Category Archives: Fempire

The Problem With #MeToo

10 Wednesday Jan 2018

Posted by in Fempire, Red Pill

≈ 103 Comments

Tags

, , , , , , ,

The #metoo movement that was aimed at apparently empowering women is ironically doing just the opposite. Now I am not talking about cases where the #metoo refers to actual rape or sexual assault here. I am not denying such things occur, and they are not OK.

But when #metoo starts going into the realm of, “a guy looked at me that I didn’t want to look at me,” well that’s just stupid. That’s not aggression. That’s not micro aggression. That’s just stupid.

Or even if a man approaches and asks one out, and the gal isn’t interested? That’s not aggression. That’s not micro aggression. That’s just not a match. Whatever happened to saying, “Thanks but I am not interested,” and moving on?

Why after 40-plus years of empowerment and independence are women increasingly seeming to become even less able to handle the world they live in than ever?

Reducing #metoo to every incident where a guy one isn’t interested in looking at one or approaching one becomes elevated to the same level as true sexual assault or rape is absurd.

Maybe women could try being less triggered. Maybe women could take ownership of their own emotional regulation rather than expect the whole world to tiptoe around them?

Isn’t that what being strong, independent, and empowered means? Able to handle life?

Either women need to be under the constant protection, lock, and guard of an outside controlling force or they don’t. The actions and hysteria of some women of late seems to imply some may be incapable of managing.

Is that really the direction we want things to go? I know I sure don’t.

What do you think? Please share in the comments.

.

 

 

Advertisements

False Idols

17 Sunday Dec 2017

Posted by in Fempire, Red Pill

≈ 272 Comments

Tags

, , , ,

One of the women my mom held up as an example of all a woman could do and be was Gloria Vanderbilt. My mom admired her New York social scene, her career as a fashion designer, her success and acclaim.

I really didn’t know much about her myself, except that she released a line of blue jeans that was fairly successful, and designed clothing. I had always assumed she started her company and built her success from the ground up.

Well, last night during some random insomnia web surfing, I came across the full story. Gloria Vanderbilt was actually born into immense wealth, the granddaughter of a railroad baron, the child of her father who rather than be a titan himself had lived a playboy lifestyle and drank himself to death by his early 40s, leaving his barely 19-year-old bride and 18 month old daughter behind.

Gloria was raised by her mother until the age of 10 when she was the subject of a bitter custody battle between her aunt and mother. While her mother traveled the world living off the interest of Gloria’s trust fund ($5 million at the time, which made little Gloria along with her older half sister one of the richest women in the world at age 21), Gloria was apparently largely raised by a nanny who had concerns about the child’s environment.  Allegations of neglect and immoral behavior on her mother’s part, combined with testimony by young Gloria herself, ended up with her being placed in the custody of her aunt, her father sister.

From there she attended exclusive schools and was raised in a family that owned multiple homes on Fifth Avenue in New York, including one that took up an entire New York city block.

Now I don’t mean to take away from what Gloria did with her life, or to imply she did not have her own crosses to bear — including the early loss of her father, the early years with(out) her mother, multiple failed marriages, one son who disowned her, and a son who killed himself in his 20s — but for her to be painted as a role model for what the average gal could achieve with moxie and hard work was, to say the least, disingenuious.

It makes me wonder what the background of many of the other early “successful career women” is. Were they also women who started with means and status far above the usual? I will have to look into it as time allows.

In any case, beware false idols. Things are not always what they are portrayed to be.

What do you think? Please share in the comments!

Embrace Womanhood

30 Thursday Nov 2017

Posted by in Fempire, Red Pill

≈ 78 Comments

Tags

, , , , , ,

If like me you were raised to fit the feminist mold, you may have been discouraged from acting in ways that were too “traditionally feminine.” I know I was, and to this day I still struggle to put back the pieces of that part of my identity.

I was told that it was better to be strong, independent, and “more like a man” than to act like a woman. How ironic that feminism taught females that being a woman was somehow lesser than being a man!

I was taught that if I acted “too much” like a female I would be oppressed, victimized, harassed, and not taken seriously. And of course I didn’t want that to happen!

So I avoided acting or dressing “too feminine,” opting for loose-fitting or androgynous clothing instead. I did wear make up and style my hair modestly, but was careful not to try to look “too pretty” so that it didn’t overshadow or detract from my intelligence or personality. In fact I very much downplayed my looks.

I took shop class instead of home economics. I avoided learning “traditional feminine skills.” I was told by teachers to avoid typing class, for instance, because if I knew how to type, I would always be, “just a secretary.” I did all sorts of things trying to learn how to win in a “man’s world” and shedding my womanly nature somehow seemed to be key in that.

