What a Man!
I came across this article from about a year past:
I was at first baffled at this selection of what to me seems a rather handsome bit of advertising art portraying a rather cute and frankly desirable situation: a man with a loving wife and daughter. He adorns the wife with jewels. She shows a becoming modesty upon being discovered by the daughter.
This picture, dear reader, is meant as scorn. This picture is an attempt to depict a nightmare of neanderthalish and hateful agape, unconditional love of man for woman, Christlike and self-forgetful love.
The hit piece is here: http://www.addictinginfo.org/2014/07/24/john-c-wright-sexism/
The original article of mine which the dwarf-hearted toad is too pusillanimous to link to is here: http://www.everyjoe.com/2014/07/16/politics/secret-to-the-most-mind-blowing-sex-ever/
The proud liberal is too craven to sign her name to the article, which is organized such that if one switched the first, last and middle paragraphs at random, they would make as much or little sense as they do now: by which I mean it is disorganized litany of liberal talking points.
She quotes me where I say
” For her part, she must vow to love and honor and obey. And if you do not understand about that obey part, you do not understand women. She wants a leader, an alpha male, a chief, a Christ, and you must be willing to die for her as Christ was willing to die for you, or she will not feel secure in your love. If she does not swear to obey, you are not a couple, not a dyad, not a unit, but are still two sovereigns dealing with each other at arm’s length, not intimate, and she cannot trust you fully, cannot love you fully, not with a divine and self-sacrificing love. And she knows you don’t love her fully, not with a love that is more than madness, more than sense, more than the universe.
But does not quote the other side of the obligation, where I say the man must be willing to lay down his life, live his life, and devote his life to the woman.
She says
I know almost no women who want to be meekly led by an “alpha male.” Maybe I just tend to surround myself with strong willed women because passivity annoys me. But maybe, just maybe, women are not the sheep that Wright thinks they should be.
But I said nothing about meekness, nor strong strength nor weakness of the will, nor about passivity, nor about sheep. All this is nonsense she invented in her mind because the liberal mind (I use the word metaphorically to refer to the seat of their incoherent emoting they use instead of thought) has only one message, one method, and one mode of attack.
1. The message is “I am a victim – pity me.” Here she plays the victim card by pretending my words insult or attack her, when, in fact, quite the opposite.
It is, of course, White Blackmail. If I were actually the neanderthal savage and fear-filled warrior on women instead of their most ardent champion, I would laugh an iron laugh to hear my victims cries for mercy, and her tears would be my wine.
2. The method is to do that opposite of reading the words, and instead to use a free association technique to discover whatever it might be that the words most vaguely remind you of, and, if that fails, to make up meaningless drivel.
In logic, this is called a strawman argument. You make believe there is something you find offensive, and when you can find no one actually saying that, you pretend some passing bystander (in this case, it happened to be me) said the offensive thing, and then you shriek, or weep, or call for the big, strong, police man, or have a fainting spell, and do other things even Victorian matrons would have been embarrassed to do.
Odd that this women is so sheepish, weakwilled, and passive that she has no other tactic than to pretend to be offended by a boor. As with the White Blackmail technique, one actually has to be a refined lady, a woman of modesty and dignity, a woman of class, for this technique to work. And it only works on gentlemen, the very type of man she is here damning to hell.
3. The mode is to pretend the person making the argument is a bad man so that no argument will be uttered or answered. This mode avoids argument at all cost. If you notice, not one of the statements in the rebuttal of ‘proud liberal’ even on the same topic — how to have great sex — as the column allegedly being answered.
The liberals have only one argument, namely, ‘Shut up’, He explained and only one way of presenting the argument: shoot the messenger without reading the message. Disqualify the speaker. Change the subject. Ad hominem.
That is all they have. That is the whole trick.
From that praise of self sacrificing and all consuming love, she eructates this conclusion:
Wright’s Neanderthal view of gender [sic: she means sex] is hardly atypical for conservatives and is the core of the right’s war on women’s rights. The idea that women should be equal to men in our society is terrifying to them. The reasons for this are numerous and a topic for another time but the fact remains that the right, especially the religious right, is openly hostile to progress for women.
