Feminism in a picture.

The Village Voice has a great picture of a statue placed on Wall Street for International Women’s Day (HT Instapundit).

Last night, on the eve of International Women’s Day, news outlets and social media seized on the mysterious appearance of a statue of a defiant young girl staring down the famous Charging Bull statue. As it turns out, the statue of the little girl symbolically defying Wall Street was installed by… Wall Street itself.

The statue perfectly captures the essence of feminism:  A childish sense of defiance lacking a clear objective.  It is childish defiance for the sake of childish defiance.

The feminists at Village Voice are quite taken with the statue itself, but complain that this feminist message comes from a patriarchal corporation.  That feminist empowerment is portrayed by a girl, and not a woman, would at first seem counterintuitive.  A statue honoring the strength of men would not substitute a boy for a man;  this would be absurd.  But it isn’t absurd for a statue ostensibly paying homage to the strength of women.  Even 54 years after Betty Friedan published The Feminine Mystique and 51 years after she co-founded NOW, feminism is still somehow a perpetual brand new experiment.  It is something we just know will bear good fruit if we could ever get around to trying it.  The girl in the statue represents feminist optimism, in the same way the bull she is opposing represents optimism for our economy.

By making the statue a depiction of a young girl, the artist avoids the need to depict an actual woman doing whatever it is the feminists are sure women are going to do.  It also caters to the emotion of feminism, which is based on a burning discontentment with being women, and a driving envy of men.  Sticking it to the man is the underlying desire.  It is about tearing men and their accomplishments down, not about women building something of their own.  While a woman sticking it to the man is delightful, having a mere girl stick it to the man is even better.

And yet, the creator of the statue has a problem.  The pose is of a bratty little girl standing defiantly across from the Wall Street bull.  This is what you see in the side view photo from Village Voice.  If the face on the statue matched the pose, it would also be of a bratty little girl.  But while bratty little girl is the emotion the statue is intended to evoke, actually putting a bratty little girl’s face on the statue would go too far.  A little girl with a vexed brow or sticking her tongue out would fit the pose, but not the idea of empowerment.  Clearly the sculptor recognized this, and instead creepily placed the face of a woman on the body of the bratty girl.  Flip back and forth between the side view and the front view to see what I mean;  it is uncanny.

Edit:  Sir Hamster pointed out the following video showing a real girl standing next to the statue.

Also, a quote from a woman on another video which came up on Youtube for me after viewing the one above:

…when we saw it we were very struck, almost emotionally. You know the bull is kind of a symbol of almost a male power in a way, and this little girl is just standing there triumphant. I think it’s gorgeous. I love it.

Posted in Envy, Feminist Territory Marking, Feminists, Moxie, Ugly Feminists | 201 Comments

Sticking it to the (little) man.

Alanna Vagianos at Huffington Post is excited to announce that for the month of March the Brawny Man will once again be doing his best Caitlin Jenner impersonation.  As Vagianos explained last year:

The Brawny Man just became the Brawny Woman.

A new video campaign from paper towel brand Brawny tells consumers that #StrengthHasNoGender by transforming their iconic Brawny Man into a woman. For the past five decades, the Brawny Man has served as the face of Brawny paper towel products. Known for his manly mustache, red flannel shirt and “brawny” strength, the Brawny Man is a famous example of American masculinity.

But women can be “brawny” too.

This is hilarious, because Brawny has always been a brand/product aimed at women.  There is no feminist envy payoff here, because the mascot for this woman’s product never was an icon of manhood, at least not to men.  There is nothing to steal;  it was theirs all along. They may as well dress up like Fabio and declare:

I can’t believe it’s not butter!

Moreover, a group of feminists dressing up in flannel shirts and sensible shoes isn’t remotely groundbreaking.  Instead of women marking a masculine space as feminine, this campaign leaves us with the image of women around the country sticking it to the man by tidying up and preparing meals.

However, one of the commercials from the same campaign last year does manage to work in brawny sized feminist satisfaction.  See the swelling feminist pride Linda Alvarado experiences when she describes the moment she realized she had finally stuck it to the man.  That “the man” in her story was her own kindergarten aged son seems to have made this pettiness all the sweeter:

See also: Unquenchable

Posted in Envy, Feminist Territory Marking, Social Justice Warriors, Ugly Feminists, You can't make this stuff up | 211 Comments

Missed a spot.

The ugly feminist compulsion to mark all things masculine as feminine knows no bounds. As single mother Emily McCombs at The Huffington Post explains, now ugly feminist mothers have turned to marking their own sons as feminine in a futile attempt to assuage their envy of men:

All the moms at my son’s school have been gushing about the Cat & Jack line for kids since Target released it last summer. Now there’s an additional reason to love the brand: their “Strong Like Mom” T-shirts that are grabbing the attention of feminist moms everywhere.

That’s right. Strong… Like Mom. Not like Dad or any other boy. Strong like a girl.

The coming backlash will be fun to watch, and if T shirt vendors aren’t already printing up “Strong Like Dad” shirts they should be.  While publicly marking their own sons as mama’s boys doesn’t bother these ugly feminists, they aren’t considering the status assault they are opening themselves up to from married mothers.

Posted in Envy, Motherhood, Status of marriage, Ugly Feminists | 104 Comments

A god we must obey.

14 and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor. 15 Yet she will be saved through childbearing—if they continue in faith and love and holiness, with self-control.

— 1 Tim 2:14-15, ESV

Minesweeper was kind enough to provide a link to the original source I was reworking in my previous satirical post.  Strayed’s message to women is extremely common, and a message modern women can’t hear often enough.  The message is that women become more moral by casting off obligation and following their own desires.  We see this message to women so often that it doesn’t stand out.  Even when we see it, the full absurdity of it isn’t visible unless you switch the sexes.

This teaching is just one variant of the modern message that women need to worship themselves and their feelings.  The highest virtue for women today is not to do their duty and honor their obligations, but to cast off duty and obligation and be true to themselves. Strayed explains that a woman’s own desires are a god she must obey and worship:

I didn’t want to stay with my ex-husband, not at my core, even though whole swaths of me did. And if there’s one thing I believe more than I believe anything else, it’s that you can’t fake the core. The truth that lives there will eventually win out. It’s a god we must obey, a force that brings us all inevitably to our knees. And because of it, I can only ask the four women who wrote to me with the same question: will you do it later or will you do it now?

girlguidessmThis concept didn’t begin with Strayed, or even second wave feminism.  The vow for the UK equivalent of the Girl Scouts, the Girl Guides, originally included:

do my duty to God

In 1910 this was modified to remove a sense of obligation to God, and substitute it with emotional feelings for God*:

to love my God

This was then changed in 2013 to:

be true to myself and develop my beliefs

We also don’t get this merely from secular sources, or even just from liberal Christian leaders.  Women’s feelings are regarded by modern conservative Christians as something holy, divinely inspired.  Thus we are taught that wives are light years closer to God than their husbands, and that wives are channeling God’s will when they throw godly tantrums.  This is especially true when it comes to women’s sexual/romantic feelings.  Pastors Dave Wilson and Dr. R. Albert Mohler Jr. both teach that a wife’s sexual attraction (or lack thereof) to her husband is a signal from God regarding her husband’s righteousness.

Another form of this message is the idea that a woman’s sexual/romantic desires are sanctifying.  Drs Mohler and Moore teach that the romantic feelings of the wife (instead of the commitment of marriage) are needed to purify sex.  Without the wife providing the purifying cover of her romantic desire, married sex becomes dirty, merely rubbing body parts together.  Former CBMW president Owen Strachan had something similar in mind when he described God honoring romance.  All of this of course goes back just under a thousand years to the idea of courtly love, which CS lewis describes as:

The sentiment, of course, is love, but love of a highly specialized sort, whose characteristics may be enumerated as Humility, Courtesy, Adultery, and the Religion of Love. The lover is always abject. Obedience to his lady’s lightest wish, however whimsical, and silent acquiescence in her rebukes, however unjust, are the only virtues he dares to claim.