A movie that I remember from childhood that captures the zeitgeist of that time was “Nine to Five.” I forget the entire plot line but in it three female characters struggle to be taken seriously in the work world. All are taken advantage of in one way or another by their male boss, but perhaps most of all was Dolly Parton’s character, the feminine, big busted, big hearted blonde who was regulated to secretarial roles where she was mostly lustfully eyeballed by her male collegues and anything she had to add or contribute was automatically dismissed because of how she looked.

Of course I didn’t want to end up like that!

Fast forward several decades and I have now come to realize that these beliefs, perhaps however well intended, ended up causing me to view the world as a dangerous, sexist place, where I would never truly be taken seriously, would have to fight for everything twice as hard as a man, would likely be taken advantage of, and treated unfairly. And why wouldn’t I believe it? Everyone told me it was so!

What a negative and suspicious lens to view the world through! I imagined boogymen who didn’t exist, barriers that weren’t there, often misread situations. In retrospect, thinking that all men were out to thwart me, or worse harm me, was a really bad space to approach life from.

So I have been working hard since realizing all this to embrace womanhood. To be ok with being born an XX. To not view it as a negative, or some kind of lifelong handicap.

And just when I think I have overcome, made peace with it all, something will happen or a situation will arise and I will realize just how deeply embedded that programming is. It still is lurking there, urging me to not be OK with who I am. Whispering that if I dare, I will pay, and that bad things will happen, opportunities will be missed.

I hope young women today aren’t being raised to reject themselves as I was, a child in the 70s and 80s. Because there’s nothing wrong with being female. With being a woman. With being feminine.

And anyone who is telling girls or women that is the actual sexist, the true woman hater, the real misogynist.

I hope that someday I can truly embrace all this to the core of my soul. In the meantime I do my best to remind myself daily and often that there’s nothing wrong with me just being me, no matter what anyone says.  I am equal, and I always have been.

What do you think? Please share in the comments.

(p.s. In a similar way, men of my generation and since were raised that being a male or masculine was somehow “wrong,” too. Ironic, isn’t it? While women were being raised to be “more like boys” boys were being raised to be “more like girls.” How nutty is that?!?!?)

 

 

 

A French Take on Feminism

30 Thursday Mar 2017

Posted by in Fempire

≈ 40 Comments

Tags

, , , , , , , ,

Hello all, I am still very busy with real life projects but all is going well, GREAT in fact! 🙂

So to keep things going, here’s a video from Marion Le Pen (the even more outspoken niece of Marine Le Pen, who is running for the leader of France) and her take on feminism. Watch. Consider. Discuss.

Do you think she is right? Too much? Not enough? Please share in the comments!

Ladies or Warriors?

06 Monday Feb 2017

Posted by in Fempire, Red Pill

≈ 94 Comments

Tags

, , , , , ,

A post on a friend’s Facebook page caught my eye. Here’s the image:

13934609_1233376443362548_8530676575235303698_n

Now I am sure my friend just thought, “That’s right, you go guuuurl!” and re-posted it without much thought.  She likely didn’t mean any harm.

But let’s talk a closer look, and think more critically about the message in the image. (I was relieved to see the comments attached to the image did point much of this out, yay red pill commenters!)

First of all, the image has a “Mad Max” type feel. This is not an image of a little girl living in a safe and stable civilization. So that right there is not a good thing, as girls in such a situation would most likely be subjected to abuse, rape, kidnapping, and other horrible treatment in such a doomsday scenario.

Secondly, women are designed to bring life into the world, and to nurture and sustain life, not to take life. If this little girl were to die in battle, her tribe loses far more than if she was able to reach adulthood and help her tribe gain in number and strength.

There’s a red pill saying that, “sperm is cheap, eggs are expensive.”  What that means is that men are more “expendable” from a biological standpoint. One male can impregnate many women, carrying on his genetic lineage, while a female can only bear one child at a time, and at great personal risk and cost, especially in a scenario like the above where there likely would be no medical help!

Now, expendable is not the same as unnecessary or unimportant or optional. Men are certainly a key part of a functioning, safe society. Their natural role as provider and protector is a noble one. (As is the female role, as the giver of life.)

To die in battle for your tribe is indeed the highest sacrifice a man can make. Likewise, a female having children for her tribe is the highest sacrifice she can make. This is why females dying in battle is not a gain to the tribe, it is a huge loss.

This is true in many cases in the animal world as well. For example, I keep chickens. In a flock, the rooster is the only one who looks around and up for danger. The hens are completely oblivious, relying on him to sound the alarm if trouble approaches. When it does, the rooster will literally throw himself in the path of danger to allow the hens to escape safely back to the coop. I have had several roosters give their life in this way, trying to fight off a coyote or wayward dog. Interestingly, the hens (whose eggs are fertilized weeks before they are laid) will then immediately start a nest, I assume to replace the missing rooster they have just lost. It’s also important to note, without a rooster, the coyote or dog will kill the entire flock of hens, who do not even see it coming.

And finally, encouraging women to be fighters instead of lovers does not prepare them well for the role of wife or mother. Brash argumentative uppity women are unpleasant to be around, and struggle to maintain relationships. Not good for her, her mate, or her children! (Also note, being a lady has the exact opposite effect!)

Not that women can’t fight if needed, but it is usually not the go to. Even the strongest women have trouble holding their own against an average man. If it is down to women doing the fighting, things are very bad indeed!

In any case, while such images today are meant to “empower” women to be strong and self sufficient, under examination such thinking really isn’t in the best interest of anyone, including the little girls being told to “be a warrior!”

Let those who have ears hear.

What do you think? Please share in the comments!

 

 

Be a Class Act

01 Wednesday Feb 2017

Posted by in Fempire, Uncategorized

≈ 28 Comments

Tags

, , , , , ,

Remember when it was considered a GOOD thing to act like a lady?

Apparently these days the feral woman is more the cultural standard, and IMHO it is a real loss.

My advice is to not sink to the level of the average woman, but rise above and be a class act. Not only will you stand out among the shrieking masses of hysterical women shouting expletives right in front of small children, you’ll also be taking a small personal stand for decency.

And when other women act like they have been raised on the streets, please join me in calling them out (constructively) on their bad behavior. Somebody has to! And let’s face it, these women are not going to listen to anything a man has to say.

I know it is like trying to fight the tide, but a civilization without civility just doesn’t work.

Let those who have ears hear.

Have some stories of women behaving well or badly to share? Please add them in the comments!

 

Reverse the Message

23 Monday Jan 2017

Posted by in Fempire, Red Pill

≈ 37 Comments

Tags

Was the Women’s March really about women’s rights?

One poster featured a Muslim woman with her head draped in an American flag. Did any of the marchers proudly brandishing that poster stop to think what would likely happen to a woman in many Muslim countries who did such a thing? Or even in the US?

But I digress. American women actually have it pretty good, as far as rights go. More than pretty good. Much better than many women on the planet.

But rather than focusing on them, American women demanded, “What about us?”

What about you? Well, for one thing, there sure was a lot of offensive profanity about at an event where many brought their children. Not to mention all the vagina images, imagine explaining that one to your preschooler!

I suppose the point was to NOT be ladylike, because after all that is somehow now taboo, it seems. (Meanwhile the ladylike women of the day shined like beacons of light, in comparison, looking even more so by contrast, but I digress.)

The thing I find most interesting is how if the messages and signs and images were reversed, if let’s say HRC had won and men around the country marched in mass with signs saying, “Kill the Matriarchy!” and “She’s not MY president!” how would that have been received? Much less them dressing up and parading about as penises or sporting penis hats?

When one reverses the message, it suddenly sounds a lot like hate speech, doesn’t it? Interesting…

It’s a good litmus test. If a group’s message isn’t also acceptable in reverse, maybe it is not acceptable at all?

Let those who have ears hear.

 

 

Does Feminism Say Boys Are Better?

07 Wednesday Dec 2016

Posted by in Fempire

≈ 29 Comments

Tags

, , , , ,

A recent post by a commenter got me thinking… Does feminism actually say boys are better?

On the surface one would likely say, “Of course not!” It’s all about building women up, right? It’s about girl power!

Except feminism largely pushes girls to be more like boys. Hummm. That’s odd.

Girls are told to act less like girls. Dress less like girls. Avoid activities and topics that are deemed, “girl stuff.” To shun traditional girl roles in favor of more masculine ones.

When you think about it, doesn’t feminism actually encourage women (starting as girls) to ape traditionally male behavior rather than celebrate the uniqueness of being female?

I would agree with feminism that boys are better… at being boys. Women, however, are better…at being women.

But in a world where boys have been encouraged to act more “female” and girls have been encouraged to act more “male” for decades now, isn’t that counterproductive? What’s so wrong with boys being boys and girls being girls? Men being men and women being women?

Personally, I like being female. I don’t consider it a disadvantage. I don’t consider it a bad thing. I don’t consider myself “lesser” because of it. I don’t feel like I am a victim. I don’t feel held back. I don’t feel like I have missed out. I don’t want to be “something else.”

Why would feminists insist I (and other women) should see it otherwise?

Hummm….

Being a Nasty Woman Is Not Good

22 Saturday Oct 2016

Posted by in Fempire, Red Pill

≈ 63 Comments

Tags

, , , , , , , , ,

During the final debate, Trump told Hillary, “You are a nasty woman” after she delivered one of several low blows during the event.

Not surprisingly, women on Twitter took up the torch, claiming if being a nasty woman meant smart, confident, and powerful count them in.

Thing is, he didn’t call her that for being smart, confident, or powerful. He called her that because of her throwing a jab and then expecting to get a pass because she’s a woman.

See if women want equality, and want to “act like men” along with that comes being treated equally. Which means not with kid gloves.

Even as young as preschool one can see that males and females settle disputes differently. Girls shame and ostracize each other, threatening “I won’t invite you to my birthday!” Such spats can go for days. Boys? They whack each other. Somebody “wins” and they are over it

Now don’t get me wrong, I am not saying because preschoolers act this way, adults should. In fact a big part of early social education is teaching children how to not act on their basest natures, but to “be civilized.”

And of course boys especially are taught to never hit or act aggressively toward girls because girls are to be treated differently than boys.

However, this naturally is expected to be a two way street. If girls don’t want to be treated like boys, they historically have been taught in exchange to be polite, ladylike, refined.

Today, if a woman hits a man, yells at him, throws barbs his way, she still expects to be treated, “like a lady.” But guess what? One can’t have it both ways.

Women who demand the equality to act aggressively toward men should expect it to be met with aggression back, just like occurs between two men. That’s equality. Men don’t ignore aggression from another man, why should he from a woman who acts more like an aggressive man than a ladylike woman?

In short, it’s not good to be or act like a “nasty woman.” It’s not powerful, confident, or intelligent. It’s base. It’s low class. It’s embarrassing.

Women who want to be treated with respect and equality are far better to rise above than to stoop low.

It’s one thing to say, “When they go low, we go high.” Quite another to actually walk the talk.

What do you think? Please share in the comments below.

 

 

A Pre-Feminism Tale

29 Thursday Sep 2016

Posted by in Fempire

≈ 35 Comments

Tags

, , , , , , , ,

The other day I was talking with a friend who is in her early 60s. She happened to mention, in passing, that her grandmother had been a doctor.

Yes, that’s right, her GRANDMOTHER had been a doctor, specializing in head injuries, no less.

Now considering my friend is a baby boomer, that means her grandmother became a doctor many, many years before feminism supposedly opened up such opportunities to women. How could that be? So naturally I asked more questions.

Interestingly, it turns out her grandmother followed the path currently advised by the red pill, she married young to a good man, had their four children young, raised them while her husband worked his career, and then once their children were grown (her early 40s) she went to college, became a doctor, and started her career. Her grandmother practiced medicine well into her 80s.

It had never occurred to my friend that what her grandmother had accomplished, becoming a female doctor, was perhaps unusual for her time until I pointed it out.

This story is a good example of how today’s thinking that women should put off marriage and children until after she establishes her education and career may not be the optimal path after all. Or that if she marries and has children young, she will “miss” her chance to have a career.

Traditionally women followed their ideal biological life path — having children in their early 20s during their prime childbearing years, then shifting gears toward career as they reached their perimenopausal and menopausal years — when they are unencumbered by children and also will not have to “pause” that career once it is underway, like a woman who aims to establish her career early in life likely will when/if she chooses to have children later in life.

I have known many women of my generation (including myself, I am in my mid-40s and have young children) who put off childbearing until the last possible biological moment because they were mislead that they had all the time in the world to have kids, but not a career.

I was lucky to concieve both times easily and quickly despite my advanced age. Two of  three dear friends heartbreakingly never conceived despite expensive ($10,000+) infertility treatments. A third did finally succeed (happily!) after many tens of thousands of dollars and multiple attempts and is now finding just how difficult it is in reality to maintain a demanding career with an infant. Yet she’s afraid to take time off, lose her connections, and then be unable to restart her career later. A fourth friend didn’t start thinking of marriage and kids until she was in her mid 30s. She has yet to find a mate and at 45, children are now unlikely.

Sadly, these women followed the supposedly new and improved life script, only to find out it has some drawbacks they had never been advised of. No path is perfect. All paths involve possible trade offs. And they always have. And they always will.

It’s something young women of today would be wise to ponder. Does the path recommended to women today really make the most sense based on what she wants in life?

Perhaps the path my babysitter has chosen (to get her degree, have kids, then pursue her career with some additional refresher training when her children are older, then pursue her career in earnest for the second half of her life) lines up more naturally with a woman’s seasons of life?

The thing about life paths is there often aren’t do-overs later when one regrets the path chosen or is unhappy with the trade-offs. So best to figure it out early, and be sure you have thought things through. Both paths involve risk and uncertainty, is one path riskier and less certain?

Discuss. Deliberate. Ponder.