The Feminist Inquisition

When we are no longer around there won't be any left in America.

When I first moved to Fayetteville in 1960 the university had, and enforced the raincoat rule. Dresses, shorts and the like could not be worn on campus if they were higher than a standard raincoat, which meant knee high at the most. Now the grand-daughters of those women ware skintight yoga pants on campus. These pants are soooooo tight that there is not a crack or curve in the body that is not on public display, every camel has a toe. There used to be a department store in San Francisco called City of Paris. No self respecting woman would even consider going in there without hat, gloves and their best and most modest dress. I believe Neiman-Marcus was the same. As an Arkansan I often have to convince people in the North and overseas that I wear shoes. 

Let me guess. Hold on. Wait a second . . . I'm going to take a wild guess and say she is a Biden voter.



Knowing your wife from afar, as I do, I hardly think you needed to remark to her. Coals to Newcastle and all that.



Feminism. Leftism. One and the same. Dennis Prager notes that the Left degrades everything it touches. This is not news here.



Prager mentions this often.



Feminism. Now give me a hard question. Feminism is explicitly and implicitly premised on the idea that what is considered "feminine" was purely a product of male tastes. The counter-revolution to this idea results in the blouse that clings to every roll of fat. There are other factors, of course. But feminism (the rejection of what they see as the imposition of male standards) is the main influence.

This author's sidebar into Katharine Hepburn is irrelevant and amateurish. Kate Hepburn may have been the archetype for the ball-busting female, but let's remember that much of that mojo was a counterpoint to Cary Grant in the various light romantic comedies. When push came to shove, she was the model female (if a strong one) in a world of conflict and chaos:





Americans have never demanded weak and submissive females until the feminist stereotype invented that dodge as politically useful. We honor and revere Hepburn for being a strong feminine female. And, yes, this is the unreality of movies. She did indeed also play many butch-ess characters.

In short, strong, assertive, Hepburnesque women never ever required women to be butch, masculine gender-benders. Hepburn did not reject her femininity. She simply energized it with (Hollywood-magic) power. Anyone who knows the story of Abigail Adams will not be shocked or surprised.

But modern feminism entailed the rejection of femininity, and not because some actress was a little assertive. They rejected femininity because they believed it was something constructed solely by men for their pleasure and purposes.

Even with women entering the workforce, there was no inherent need to jettison femininity. Such a thing is purely a product of feminism which has man-hating at its heart.

I do not believe this is purely an artifact of fashion or habit. I think instilled in a lot of people was the idea of a higher aesthetic. I dress well not just out of social pressure or custom, but because I believe there is an ideal higher than a "blouse that clings to every roll of fat". Such an ideal may have been fuzzy, but it was an important backdrop to what it was to be an honorable person.



Inherent in this Hepburn thing is the inability to look at her as an individual instead of a trend. Individuals can certainly lead to trends. And to some extent, she did. But Katherine Hepburn was a rare larger-than-life individual who makes for a poor example of trends. We may love her while recognizing that she is an anomaly.

I am of the belief that dressing well in Church was a way to show respect for God and members of the Church.

It is also a sign of respecting oneself. Yes, it can be overdone, but paying attention to one's appearance will often keep one's mind level and health better. I believe there can be a vicious cycle which can lead to slovenliness, whereby one lets one's weight get out of hand just a bit, and accepting that, watch as it steadily increases. One's clothes begin to not fit and it can get to the point that no matter what one wears, it doesn't look particularly good. I notice this in myself now and then and have to get a grip on the situation. Age can do something similar.  

I think of the young British men of the Indian Civil Service, who always dressed for business even if out in the boonies, sleeping in a tent or rickety house. 

Anyone who says appearances don't matter, is either stupid or lying. 

This sounds like a move in the right direction.

Sweden cancels "feminist" foreign policy

Please give me a teensy bit of credit for being on the cutting edge of this. But glad to read this guy's confirmation. I know that sometimes I sound like a broken record. But the reality out there is almost certainly worse than I've ever described it. This guy confirms that.



This guy can certainly write a description. We'll have to see if he has anything worth reading. I can't offhand find anything from him for sure on Amazon.



They are a new sort of Puritan.



Yep.

And as one commenter noted:



Another recommended sticking to the classics. I agree, although I like to sample from any age or decade.

It was crystal clear to me that sci-fi had been ruined by "wokeness" by the mid 80's. Nearly every story had some environmental disaster as the central plot element.

I've just started (glutton for punishment) another Jane Wunderly book. I'm reading the one that follows "Murder at the Mena House." I don't mind a chick having a chick point-of-view. I don't grade down for that. And so far (grading on a curve) these books do not have the theme of "all white men bad, all people-of-color good."

June's love interest is a most masculine man with the odd name of Redvers. (I don't know if that's his first or last name.) June had previously been married to a very abusive man. (I don't deny that such a thing exists, even in abundance.) She is gun-shy about getting involved with another man. She (the writer) is very explicit about June resisting her feminine emotions because, frankly, she doesn't trust them or trust herself.

But Redvers seems to be a good guy, although I'm not sure if his profession has ever been revealed. He seems to be some kind of cop or something. He's got connections.

So whether intentionally or accidentally, we see into the mindset of a sorta feminist writer who at least honestly is showing us how and why this one woman is trying her best to deny her nature. And we understand from her previous bad marriage that she has reason not to trust her instincts in that regard. She has literal scars on her back to prove it.

But the minute a book such as this goes into man-hating or people-of-color loving ("wokeness") I'll drop it like a hot pussy-hat tomato.

Yikes. For all the talk of "toxic masculinity," there is not enough talk about toxic femininity. Of course, we used to call them "nagging wives." Now you can't say that...because...because? Oh, I forget why.