ONE THING that has not been mentioned in the discussion on domestic violence is that violent women are celebrated on television and in movies as never before.

Robin writes:

While I am not sure either that this is what women actually desire to watch, I will say that women do watch such programs often because they are so terribly confused as to the actual definition of womanhood in society today. Often, the women where I live behave exactly like men in almost every way in their day-to-day lives: women operating heavy lawn equipment, women doing difficult physical labor, women working in traditionally masculine jobs in factories and women running the family finances and almost completely orchestrating the lives of their husbands and boyfriends, expecting their men to act as their “wives” when they arrive home from work. 

I think there is such confusion in gender roles today, that most women do not even conceive of the notion that they are created to be very different from men! Thus, they watch these shows and fantasize about being powerful and strong women, never understanding that the strength of a women is realized in the art of her gentleness and submission. 

This entire discussion reminds me of the T-shirt given to me as a child by my feminist mother. Emblazoned across the chest were the words “Anything boys can do, girls can do better.” Imagine an entire middle-aged generation of women now sitting around the television during prime-time, looking to see a woman doing better than a man as an assassin! It has infiltrated even the children’s programming: Bob the Builder’s cohort, a female, dresses just like him and is only recognized as female while donning her hardhat by her red, button earrings! 

I believe women watch this because they secretly desire to be powerful and they are completely and utterly ignorant on how to go about such a mission. Again, they have no idea the worth of a gentle and quiet spirit in the eyes of their husbands and boyfriends.

                                                — Comments —

Josh F. writes:

And yet Robin seems unaware of her contribution to the gender confusion. An almost compulsory-type tendency to refer to corrupted  liberal females or just plain girls, as “women,” only adds to the disarray. It’s similar to what we see in the “men’s movement.” A  constant equating of corrupt female degeneracy with “female supremacy.” Woman, like men, are not born. Such titles are earned in  very particular ways and at very particular points in life. They can be lost, also. Watching childish shows that are extremely detached  from reality is not one of those ways to earn the seemingly compulsory  title of “woman.”

Kimberly writes:

Is Josh being a little harsh? I mean, I agree that these are the opposites of women, these silly girls with their guns. But what was Robin supposed to call them? I’m sure she agrees with him, too, but still, I don’t see how she’s “contributing” to the problem. Her point was in every way against them.

Maybe we can coin a new term for these women, a Thinking Housewife word. How about “Manwoes”? I’d say that works rather well. They have it all backwards, and they are the woes of our generation. If only Our Lady was more known. It truly breaks my heart that the Queen of the Angels is hardly looked up to as she deserves. God is the obvious MAN of the universe, at least from my little perspective. But Our Lady is the WOMAN, and how many people will acknowlege her? The majority of what I see is jealousy when her name is mentioned. The book of Wisdom declares that jealousy takes no part with her. I declare, that is the sad reality of the precious Mother of Our Lord.

Josh writes:

I agree with Kimberly that I may have come off a little harsh and I’m certainly glad for the edit that made my critique seem even less harsh, but our choice of words are extremely important when battling  liberal orthodoxy. We’ve subconsciously adopted so many of their perversions and equivocations.

For example, one of Mrs. Wood’s favorite topics is “feminism” and yet  there is NOTHING feminine about it. In reality, “feminism” is the political agenda of the devout dyke and its desire to subordinate  Alpha Man. We see this desirous phenomenon in the classic “butch,” the  “man” among lesbians.

Another example is within the “men’s movement” and it functions much the same. Degenerate female behavior is almost to a “man” characterized as “female supremacy” or “female supremacism.” So the  practical effect is to first have a diabolically perverted notion of  Supremacy and then consequently a desire to seek “equality” with the female. The implication is a flat-out admission of inferiority. The  second effect is to demonize “woman.” Remember, degenerate female  behavior (radical liberalism/devout dykism/all-accepting indiscriminancy) is “feminism,” i.e., something feminine/womanly/lady-like. It is a widely held belief that the ways of the wayward liberal  female are the ways of woman eternally. The idea that devout dyke nature is equal to woman’s nature is held as “truth” amongst many in the “men’s movement.”

Words are incredibly important in this battle. And the ability to  clarify the language is a powerful weapon against liberalism.

Laura writes:

Josh argues that  because ‘devout dykism’ seeks the obliteration of womanhood, anyone who embraces it is not a woman in any meaningful sense and should not be called ‘woman.’ It’s a compelling argument. Unfortunately, we get into many gray areas here. Many women superficially or partly embrace feminist ideas. When does a woman become a non-woman?

I agree with Josh that feminism is not a good word because of its suggestion of femininity.

Please follow and like us: