Connect with us

Red Pill

News

Identity Politics

Angry Feminist made worse by politically correct sympathy

Published

on

54 Views

In a New York Times piece dated 13 March 2018, a clearly distraught woman wrote this letter to a page called “The Sweet Spot”:

Dear Sugars,

How do I deal with my anger toward men? I go to therapy, I’m on anti-depressants and I’m trying to practice self-care. But I’m still angry. I don’t think it’s unwarranted. I’ve been sexually assaulted at least twice. We live in a time where women have more rights than ever, but our president is an alleged sexual predator. Men are socialized to be condescending toward women, and even the few who check themselves often fail.

The only way to tell if a man is a sexual assaulter is to say no, and once you’re in that position, it’s too late. I have male friends who care about me — some who’ve even been sexually assaulted themselves — but they still don’t understand my pain. In my observation, there are elements of sexism in even the healthiest relationships, and that makes me angry.

I don’t want to be emotionally unavailable to the entire sex that I am attracted to. How am I supposed to find a life partner if I can’t even find many men who treat women like equals?

Justifiably Angry Feminist

What follows are excerpts from the responses the lady got. See if you can catch the trap. I will help by bolding a few of the problem phrases.

Steve Almond: Your letter made me think of James Baldwin’s famous formulation that to be African-American in this country “and to be relatively conscious, is to be in a rage almost all the time.” You have every right to be angry with men who have harmed you, in word or deed. No man can understand how it feels to grow up female in this culture, especially not an affluent white man like myself. We are largely ignorant of what it’s like to be economically, socially, professionally and sexually bullied. Having said that, your essential beef here really isn’t with men, individually or as a population. It’s with patriarchal thought and behavior, those monstrous forms of privilege by which men control women. The deeper question we need to reckon with is why boys and men are socialized to derive their self-worth from the denigration and domination of women. The symptoms of this mindset — discrimination, abusive behavior, rape — are infuriating. But beneath this rage lurks a deep sorrow that belongs to all of us…

… Abusive men are beginning to be held to account, which is to say: Women are being believed. But there’s still a vast segment of our population that refuses to confront the prevalence of sexual harassment and assault. They’ve chosen, instead, to normalize and even lionize cruel and predatory behavior. In my view, this moral regression — like the resurgence of overt bigotry in our political discourse — marks the panicky response of a dominant culture feeling the tremors Cheryl alludes to… But this style of thought is also nourished by a consumer culture that profits from sowing doubt. Men are indoctrinated to associate power with predation, and women with seduction and submission. This paradigm, epitomized in the simulated pleasure of hetero-normative pornography, will only begin to diminish in force as we reject the dishonesty of a sexual discourse founded on misogynistic myths.

… Anger is a proper response to injustice. But so is empowerment, as Cheryl suggests. Place your faith in the feminist philosopher ‘bell hooks’ (pseudonym for Gloria Jean Watkins). “Love cannot exist in any relationship that is based on domination and coercion,” she observes. “A genuine feminist politics always brings us from bondage to freedom, from lovelessness to loving.” Any man worth your time will recognize this, and will come to see that the forces seeking to control women seek to control him, too. This does not mean that men will cease to disappoint you. The patriarchy wasn’t built in a day; it won’t be dismantled in a day either. Nor do any of us move through life free of our darker impulses. They invariably emerge in our most intimate relationships. But there are men in this world capable of owning their self-doubt rather than turning it against women. You deserve such a man. We all do.

