VINCENT writes:

Well, congratulations.

You have inspired me to write the first hatemail of my life. As far as they go, this one is going to be quite mild.

The article that you wrote two years ago about deceased astronaut Sally Ride (which has come to my attention through the site Fundies say the Darndest Things) is petty. It could have been pettier. It could have been stupider. It could have been eviler.

But it still was petty, stupid, and yes, evil, and your core argument is fundamentally flawed.

No matter what you say, some women will continue to love other women, and as space travel technology continues to develop, more and more women (such as my native Canada’s own Julie Payette, and many more as a quick google search will prove to you) will contribute to space exploration.

In the long term, there is nothing you or your ilk can do about this.

I do not expect this email to change your mind. It’s just that your article made me so angry that I just had to let you know that I disagree with almost everything that you believe in.

Laura writes:

If women engineers and physicists, as few and far between as they are, were never to participate in any capacity in space exploration ever again, the field would be perfectly fine without them. It is entirely the creation of men.

Women do, however, create astronauts and sustain the civil society that makes advanced scientific institutions possible. That’s quite enough to do. We don’t need men like you to tell us we are not good enough as we are.

By the way, women have always been free to love other women. It is not necessary to become a lesbian to love another woman. Lesbianism is a form of arrested development and an offense to God. We don’t need men like you to poison the wells of feminine friendship.

You are a misogynist. Go take your disdain for womanhood out on others.

— Comments —

Dnr writes:

Kudos to you for your razor-sharp reply to Vincent. His post to you reminds me of a famous quote, about how liberals believe they can force you to do anything, as long as it’s for your own good. Thank you for disposing of that rubbish! Your remarks about homosexuality being an offense to God are also spot on. ‘Nuff said.

Jewel writes:

It might be a very good idea to get more women in space. Especially the militant Lesbian types who don’t need men, or space suits. As many as possible. Earth can use the break.

But now here’s this: Motherhood. Only women can do that. Space isn’t all that important.

This little man needed his mother.

Hurricane Betsy writes:

Years ago I worked for a female engineer. I don’t know how the topic came up, but she got really mad one day and told me that women who “stay home” and raise children and don’t have a career were barely human, lower than insects, etc. I just kept my trap shut, as she was a mean, impatient type of person. By the way, she was married and had children.

L.R. writes:

You wrote: “By the way, women have always been free to love other women. It is not necessary to become a lesbian to love another woman.”

TRUTH!

The same thing can be said about male friendship  or, as it is also sometimes called, male bonding or brotherhood bonding. Men don’t need to become homosexual to love other men. It is not necessary to become a pedophile to love children and teenagers. It is not necessary to become a zoophile to love and express your care for the whole animal kingdom. is not necessary to become a necrophile to love and render honor to your love ones who died. It is not necessary to become an incestuous person to express love to your own biological parents, brothers/sisters and grandparents.

Sexual attraction and love are NOT the same thing! Friendship and sex are NOT the same thing! Sex is just sex. Sexual attraction is sexual attraction, nothing less nothing more!

“Human sexuality is a kind of distortion field that keeps us from seeing reality and logic clearly“

-Anonymous

Leo Walker writes:

I hope that in the years remaining to me I am not forced to defend this terrestrial sphere from Lunar Lesbians, Dykes from Mars and Queens from Venus. The ones we have here are quite sufficiently awful. Perversion has become all the rage, hasn’t it? I work with the Confirmation kids at my parish and not a one that doesn’t come in believing in “gay marriage.” They are universally astonished that the Church does not approve of it. They are even more astonished to discover that strong, empirical and logical arguments can be made against it. Certainly they don’t hear anything about it from the pulpit.

Lance writes:

VINCENT writes:

Well, congratulations.   [Vincent assumes that you care about his reaction to your entry. I assume you don’t.]

You have inspired me to write the first hatemail of my life.   [Vincent assumes that you care about what inspires him to write.   Vincent labels his limp missive as hatemail.   It barely rises to the level of grumpy.]

The article that you wrote two years ago about deceased astronaut Sally Ride  (which has come to my attention through the site Fundies say the Darndest Things) [As if you were waiting for a citation.] is petty. [Hate mail in response to petty?  Over-reaction, anyone?]  It could have been pettier. It could have been stupider. It could have been eviler.  [This is Vincent’s way of telling you that he admires your capacities.]

But it still was petty, stupid, and yes [This is where Vinny takes a risk. “Yes evil, I dare say.”], evil, and your core argument is fundamentally flawed.  [We wait with bated breath—because “baited breath” is stupid—for Vincent’s examination of your argument…… Hmmm, no analysis.  Apparently, Vince was merely flattering himself.]