Got that? A man whose views, as far as I know, are only shared by a few enthusiastic Catholics is now depicted as typical for a conservative, and is proof that a war on women’s rights is being waged. Of course, there is no mention of any war or any rights in the article to which she failed to link.
Then, this ‘them’ (who, exactly? Me?) is terrified of the idea that women should some day in the far future get the vote and the right to own property. I assume this is what is meant by equality. It seems to me women already enjoy these benefits, and have for all my life, and my father’s life, and my grandfather’s.
If I were openly hostile to progress for women, why did I not openly say it?
The motive stated in the article is that the writer, namely me, claims to know the secret to a wonderful sex life and would like to share the news to a generation that has been lied to repeatedly. This hardly is an odd or incomprehensible motive. If you discovered a big lie that had been making neighbors, fellow citizens, and even strangers miserable for years beyond count, wouldn’t a sense of largesse, if not a love of truth, urge you to spread the word?
She surely means that I am secretly hostile, because what I openly said was that women have been lied to their whole lives about the most important thing in life, love and romance, and that they will be happier if they hear the truth, and insist on their rights, and stop selling their birthrights for a mess of pottage.
Maybe I am openly hostile in a secretly way, or secretively hostile in an open way.
But if I am secretly hostile, this raises the question of how she claims to know my inner motives when she says she does not even know who I am is a typical blithering babbling bit of Lovecraftian madness which is uttered so frequently these days, we are all in danger of getting use to it. We should never get used to such treatment, whether directed at us, or at our fellows, or at strangers.
Not to put to fine a point on it, saying a thing known to be untrue is called fibbing. Fibbing for a malign reason is called lying. Lying an illogical and silly lie, one when there is no hope of being believed, merely out of a hatred for the truth and logic is called Political Correctness.
But notice most of all what this moron selects as a picture meant to be damning. A handsome man kissing his beautiful wife while a bemused daughter looks on, holding up the heart that represents the family love.
That is what they hate? That?
Let us cut to the core of the matter: this writer writes like a girl. If this a boy writing, he is effete, and wears footie pajamas while sipping chai and talking about health care.
She is obedient and sheepish to her masters. In this case, she has no husband, no lover willing to vow eternal fidelity and endless love as I vowed to my wife. She has no man willing to die for her, who has the leadership ability her sex naturally craves.
She denies the craving, but she lies. Instead of a husband who loves her, she has a party, a political view, a worldview, a faction, a cult, who tells her lies, ruins her life, exploits her gullibility, and hates her.
Instead of being a wife with a husband in a leadership role, she is a slave with a glorious leader, or a set of anonymous opinion-makers, as her master.
Have you ever known a woman who was really, deeply, into a cult, whether political or religious? The devotion they otherwise would lavish on home and children they lavish on indifferent and deceitful politicians or smarmy preachers. They never question the leadership; they are devoted to the end; they never disbelieve the propaganda; they are faithful and loving and devoted as only the heart of a woman can be.
And they are followers, not leaders. They merely follow someone who has indifferent contempt for them rather than love.
When women move into a leadership role, their maternal instruct comes to the fore. Even queens and political leaders of the fair sex act motherly, and treat their followers like children. And to see one’s fellow man as children creates this same hatred and contempt for them, the same fear, which the craven liberal in this column attributes to any disagreement.
She reacts as if I am not smarter, older, better educated, a lawyer, a philosopher, a writer, with a genius level IQ. She reacts like I am a smart mouthed child who is boasting, and whose judgment that one way of life is better than another merits me a sharp slap on my knuckles with the ruler.
So there is no equality involved. Women either follow their men, or follow Big Brother, or act like mothers surrounded by a world of smelly and disobedience children whom they have no authority to discipline.
The first option is love; the second is hate; the third is weariness and despair.
About John C Wright
John C. Wright is a practicing philosopher, a retired attorney, newspaperman, and newspaper editor, and a published author of science fiction. Once a Houyhnhnm, he was expelled from the august ranks of purely rational beings when he fell in love; but retains an honorary title.
