The Daily Vos probably won't be every day, but check back here often. This will be the place where I comment on social matters, political issues, and current events. 






Blog Index
The journal that this archive was targeting has been deleted. Please update your configuration.
« Feminist Flattery | Main | A Friendly Disagreement With Naomi Schaefer-Riley »

Popularity vs. Principle

Part three of three.


Feminists feel women deserve constant pity because they are “victims” of “oppression,” but they also feel women deserve constant praise because they are just so doggone perfect.


In addition to offering constant pity and praise, feminist culture appeals to old-fashioned female vanity. Women love to believe that they're smart. The pride they take in their physical beauty pales in comparison to the pride they take in their intellect.


For just one example, actress Danica Mckellar is known for her math skills, but to what end? What is her proposal to balance the budget? She could at least endorse Ron Paul's budget proposal “Plan to Restore America”.


Mckellar has written a few math books for girls. See, a math book for everybody is just a math book, but writing a book for just girls implies that the book has goodness and ensures a preening Feminist Media. I will always love Winnie Cooper, but writing a book that excludes boys is more proof that every critical thing I say about feminism is true.


“Our Progressive opposition draws its power from peer pressure and popularity. That's the advantage afforded to them by leftist domination of the press and the university.” (“You Can't Change Anything From Your Living Room.” Leslie Loftis. October 3, 2014.)


Women almost always prefer popularity over principle. The only time they do the principled thing is if it also happens to be the popular thing. Maybe women stood on principle in the past, but they don't anymore. It shows just how much feminism has abolished womanhood.


In a woman's mind, taking a stand on principle, just to take a stand on principle, is pointless. There is no reward in it. Which partly explains why female Democrats outnumber female Republicans 14 to 6 in the Senate and 61 to 23 in the House.


Then why do female Democrats take a stand? The Feminist Media and Marxist materialism. Imagine what it would be like to be Wendy Davis. After a filibuster against an abortion bill, she became an overnight ubermensch. Imagine if the Feminist Media minimized your flaws and maximized your strengths by a factor of ten and did the opposite to your opponent. It is difficult for us to even imagine such an advantage.


Feminism is Marxist to its core. Think of Marxist materialism as the amalgamation of the three main branches of feminism. Socialist feminists want to control the government and economy. Liberal feminists want to control the political and legal systems. Radical feminists want to control society and culture. Institutions they can't fully control they want to abolish and destroy, such as religion, marriage, and family. All of this is omni-directional and interlocking. Finally, they hope that by controlling all things they can control your consciousness.


The Democratic Party is the party of ever bigger and bigger government – the fourth branch of government. Bigger government is the materialist reward for the left. