makes these women's achievements all the more admirable. It hardly invalidates the proposition.
Make no mistake: just because SOME women are able to claw their way out of the smothering sheath of menstrually-based overemotionality, doesn't mean that at the core, women aren't generally a bunch of weak sob sisters who can't be trusted to start a war against a South American country for no good reason.
Far more common than Margaret Thatcher's rationality was the emotionality of the women jurors in the Menendez brothers' trials. All six women jurors in the Erik Menendez trial voted to acquit him of the murder of his father (all six males voted guilty of murder). A virtually identical breakdown by sex took place in the Lyle Menendez trial for the murder of their mother. The women all had compassion for the brothers despite their confessions to the shotgun murders of their parents.
See? Weak. When people need killin', it's a man who needs to kill. Trust some frail to do it, and what do you get? You get a couple of greasy rotten punks serving two consecutive life sentences without possibility of parole, instead of in a wet hole in the ground where they belong.
Women's emotionality, when unchecked, can wreak havoc on those closest to these women and on society as a whole -- when emotions and compassion dominate in making public policy.
See, that's our problem as a society: too much compassion.
That is why the further left you go, the greater the antipathy to those who make war. Indeed, universities, the embodiment of feminist emotionality and anti-Judeo-Christian values, ban military recruiters and oppose war-themed names for their sports teams.
Colleges, obviously, are denying their rightful role as training centers for soldiers.
A sentiment such as "War is not the answer" embodies leftist feminine emotionality. The statement is, after all, utter nonsense, as many of the greatest evils -- from Nazi totalitarianism and genocide to slavery -- were quite effectively "answered" by war.
Also quite effectively "started" by war, BUT THAT'S NOT IMPORTANT RIGHT NOW.
(Virtually every car I ever have seen display the bumper sticker "War is not the answer" was driven by a woman.)
Also, have you noticed that women are really bad drivers? Ha ha ha! FUCKING BITCHES
The response of one of the leading women professors who attended Harvard President Lawrence Summers' talk aptly illustrates this point. As The Boston Globe reported, Nancy Hopkins, a biologist at Massachusetts Institute of Technology, "walked out on Summers' talk, saying later that if she hadn't left, 'I would've either blacked out or thrown up.'" It is difficult to imagine a male MIT professor, even another leftist, walking out of a lecture and saying that he had to lest he vomit or faint.
Because, you see, men are not prone to spells of vomiting or faintness. Women are weak of body and character, and that is why they must wear corsets.
In the micro realm, the feminine virtues are invaluable -- for example, women hear infants' cries far more readily than men do.
HE'S NOT SEXIST, people. He LIKES women. We need them, because they can shut the baby up while we're busy with the lathe.
That is one reason our schools are in trouble. They are increasingly run by women -- women with female thinking moreover.
FUCKING BITCHES. They don't even have the good sense to be women with MALE thinking! Like Margaret Thatcher!
Such thinking leads to papers no longer being graded with a red pencil lest students' feelings be hurt
Now you get your 'F' in soothing blue.
to banning games such as dodge ball in which participants' feelings may get hurt
What kind of world do we live in where those castrating shrews have made it so you can't throw a ball into some squeaky little faggot's face just because you might break his nose and hurt his precious-wecious widdle "feelings"? Next thing they'll be telling us no more Smear-The-Queer!
to discouraging male competition
Yes, nowhere in American schools can male competition be found. Search for it in vain, o fallen warriors.
to banning peanut butter because two out of a thousand students are highly allergic to peanuts
Let them die, the sissy little shits! I want my Snickers bar!
In a masculine society governed by Judeo-Christian values (which include a masculine-depicted and compassionate God), feminine virtues are adored and honored. In a feminized society, male virtues are discarded. Then both sexes suffer. Just one more consequence of the war against Judeo-Christian values.
God is a MAN, DAMMIT!
Here endeth the lesson.