Feminists believe everything any man does is wrong, simply because (a) he’s a man, and (b) he did it. No man can ever do anything to deserve praise from feminists, who never say anything about any male except to condemn him for his maleness. Tumblr is full of man-hating feminists like this one:

“I’m 23, female, a lesbian, white, mentally ill,

visually impaired, a recent college graduate,

an atheist, very left-wing, from the U.S.,

and seeking to learn more every day.”

The sum total of her achievements in life are (a) graduating college, (b) hating God, and (c) being a lesbian, and yet, by declaring herself to be a feminist, she thereby automatically qualifies as an expert criticizing everybody else’s life:

I get so annoyed when I observe willfully incompetent fathers. Last night my mom and I went to a restaurant that had a lot of families, and honestly, almost all of the dads I noticed were totally useless in their behavior. They mostly sat around and ate while the moms fed the kids, took the kids to the salad bar, refilled the kids’ drinks, cleaned the kids up, took the kids to the bathroom, entertained the kids, calmed the kids when they got fussy, etc.

So then it bothers me when people act like it’s “cute” or worthy of a sitcom trope when dads are clueless…because the subsequent assumption is that it’s not a big deal because his wife or some other woman will let him off the hook and take over (as she “should” because women are made to be caregivers and assumed to be naturally nurturing)! There’s nothing amusing about a grown man refusing to do simple things for his own children and essentially forcing his wife (and/or other women in his life) to pick up his slack.

I just feel sorry for all of the women out there who do so much work that is not appreciated or valued. Women in general work so hard.

Those 208 eight words of feminist expertise got 12,482 notes on Tumblr in three days, because feminists hate fathers, period.

Fatherhood is patriarchy. Fathers are oppressors. Nothing any father does for his wife and children can ever entitle him to respect or admiration from a feminist, because (a) he’s a man, and (b) everything men do is wrong. Take your wife and kids out to eat at a restaurant, and the feminist (although she is “visually impaired”) will scrutinize your every word and gesture, looking for some reason to hate you. She is “mentally ill” and doesn’t know anything about you, but her Superior Feminist Insight qualifies her to analyze your behavior and see that your wife’s work “is not appreciated or valued.” Dad, on the other hand, is “totally useless” and has never done any work at all, ever. He just sits around oppressing women and collecting the lucrative benefits of his male privilege, which is how he paid for the restaurant meal.

Feminism is the ultimate sour-grapes rationalization, empowering bitter misfits with theoretical analyses that explain away the apparent happiness of successful normal women. Everybody else walks through the restaurant and sees families enjoying a nice meal together, but feminism enables the mentally ill lesbian to see that this alleged “enjoyment” is an illusion. Obviously, they don’t see the patriarchal prejudice — “women are made to be caregivers and assumed to be naturally nurturing” — that is oppressing these married mothers. You need a college education to understand things like that, see.

From the feminist perspective, it is obvious that these women eating dinner with their husbands and children are all stupid and ignorant because (a) educated intelligent women are lesbian feminists and (b) only stupid ignorant women marry men and have babies.

No feminist would consider the possibility that mothers take care of their chldren because they enjoy taking care of their children. Nor would it occur to a feminist that perhaps children benefit from the division of labor wherein women specialize in being nuturing caregivers. Gosh, she carried them in her belly for nine months and probably breastfed them for several months after they were born, so why wouldn’t we expect that she is more involved (and more skilled) in the nurturing caregiver role than her husband? Doesn’t maternal devotion reflect an entirely natural response to the biological reality of a mother’s greater personal investment in her offspring? And isn’t it true that mothers generally receive an emotional reward for their nuturance, in terms of the special affection children have for their mothers? Doesn’t a mother take pride in the success of her children made possible by her nuturing? Are there no tangible rewards for being a good mother? Is all this caregiving stuff just a burden imposed on women by patriarchal oppression?

Here’s a radical idea: Men are not as stupid as feminists think we are.

Do men have to get married? Do men have to become fathers?

No. There are plenty of unmarried guys with no kids who do not envy the lives of men who are married fathers. Bachelors enjoy their independence. There are lots of single guys out there who go to great lengths to avoid marriage, guys who don’t want to take on the commitment of being a husband, guys who have no interest in the responsibilities of fatherhood. Heck, I know a guy who lucked into a relationship with an incredible bombshell blonde — stacked like the Ziggurat of Ur — and every time I saw him, I’d congratulate him on his good fortune. “So, when’s the wedding?” I’d ask, giving him my usual aggressive family-values spiel. Always my friend would say he just didn’t think he was ready for marriage. This went on for at least three years, until finally she talked him into getting married, although if you saw them together, you’d almost certainly say, “Wow, how did he get her?”

Anybody who knows anything about actual relationships knows how often it’s the woman pushing for marriage, while the guy’s trying to avoid the yoke of matrimony. Parenthood is also something that women often have to talk men into, and any feminist theorist who sees it the other way around is just crazy. Do they think all men are stupid?

Suppose that this visually impaired, mentally ill lesbian was accurate in her observation that, for the most part, the mothers did nearly all the childcare when these couples went out to eat at a restaurant. Can this be explained by something besides a feminist theory of patriarchal oppression? Yes — selection effects.

These were married women. They had been selected by men, who stuck around long enough to spawn children, and who were able to afford to take the family out for a restaurant meal. Are guys so stupid that they can’t evaluate women’s behavior and attitudes? Are guys unable to tell the difference between (a) a woman with an aptitude for nuturing and caregiving, and (b) a mentally ill lesbian feminist?

What I’m saying is that women who exhibit the traits desireable in a wife and mother are more likely to attract a man who wants to be a husband and father. If a guy is smart, these are key criteria in how he evaluates a potential wife. Sure, looks are nice, but even if she’s stacked like the Ziggurat of Ur, a smart guy knows what Smokey Robinson’s mama told him: “Good looking girls are a dime a dozen. Try to find you one who’s gonna give you good loving.”

That nurturing caregiver stuff is important — it’s a very attractive trait, to a marriage-minded man — and so the women selected as wives and mothers are more apt to exhibit this behavior than are lonely feminists who do sour-grapes blogging on Tumblr.

This is why it doesn’t matter whether gender traits are natural or, as the feminists would have us believe, “socially constructed.” If any particular trait is desireable, that trait will be sought, it will be valued, praised and rewarded. Insofar as what men want from women and what women want from men are different, then the difference in their desires will tend to replicate themselves in a way that seems natural, even if you can explain as a matter of theory how these differences are “socially constructed.” Are guys naturally more competitive and aggressive than women? I think so, but if you disagree, so what? Competitive, aggressive men tend to be more successful in their careers than men who are passive and averse to competition, and (brace yourself for shocking news) women like men who are successful.

The same explanation works for why women with certain personality traits are more likely to become wives and mothers. Guys are not as stupid as feminists think we are. If men want to get married, they’re going to look for women who act like they would make good wives. If men also want to become fathers, they’ll look for wives who act like they would make good mothers. Selection effects — wives and mothers are not chosen randomly, which explains the difference between a married mother who naturally acts as a nuturing caregiver, on the one hand, and an embittered lesbian feminist, on the other hand.

Feminists sit around making sour-grapes rationalizations, pretending like normal women are helpless victims of oppression.

Ladies, if you want a husband and children, think about what is necessary to achieve those goals. You don’t have to be stacked like the Ziggurat of Ur, but you should develop an aptitude as a nurturing caregiver. Also, don’t take advice from mentally ill feminists on Tumblr. Otherwise, you might as well major in Women’s Studies, IYKWIMAITYD.

Is your daughter majoring in Women's Stuides? She'll appreciate this thoughtful gift when you send her to college. pic.twitter.com/4zghYDbjUe — Robert Stacy McCain (@rsmccain) August 18, 2015

Loyal readers have been funding my research into radical feminism, thanks to the Five Most Important Words in the English Language:

HIT THE FREAKING TIP JAR!











Amazon.com Widgets

Share this: Share

Twitter

Facebook



Reddit



Comments