No matter what you say some women will continue to love other women [Now that‘s what we in the rebuttal community call a stinging one], and as space travel technology continues to develop, more and more women (such as my native Canada’s own Julie Payette [About whom no cares even a small amount.], and many more as a quick google search will prove to you [Because Vincent thinks we want proof.  Hey, Vince, I’m not doing your work for you.]) will contribute to space exploration.  [How is riding around in a tin can contributing.  I believe the guys who built the thing are the contributors.]

In the long term, there is nothing you or your ilk can do about this.  [About what?]

I do not expect this email to change your mind.  [Well, why would it? You ain’t said nuthin’, Vinny.] It’s just that your article made me so angry that I just had to let you know that I disagree with almost everything that you believe in.  [“everything that you believe in”…. Vinny disagrees with a lot.  Oooooo, made him so angry that he couldn’t help himself—or hep hisself as we say down here. I wonder if he stomped his li’l foot and made a pout-mouth.]

Abigail writes:

I am chuckling at your response to Vincent and his likely confusion at being called a misogynist. Of courses, he is nothing of the sort.

It is an interesting semantic trick you pulled there — though it involves enormous, unfounded mental leaps. First, it is apparent that when you talk about “womanhood,” you are talking about your particular conception of womanhood (or if you prefer, that of your Church) which views the “essence” of woman as that of mother and homemaker. Second, you assume that because Vincent wrote in apparent support of women’s contributions to space exploration, that he disdains such “womanhood” as you define it. You then call him a “misogynist” and attempt to cast him as an overbearing man who is telling women what they are and should be.I didn’t read this in Vincent’s comments at all; he certainly expressed a strong dislike of your Sally Ride post but nowhere did he tell women what they should do. He merely stated what women in fact do and will continue to do. I find your characterization of Vincent to be an extraordinary display of projection; after all, you and your readers often express disdain for women as they actually are (women such as Sally Ride for example) and you seem to delight in telling women what they should be doing.

Women are human beings. We have been involved throughout history in every human endeavor. Women who achieve in the realms of science, politics, business, academe, the arts, etc. are not doing so because some man told them to. Women like me, however, do appreciate the supportive sentiments of the Vincents of the world.

 Laura writes:

My readers and I express disdain for feminist ideologues and their willing victims, not women as women.

Vincent, however, seems to believe — given his general and somewhat vague repudiation of my Sally Ride piece –that women cannot possibly fulfill themselves, and that they are somehow inferior and lacking, if the intrinsically masculine realm of space science is not open to them. This is feminist misogyny, which despises natural womanhood and places it in sharp conflict with the diverse abilities and callings of women. (I admit, however, that I was being provocative with Vincent. Anyone who reads a site called Fundies Say the Darndest Things, which I have never read but can well imagine, is possibly beyond mental recall and needs to be woken up or stabbed with a rhetorical needle lest he descend forever into the nether regions of Internet imbecility. These people, I presume, only understand name-calling. In the spirit of fraternal charity, I must work on that level.)

Catholic theology actually upholds the virgin as the highest manifestation of womanhood so your point that it only views physical mothers as womanly is false. (It is not my Church, by the way.) Even the virgin is maternal in some ways. Full motherhood is, next to consecrated virginity, far superior to anything else a woman can do precisely because the human soul is eternal; spaceships and launching pads are not. True motherhood is far more than babysitting. It involves the transmission of a culture. Many women who cannot have children through no fault of their own are motherly in various ways and bring this capacity to the expression of other talents. This makes them utterly different from men.

In the Middle Ages, women performed a wide range of trades, professions and skills. They were artisans, midwives, nurses, businesswomen and intellectuals. They ran convents and even monasteries of men. They deployed managerial skills in running castles and feudal estates while their husbands were away, skills that are comparable to those needed to run large businesses today. The queens of the Middle Ages changed the course of civilization, often through their influence and moral intransigence. But none of these accomplishments were in the sort of conflict with duties as mothers and wives that is typical of modern careerism. These women didn’t abandon their children and consider it good or necessary — and they weren’t cajoled into abandoning their children by anti-Christian feminists.

Peter writes:

I read the bizarre comments from a “Vincent” who seemed perturbed at your observations about space travel.  If NASA had spent more time focusing on engineering and safety instead of a PR campaign to increase mission ratings the likelihood of two disasters would have been averted.

Trying to squeeze a launch in before the morning game shows was tragic, then a disaster in the upper atmosphere.  Unnecessary and horrific tragedies, yet both are linked to the green movement as the agency restricted Rockwell and Morton-Thiokol from using adhesives and other insulating compounds that were safer but considered toxic.  That part never seems to get much press.