And from the other respondent:

Cheryl Strayed: Your rage is justified, Angry Feminist. I won’t list all the reasons why because you already did that quite well. We both know the list of injustices goes on. It stretches around the globe and dates back through all time. Strangely, it helps me to remember that. Perhaps remembering that will be solace for you too. Here’s why: there’s no way to make an accounting of that infuriating list without seeing also that progress has been made. I know your most immediate fury is rooted in the specific problem you have in your own life — the question of how you can love (or even find) a man when so many have wronged or disappointed you. But sometimes our most particular sorrows are eased ever so slightly when we take a broader view. The fact that your anger can even be expressed in the terms that you’ve expressed it is evidence, to me, that change is afoot. The reasons you cite for your anger — the high incidence of sexual assault, the misogyny of our president and the nation that elected him, the sexism that even enlightened men (and women) enact — aren’t topics being discussed on the margins anymore. They’re being addressed far and wide, loud and clear. And many of our most powerful institutions and assumptions about men and woman are being rocked, if not yet toppled, by that discussion. Take heart in that.

… I can’t predict if you’ll ever find a man who treats you like an equal, but I can say you’re more likely to find one if you seek love from a place of personal power rather than desolation. We change our lives (and sometimes the world) by deciding to do things differently than we’ve done them before. Perhaps for you, Angry Feminist, that means reframing your justified anger. Right now, your rage is a simmering pot of despair that can do nothing but sink you. If instead you can direct it down channels that empower you, it will serve a powerfully important purpose in your life. This could be as small as speaking up rather than remaining silent when you observe sexism or as big as getting involved with an organization or cause whose mission is gender equity (and you might even meet some good guys there). It’s incredibly difficult not to feel burned by the patriarchy. We have indeed been burned. But, as we know — around the globe and through all time — the best things rise from the ashes.

[Emphases mine]

So, what is wrong here?

The main thing is the mindset of the “Angry Feminist.” I did not highlight anything in her letter because I wanted to come back to this directly. But let’s make a list of problems, restating her sentiments in her letter:

First, she says only how she thinks she is right:

How do I deal with my anger toward men?

  • I go to therapy
  • I’m on anti-depressants 
  • I’m trying to practice self-care 

But I’m still angry.

  • I don’t think it’s unwarranted.

Then, she talks about how everyone else and everything else around her is wrong:

  • I’ve been sexually assaulted at least twice.
  • We live in a time where women have more rights than ever, but…
  • our president is an alleged sexual predator.
  • Men are socialized to be condescending toward women
  • even the few who check themselves often fail.

The third aspect is how “no one understands” her pain.

  • The only way to tell if a man is a sexual assaulter is to say no, and once you’re in that position, it’s too late.
  • I have male friends who care about me — some who’ve even been sexually assaulted themselves — but they still don’t understand my pain.
  • In my observation, there are elements of sexism in even the healthiest relationships, and that makes me angry.

And then, we have the dilemma:

I don’t want to be emotionally unavailable to the entire sex that I am attracted to. How am I supposed to find a life partner if I can’t even find many men who treat women like equals?

Angry Feminist has boxed herself in, and the man and woman, though well-meaning in their response, will not help her at all. At best, they will only help her deny her rage and hide it a little, all the while never truly changing.

Why is this so?

Feminism as we see in Angry’s example is a psychological problem of self-victimization that is extremely attractive and very difficult to undo except with direct confrontation. And because of the usual American social construct we have, we are simultaneously taught to be polite, to regard women as the (physically) weaker sex and therefore in need of protection. This is a traditional view and it still persists among men. We derive a large part of our sense of nobility from it.

But feminism takes this nobility and turns it against us, because the feminist is angry at men simply because they exist, and the men want to try to help the feminist stop being angry. We may try to do so by being more noble, and more kind, but this almost never works with a feminist woman. The feminist alternately loves the kindness of the man and despises it, and this is an unstable emotional framework, and it can induce fear in men.  That fear in men to aggravate the feminist is such that he will not confront her for being completely bonkers, to directly confront such a deranged person, any real direct message usually doesn’t happen. The usual result is that the man flees in some way, and the woman feels once again justified in her anger because “the man let her down” in her view.

The truth is she drove him away because he had to either flee her wrath or die from it, or go crazy and do something horrible. And the real tragedy of feminism is that getting the woman to recognize her own part in causing this is next to impossible.

Our intrepid New York Times people both gave into this pressure, and started giving Angry useless and emotionally placating statements, none of which have the power to heal the woman from her condition.

St Paul, from the New Testament, had a terrific understanding of the human condition. Many feminists are quick to arouse their anger because one set of instructions he gave regarding marriage said this:

Wives, submit to your own husbands, as to the Lord. For the husband is head of the wife, as also Christ is head of the church; and He is the Savior of the body. Therefore, just as the church is subject to Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in everything. (Ephesians 5:22-24, NIV translation offered)

As one reads this, even non-feminists could easily imagine feminist heads exploding everywhere. What is even more significant is that we probably expect most American women’s heads to explode. This is because this sort of feminism has become quite strongly entrenched in society, so much so that we don’t easily see it.

But St Paul did not stop here. So the feminists ought to read a little farther to find out what the men have to do. And, admittedly, men also need to read this:

Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ also loved the church and gave Himself for her,  that He might sanctify and cleanse her with the washing of water by the word, that He might present her to Himself a glorious church, not having spot or wrinkle or any such thing, but that she should be holy and without blemish.

So husbands ought to love their own wives as their own bodies; he who loves his wife loves himself. For no one ever hated his own flesh, but nourishes and cherishes it, just as the Lord does the church. (Ephesians 5:25-29, NIV)

So, what does this mean, “Love your wives as Christ loved the Church and gave Himself for her…”

Well, Christian believers know that Christ died for his people. His giving himself was to give himself all the way to death. So, the image St Paul paints is, “Husbands, be prepared to die for your wives, in the image of Christ dying for his Church…”

But it is easy for men influenced by feminism to misunderstand this as a call to a type of servility to the will of women. This is wrong. Christ did not do whatever the Church wanted. He founded it and formed it in leadership, and died as its leader. It is a bit more like being a general in battle than a slave to a master.  St Paul continues:

For we are members of His body, of His flesh and of His bones. “For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh.” This is a great mystery, but I speak concerning Christ and the church.  Nevertheless let each one of you in particular so love his own wife as himself, and let the wife seethat she respects her husband.

We emphasized this last sentence because it is the summary. The command is for the ultimate in respect, each for the other.

Angry Feminist never got this instruction. Both her respondents cowtowed to her rage and didn’t bring it to this teaching. And that is pretty common, as even many Christian believers in our day have no idea what this section really means.

But now that you have read it, you may begin to develop the idea. This leads to the revelation of the great lie at the end of the lady’s letter. Her signature:

Justifiably Angry Feminist

She is not justified at all. In fact, she is completely in the wrong.

So, what might we say to Angry Feminist?

One thing must be understood. The first time she reads or hears this, she will explode with anger and refuse to read the rest. So, it would take everyone around her being on the same page until her ego cracks enough for her to begin to be teachable. Here is our attempt:

Dear Angry Feminist,

You may completely disagree with what you are about to read. But we have seen your problem, and we have seen its solution, and it works. So, we suggest you read and re-read our response over and over until something opens in you.

Your anger is because you have locked yourself in hell. However the key to get out is firmly in your own hands, and to change the hell, you will have to walk out. The locks are your resentments towards the men who tried to take advantage of you. Forgive them. Everyone on earth has the right to be wrong, and we unfortunately are. Forgive them because you do things wrong and expect to be forgiven as well, don’t you? Then you open the doors and simply walk out of hell.

Therapy is not therapy if the therapist merely affirms your anger. Your anger is the problem far more than the people around you are. Change your anger and the people around you will amazingly become better. Anti-depressants? These don’t help at all. They just aid and abet you in your sickness, and they give you the excuse to blame the world, which you cannot change, instead of looking at yourself and what you can change.

Some women think that they have the right to display their bodies any way they wish. We don’t know what your attitude is about this, but we can say that you probably would be highly disturbed if men went walking around virtually naked, wouldn’t you? They would be disrespectful to themselves and invite attention from depraved people who want only one thing. So, if you think you have the right to show your body as you wish, you are wrong. We all affect one another. And we attract people that are like how we act. Act respectful of yourself, and men who respond to you will be more likely to be respectful of you.

That being said, men are hard-wired to pursue women. So if a respectful man gives you flowers or holds the door open for you, or walks on the street-side of the sidewalk to protect you, that is his expression of dignity as a man who respects and values you as a woman. Feminism doesn’t allow for such actions, but that is the lie of feminism.

Finally, you are lying to yourself and those around you when you say that you want men to treat you as an equal. What you really want is for the men to somehow make restitution for the harms you have either really received or have perceived. They will never be able to make up for these offenses, because most of them are magnified in your own mind and heart to the point where you cannot even see men correctly.

The world is full of good God-fearing men. In the United States, they abound. But if you look at the world through feminist glasses, you will never see them. They also see you and your anger that you beat the world around you with, and they probably feel sad because they cannot make an approach to you.

Forgive others, and change yourself, and the world will become different. Continue to blame others and exalt yourself, and things will only get worse. 

This is the truth we have found. It is difficult, it is unpleasant at first, and it is no doubt a shock to you. But if you have actually succeeded in reading this response this far, it says you are capable of change. We wish you every blessing God can give as you work on yourself.

With love,

Red Pill Times

 

Liked it? Take a second to support The Duran on Patreon!
Advertisement
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

avatar
  Subscribe  
Notify of

Latest

Lori Loughlin’s daughter was aboard USC official’s yacht in Bahamas when mom was charged

Lori Loughlin’s daughter was on the yacht of USC’s Board of Trustees when her mom was accused in scheme.

The Duran

Published

on

Via Fox News


Lori Loughlin’s daughter Olivia Jade Giannulli was spending spring break on a University of Southern California official’s yacht when her mother was accused Tuesday of involvement in a college admissions scheme, reports said.

Giannulli, 19, was on Rick Caruso’s luxury yacht Invictus in the Bahamas, a report said. Caruso is chairman of USC’s Board of Trustees.

Giannulli, who currently attends USC, was with Caruso’s daughter Gianna and several other friends, the outlet reported.

“My daughter and a group of students left for spring break prior to the government’s announcement yesterday,” Caruso told TMZ. “Once we became aware of the investigation, the young woman decided it would be in her best interests to return home.”

Loughlin’s daughter has since returned to Los Angeles to face the allegations that could result in her getting expelled from USC.

USC’s Board of Trustees will not decide the status of Giannulli and the other students involved in the case, but rather, the university’s president will make the decisions, according to TMZ.

Business deals in jeopardy?

Giannulli is a YouTube beauty vlogger and social media star, but in the midst of her mother’s charges, she may lose the lucrative brand-sponsorship deals she has landed over the years, Variety reported.

HP, having cut ties with Giannulli, said in a statement, “HP worked with Lori Loughlin and Olivia Jade in 2017 for a one-time product campaign. HP has removed the content from its properties.”

Giannulli also cut brand deals with partners including Amazon, Dolce & Gabbana, Lulus, Marc Jacobs Beauty, Sephora, Smashbox Beauty Cosmetics, Smile Direct Club, Too Faced Cosmetics, Boohoo, and Unilever’s TRESemmé, the report said.

Giannulli’s rep declined to comment, Variety reported. Estée Lauder Companies, which owns Smashbox and Too Faced, also declined to comment, while the other brands or companies the magazine reached out to did not immediately respond to their requests for comment.

Liked it? Take a second to support The Duran on Patreon!
Continue Reading

Latest

$250M Lawsuit Against CNN Imminent; Covington High MAGA Student Suffered “Direct Attacks”

CNN will be the second MSM outlet sued over their reporting of the incident, after Sandmann launched a $250 million lawsuit against the Washington Post in late February. 

Published

on

Via Zerohedge


CNN is about to be sued for more than $250 million for spreading fake news about 16-year-old Covington High School student Nicholas Sandmann.

Sandmann was viciously attacked by left-leaning news outlets over a deceptively edited video clip from the January March for Life rally at the Lincoln Memorial, in which the MAGA-hat-wearing teenager appeared to be mocking a Native American man beating a drum. Around a day later, a longer version of the video revealed that Sandmann did absolutely nothing wrong – after the media had played judge, jury and executioner of Sandmann’s reputation.

CNN will be the second MSM outlet sued over their reporting of the incident, after Sandmann launched a $250 million lawsuit against the Washington Post in late February.

Speaking with Fox News host Mark Levin in an interview set to air Sunday, Sandmann’s attorney, L. Lin Wood, said “CNN was probably more vicious in its direct attacks on Nicholas than The Washington Post. And CNN goes into millions of individuals’ homes. It’s broadcast into their homes.”

They really went after Nicholas with the idea that he was part of a mob that was attacking the Black Hebrew Israelites, yelling racist slurs at the Black Hebrew Israelites,” continued Wood. “Totally false. Saying things like that Nicholas was part of a group that was threatening the Black Hebrew Israelites, that they thought it was going to be a lynching.”

Why didn’t they stop and just take an hour and look through the internet and find the truth and then report it?” Wood asked. “Maybe do that before you report the lies. They didn’t do it. They were vicious. It was false. CNN will be sued next week, and the dollar figure in the CNN case may be higher than it was [against] The Washington Post.”

Watch: 

Liked it? Take a second to support The Duran on Patreon!
Continue Reading

Latest

Rand Paul refuses to support emergency declaration, deepening problem

Rand Paul gives a principled reason for his refusal, and he cannot be faulted for that, but it leaves the borders open and unsafe.

Seraphim Hanisch

Published

on

Senator Rand Paul indicated he will vote to terminate President Trump’s National Emergency Declaration on Sunday. This continues a story that seems to want no resolution.

Weeks ago, the seed to this news piece started this way:

One 35-day partial government shutdown and almost three weeks later, the debate over a statistically tiny amount of money in the US budget for the building of a border wall drags on with no solution. On February 15th, if there is no agreement that is to President Trump’s satisfaction, the government will once again descend into a partial shutdown.

And on February 15th, the President signed a continuing resolution to keep the government open through the rest of the fiscal year. This CR gave sharply limited authority of funds with regards to the border wall. This prompted the President to take it a step farther and declare a National Emergency.

This is because very few people in the US government actually desire a solution to close and secure the American-Mexican border. In fact, what we see is a government that is largely aligned against the will of its citizens.

President Trump has made repeated statements and speeches in which he outlines a fair array of facts concerning the problems experienced in the US by illegal border crossings of both people and controlled substances.

However, the issue of border security remains something that Congress only supports with words. We saw this in action both last week and the week before with the Democrat led House of Representatives voting 245-182 to terminate the National Emergency declaration. While this was to be expected in the House, on March 3rd, libertarian Senator Rand Paul, a known strong supporter of President Trump, nonetheless penned an Op-Ed piece on Fox News in which he said he planned to also vote against the National Emergency in the Republican-led Senate (emphasis added):

In September of 2014,  I had these words to say: “The president acts like he’s a king. He ignores the Constitution.  He arrogantly says, ‘If Congress will not act, then I must.’

Donald J. Trump agreed with me when he said in November 2014 that President Barack Obama couldn’t make a deal on immigration so “now he has to use executive action, and this is a very, very dangerous thing that should be overridden easily by the Supreme Court.”

I support President Trump. I supported his fight to get funding for the wall from Republicans and Democrats alike, and I share his view that we need more and better border security.

However, I cannot support the use of emergency powers to get more funding, so I will be voting to disapprove of his declaration when it comes before the Senate.

Every single Republican I know decried President Obama’s use of executive power to legislate. We were right then. But the only way to be an honest officeholder is to stand up for the same principles no matter who is in power…

There are really two questions involved in the decision about emergency funding:

  • First, does statutory law allow for the president’s emergency orders,
  • and, second, does the Constitution permit these emergency orders?

As far as the statute goes, the answer is maybe — although no president has previously used emergency powers to spend money denied by Congress, and it was clearly not intended to do that.

But there is a much larger question: the question of whether or not this power and therefore this action are constitutional. With regard to the Constitution, the Supreme Court made it very clear in Youngstown Steel in 1952, in a case that is being closely reexamined in the discussion of executive power.  In Youngstown, the Court ruled that there are three kinds of executive order: orders that carry out an expressly voiced congressional position, orders where Congress’ will is unclear, and, finally, orders clearly opposed to the will of Congress.

To my mind, like it or not, we had this conversation.  In fact, the government was shut down in a public battle over how much money would be spent on the wall and border security.  It ended with a deal that Congress passed and the president signed into law, thus determining the amount.

Congress clearly expressed its will not to spend more than $1.3 billion and to restrict how much of that money could go to barriers.  Therefore, President Trump’s emergency order is clearly in opposition to the will of Congress.

Moreover, the broad principle of separation of powers in the Constitution delegates the power of the purse to Congress.  This turns that principle on its head.

Some are attempting to say that there isn’t a good analogy between President Obama’s orders or the Youngstown case. I disagree. Not only are the issues similar, but I think Youngstown Steel implications are even more profound in the case of emergency appropriations. We spent the last two months debating how much money should be spent on a wall, and Congress came to a clear conclusion: $1.3 billion. Without question, the president’s order for more wall money contradicts the will of Congress and will, in all likelihood, be struck down by the Supreme Court.

In fact, I think the president’s own picks to the Supreme Court may rebuke him on this.

Regardless, I must vote how my principles dictate. My oath is to the Constitution, not to any man or political party. I stand with the president often, and I do so with a loud voice. Today, I think he’s wrong, not on policy, but in seeking to expand the powers of the presidency beyond their constitutional limits. I understand his frustration. Dealing with Congress can be pretty difficult sometimes. But Congress appropriates money, and his only constitutional recourse, if he does not like the amount they appropriate, is to veto the bill.

This statement by Rand Paul is extremely – and painfully – fair. It marks not the actions of a liberal but of someone who is trying to do things truly “by the book.” He cannot be faulted for this.

But his “Nay” is very poorly placed because it comes in the context of a Congress that is full of people far less committed to the vision of America and its sovereignty than he or the President are. One of the reasons stated for lax border security is that cutting off illegal immigration also cuts off very cheap labor for several industries. Some of those industry leaders donate lavishly to political campaigns, ergo, corruption.

Rand Paul, in trying to fight for what is right by the letter of the law, may be correct, but in the short term it appears to exacerbate the problem of the porous US-Mexico border.

President Trump is trying to do the right thing in the company of a Congress who does not want this, for various reasons. Some of it is because some Congressmen and women are petty, Nancy Pelosi and Charles Schumer being the crabby National Grandparents in this aspect. But add to the “resist Trump because he is Trump” lobby those people who gain from illegal immigration in the short term, and those like the new socialist crop of Congressional members who are ready to change the very nature of the United States into something like their cannabis-induced dream of Sweden (which didn’t even work in Sweden!) and we see that border security is every bit the uphill climb that President Trump has shown it to be.

The government shutdown did one very good thing: It got the American focus on the border and some opinions on the matter moved – at least among the American people.

But since when did our representatives and senators really represent us, the American people?

It has been a long, long time.

 

Liked it? Take a second to support The Duran on Patreon!
Continue Reading

JOIN OUR YOUTUBE CHANNEL

Your donations make all the difference. Together we can expose fake news lies and deliver truth.

Amount to donate in USD$:

5 100

Validating payment information...
Waiting for PayPal...
Validating payment information...
Waiting for PayPal...
Advertisement

Advertisement

Quick Donate

The Duran
EURO
DONATE
Donate a quick 10 spot!
Advertisement
Advertisement

Advertisement

The Duran Newsletter

Trending