In defense of interspecies romance

Will S. finds an article claiming that Disney princess movies have been softening up children for gay marriage with their “impossible desire” plotlines.  If species is a bigger deal than sex, and Ariel and Belle can fall in love with men of other species, then surely it wouldn’t be far-fetched for them to marry each other instead, right?  The Atlantic article quotes cite lots of examples, none of which would seem to have anything to do with homosexuality to anyone not already obsessed with the topic.  (If socially forbidden love is always implicitly gay, then a whole genre going back to the Middle Ages stands condemned.)  I stand by my position that Disney has done a pretty good job of preserving gendered archetypes in the face of feminist pressure, and warming children to the idea of monarchy to boot.  But there are bigger issues at stake here.

Of course, interspecies romance has always been with us.  If you are a hero, you must expect that sooner or later, a fairy, wood nymph, mermaid, Martian princess, Olympian goddess, or elf maiden is going to fall in love with you.  Should this happen to you in real life, you don’t have to marry the girl, but for heaven’s sake have care for her feelings and don’t act shocked or disgusted.  Should you encounter it in fiction, don’t be scandalized.  The author is most likely not trying to win you over to a gay or gender-bending agenda.  And even if he is, you still needn’t worry, because his tools betray him.  Maybe Hans Christian Anderson wrote The Little Mermaid as part of a secret hundred-year plot to normalize sodomy.  I doubt it, but it wouldn’t matter if he did.  Hollywood being what it is, no doubt most of the teams who worked on the Disney movies that have appeared in my lifetime have “gotten with the program” on the gay agenda.  That also doesn’t matter, because what makes The Little Mermaid, Beauty and the Beast, and other stories with similar premises work dramatically is the intuition that sex is actually more fundamental than species.  To use them to deconstruct “gender” is to destroy them.

To explain this, I turn to a true expert on interspecies romance:  Captain James T. Kirk.

Continue reading

Princess superpowers, and other disclaimers

If there’s one thing feminists and traditionalists can agree on, it’s that Hollywood needs more stories about strong, independent female monarchs.

Writing about The Princess and the Frog, I was pessimistic about the long-term prospects of Disney princess movies in a hostile feminist environment, but having seen Tangled and Frozen, I see that I had underestimated the cleverness of the Disney storywriters.  (Insightful reviews of Frozen by antiliberals can be found here and here, but really, these movies are a lot of fun, and you should just go see them.)  What’s remarkable is that these movies strike me as less PC and more gender-realistic than anything since Disney started trying to deflect feminist criticism (circa Beauty and the Beast).  How are they getting away with it?

Continue reading

Women’s issues

Here’s something I read a couple of years ago, and it’s been gnawing on my brain ever since.  At Patriactionary, Will S. drew attention to a proposal in India to provide housewives with a salary extracted from their husbands’ earnings.

The Indian government is mulling over a proposal to force husbands to hand over a percentage to their wives.  (HT: TC)

From the article:

The minister said if a portion of a husband’s income is allocated as wife’s share, it is likely to be spent on better food for children, on their  education and the overall quality of standard of living of that  household.

Why did this idea anger me so much?  Consider that a major purpose of the institution of marriage is to transfer the fruits of men’s productivity to women and children.  For thousands of years, Indian men have slaved away to provide for their wives and children–the fact that the Indian race has survived so many generations is proof of that.  The idea here is that Indian men should continue to strain their backs every day for their families, but that they should no longer receive any credit or gratitude for it.  Instead, women and children are to direct their gratitude to the State.  The man who gives the majority of his waking day to their provision they will be taught to despise:  “He would just let us starve if the government didn’t see to it we got our share.”  Relationships of love replaced with entitlement and exploitation.

Note the offensive assertion that mothers are more likely to see that the children are taken care of than fathers.  These damned feminists have never met me, but they know I don’t really love my kids.

In fact, though, feminists in India are behind on the narrative.  In the enlightened West, we have decided that women’s priority is for adult sexual hedonism at the expense of children and public morals.  It isn’t me saying this–it’s the establishment:  the New York Times and the Democratic Party.  Just consider what are called “women’s issues”:  legal and subsidized abortion overriding conscientious objections by anyone involved, free contraception subsidized even by those with conscientious objections, normalization of female promiscuity (they can’t even have a movement against sexual assault without it turning into a celebration of sluthood), easy divorce despite the harm to children, and lowered labor investment in the raising of children (that is, more women in the workforce, which, unless they’re all going to work at daycare centers, means less overall labor allocated to childrearing).  The presumption always is that when a conflict arises between children and adult selfishness, women will side with the latter.  Even objecting to the outright murder of children in the interest of adult hedonism is associated with organizations run by old, celibate men.  If I were a woman, I would be offended by this, but I’d mostly be embarrassed for my sex because the Democrats have actually succeeded in getting an edge with women in this way.

And yet, for all of this, today’s politically active women are as nagging and shrewish as their prohibitionist grandmothers.  This is not how women who just want consequence-free sex act in my fantasies at all.

Feminism destroyed adulthood

That’s basically the message of this New York Times Magazine article.  Most of it is the usual PC crap celebrating the coming demise of the oppressive white patriarchy.  The interesting observation comes near the end:

Looking at those figures and their descendants in more recent times — and at the vulnerable patriarchs lumbering across the screens to die — we can see that to be an American adult has always been to be a symbolic figure in someone else’s coming-of-age story. And that’s no way to live. It is a kind of moral death in a culture that claims youthful self-invention as the greatest value. We can now avoid this fate. The elevation of every individual’s inarguable likes and dislikes over formal critical discourse, the unassailable ascendancy of the fan, has made children of us all. We have our favorite toys, books, movies, video games, songs, and we are as apt to turn to them for comfort as for challenge or enlightenment.

This captures a key difference between the feminist-liberal and the traditional imagination.  The feminist doesn’t want to be just an archetype.  The traditionalist doesn’t want to be just an individual.  Does it constrict the soul or enlarge it to participate in a role that pre-exists and transcends the individual person?  Feminists are happy to smash the ideals of man and woman even as they realize that this will leave nothing left of our identities but childish consumer choices.

The most dangerous vice for women

Elusive Wapiti quoting Elspeth quoting Kieth Drury:

In a spiritual formation class we work on how Christians can get victory over sin as a part of their spiritual growth. To start the unit I ask students to list the sins Christians face most today. They list four sins immediately:

Internet Porn

Then they pause…they run out of sins…At the pause I usually ask, “OK, for each sin on our list let’s decide as a class if men or women are more inclined to this sin. In all three classes they have agreed that while women are sometimes tempted in these areas men are more inclined to these four sins.

So I say, “Only women participate now—decide among yourselves what four sins you’d add to the list to that you think women are more inclined toward. Silence. Furrowed brows. Thinking…

The last two times I did this activity the women unanimously agreed on what they considered the chief besetting sin of women:

Lack of self esteem

I’m serious. So were they. The last two times I did this when a women offered “Self esteem” the entire group of women audibly responded, “Yeah—that’s it!”

You see where I’m headed? Lack of self esteem? To the men in the class these co-eds were saying, “While you men struggle with pornography, lust, pride and anger we women struggle with not thinking highly enough of ourselves.

A while back, Sunshine Mary noted a real gem in Christianity Today:  “The Spiritual Sex:  why are women better Christians than men?”  (Degree of spiritual advancement was measured by anonymous self-assessment.)

By almost any measure, women are better Christians than men are. They’re more likely to read Scripture, believe it, practice what it teaches, and tell others about it.  (Studies suggest that women are also more devout Muslims, Hindus, pagans, etc.) And they’re feeling pretty good about it, too: in August, the Barna Group reported that 74 percent of Christian women say they are mature in the faith.

One of the only categories on which men scored more highly was agreement with the following:

I strongly believe God is angered by my sins,

Also according to Barna, women don’t struggle with any of the seven deadly sins:

Churches have long taught the seven deadly sins or modern interpretations of them: lust, gluttony, greed, sloth, wrath, envy and pride. For women, these traditional sins do not seem to be a problem; they claim instead much more “modern” struggles. In fact, when asked what they struggle with, women most often point to disorganization (50%) and inefficiency (42%).

As for the traditional sins, women are least likely to admit to lust (8%). And, against common stereotypes, women also say they rarely battle jealousy or envy—less than one in eight women (13%) admit to feeling envious often or sometimes. When it comes to other negative behaviors and attitudes, about one third (36%) admit to feeling anger, one quarter say they struggle with selfishness (25%), one in five say they are prone to excessive arguing (19%) and just over one-sixth (16%) say they can be arrogant.

So, in case it isn’t obvious, the vice most likely to ensnare a Christian woman is PRIDE.

One may still wonder if this is something biologically innate or a result of cultural conditioning.

Sodomy indoctrination law for Minnesota schools

This is why we can’t stop fighting.

How the Grinch stole Valentine’s Day

I see that the feminist harpies have been out in force recently on campuses throughout the country with their “V-day” booths, their “Stop the Violence” (the traditional patriarchal family being equated with “violence” in their usual dishonest way) posters, their obscene “Vagina Monologues” productions, and their “all men who don’t approve of me being a slut are rapists” marches.  Well, you say, why be surprised?  That’s what feminists do.  Yes, but they make a special point of doing it around Saint Valentine’s Day.

So, sure, Valentine’s Day is mostly a gimick for card and flower salesmen to make money.  On the other hand, I have no objection to these honest businessmen making money, and the holiday is named for a Catholic saint and martyr (or, actually, maybe three of them).  Above all, marital love is a good and holy thing, and it takes a deep and abiding spitefulness against the normal and natural mass of mankind to deliberately set out to spoil a holiday in this love’s honor.  What the hell is wrong with these people?  They see lovers exchanging chocolates and their furry green heads turn red.  Everything warm and human is hateful to them.