Strayed also teaches that a woman’s sexual/romantic desires are sacred, holy, and sanctifying.  However, it is easier to see the ugliness when Strayed teaches it:

…in order to heal [my wounds] I needed fifty men and three good women to have sex with me.

The Brilliant Lie.

There is a key lie that is used to sell the idea that women become more moral by being self-centered.  This is the lie that women’s nature, their great fault, is to forever put others before themselves, and to feel guilty whenever they don’t put others first.  This is exactly the message self-centered women want to hear most, and it is why the message of virtuous self-centeredness, of holy selfishness, is so wildly popular in all forms of media aimed at women.  This is again both a secular and a modern Christian message.  When Strayed tells women they will be more moral if they divorce, she explains:

Doing what one wants to do because one wants to do it is hard for a lot of people, but I think it’s particularly hard for women. We are, after all, the gender onto which a giant Here To Serve button has been eternally pinned. We’re expected to nurture and give by the very virtue of our femaleness, to consider other people’s feelings and needs before our own.

Notice how amazingly similar the message from Strayed above is to the message Sheila Gregoire is selling to Christian women in Guilt makes the woman go around:

We women feel guilty about everything. In fact, they say that the most common emotion women feel is guilt…

We feel guilty for relaxing, for reading a novel and leaving the housework behind, for spending money on a manicure instead of on paying down debt, and for feeding everyone cereal for dinner.

We feel guilty for not saving more, not loving more, not giving more.

Men find it easier to shrug guilt off, go out on the porch, and relax. They don’t tend to bother themselves with silly things like housework standards, menu standards, or etiquette. And they don’t even have to go through labour! They’ve got it easy. But perhaps they just aren’t as susceptible to this particular foible as women are. Instead of listening to God for what we should do, we tend to let society, the media, and the church culture set our standards. It’s no wonder we feel like we’re always falling short.

Maybe, we should try, just for one day, to be a man and not to feel guilt about stupid things. Let’s stop listening to those voices in our head and just seek out God’s voice. It’s worth the effort. If only someone would fold the laundry for me while I tried.

This is a common theme for Gregoire, and you can see another example in her complaint about women being asked to make sandwiches for funerals.

What we are seeing here is a very old pattern, where women are strongly tempted to put themselves (or their feelings) in the place of God, and men are strongly tempted to go along.  Put another way, women are tempted to worship themselves, and men are tempted to worship women.

*Loving God properly means to obey God, but since obeying God had to be removed and replaced with loving God it is clear this is not what the new vow meant.

See Also: 

Posted in Cheryl Strayed, Dr. Russell Moore, New Morality, Owen Strachan, Rationalization Hamster, Rebellion, Romantic Love, selling divorce, Sheila Gregoire, Solipsism, Turning a blind eye, Ugly Feminists, Wife worship | 164 Comments


I am inspired by the immense wisdom of Sugar to write to all of the married men who want to break up their families but lack the courage to do what their heart is screaming is right.  Go.  Do it for God.  Do it for you.  Do it for your children, for what are you teaching them if you lack the courage to follow your dreams?  Do it to inspire other fathers to model courage and righteousness to their own children.   But for whatever reason you do it, the important thing is that you summon the courage to do what is right:

Go, even though you love her.
Go, even though she is kind and faithful and dear to you.
Go, even though she’s your best friend and you’re hers.
Go, even though you can’t imagine your life without her.
Go, even though she adores you and your leaving will devastate her.
Go, even though your friends will be disappointed or surprised or pissed off or all three.
Go, even though you once said you would stay.
Go, even though you’re afraid of being alone.
Go, even though you’re sure no one will ever love you as well as she does.
Go, even though there is nowhere to go.
Go, even though you don’t know exactly why you can’t stay.
Go, because you want to.
Because wanting to leave is enough.

Posted in Cheryl Strayed, Satire, selling divorce, Whispers | 69 Comments