Feminization of the sciences has taken the hard edge out of these endeavours, instead of men duking out hard science in board room or shop floor people are roasting alive in the upper atmosphere with board members and management fretting about the PR implications.

So basically, the federal government took their rockets from them – and it’s unlikely to give them back.  In a twist of irony, I was at Daytona beach for the last launch, observing from our ocean view balcony.  We could see the combustion trail as it ascended and it made the air resonate from over fifty miles away, afterwards people down on the pool deck were just silent for a few minutes as in a state of mourning.  Kind of profound, many older ones looked as though they pondered what was being lost in a moment of anguished reflection.

Laura writes:

Feminists — both male and female — couldn’t care less about the destruction of masculine esprit de corps in the sciences, from which they themselves have enormously benefited.

Thomas F. Bertonneau writes:

A few thoughts on the topic:

Sedna, a trans-Neptunian object three times farther from the sun than Neptune itself, owes its discovery (2001) to Mike Brown, Chad Trujillo, and David Rabinowitz.  Sedna’s orbital period is somewhat more than 11,000 years, in an extremely elliptical path.  The planet’s composition is typical of trans-Neptunian objects: A mixture of water and methane ices, with a possible rocky core, and traces of organic compounds detectable by spectroscope examination of its surface.  By far the most glaring fact about Sedna, however, is its complete lack of diversity.  It is an imperative of social justice that this condition should be ameliorated as soon, and as completely, as possible.  The Obama administration should direct NASA to reorganize its resources with the aim of sending to Sedna as many diversity bureaucrats and as many of their constituents (members of Occupy Wall Street, Code Pink, and the Rainbow Coalition) as practical limitations allow and as swiftly as the practical obstacles permit.  As a matter of fact, the whole of Blue America should migrate to Sedna.  After all, Blue America tells us endlessly what a great boon immigration is for the destination of the migrants.  Here is an idea: Blue America is pacifist and cannot abide the existence of nuclear weapons.  A sizable fleet of “space omnibuses” could be created by the conversion of America’s remaining ICBMs into passenger carrying interplanetary vehicles.  I would gladly abide an increase in my federal tax bill were the project that I describe made a national priority on an urgent basis.  I urge readers of The Thinking Housewife to write to their Congressperson today.  Let us help to make Sedna more diverse.    Send a liberal to Sedna today!

Casey T. writes:

Laura writes:

Thank you.

Sex is never only just sex, but it comes close to that in dehumanized transactions, when people are mere instruments of pleasure. Feminism and the sexual revolution have degraded intimacy and made it much more difficult to attain. Getting to know someone comes after intercourse, instead of before. It’s all backward. How lonely and alienating. I think this loss of intimacy, and this loss of the hope of intimacy, is one reason why young people are prone to eating and drinking binges.

I agree, liberalism is motivated by lust and the need to justify it. But people are not just drawn to it. They are actively enticed by an immense propaganda machine and forces that benefit from the rationalized pursuit of sexual pleasure. Pornography — and much of advertising is now quasi-pornographic — is a tool of conquest. The modern sexual revolution is one of the most cleverly masqueraded forms of social bondage that has ever existed. Sexual morality is demonized because it is politically subversive.

Mr. Walker writes:

“Sexual morality is demonized because it is politically subversive.”

BANG! Nail on head.

James P. writes:

Vincent insists that “as space travel technology continues to develop, more and more women… will contribute to space exploration.”

What he fails to understand is that it is precisely the Left’s determination to turn space travel into a circus in which every possible type of freak must participate, in the name of social justice, that will make space travel impossible. Rocket science does not need lesbians, or women, or Muslims, or blacks in order to succeed — what it needs is scientists. Prioritizing the presence of lesbians (and the other Victim Groups) necessarily excludes genuine scientists, not only because the freaks will be preferentially hired, but also because serious and scientifically capable men will want nothing to do with a pointless charade run for the benefit of freaks. It also goes without saying that the public’s desire to fund a celestial celebration of diversity is presently very limited, and will in due course fall to zero.

In short, if lesbians must contribute to space exploration, then lesbians will not contribute to space exploration — because there won’t be any space exploration.

Of course, I am sure that Vincent, if asked to choose between a white male NASA that actually works and a multicultural, tolerant and inclusive NASA that doesn’t work, would choose the latter every time. He is the type of smug, condescending, and ineffectual type of Leftist who would destroy something “with the best intentions” and always remain at a loss to explain why his “good intentions” resulted in disaster. Other types of Leftists, I am convinced, simply want to smear excrement on America’s face by turning a leading symbol of her power and technical achievement into a ludicrous joke.

TK writes:

Vincent may be a woman…who continues to love other women. But he’s probably just the haughty little priss that you dispatched so appropriately.

Please follow and like us: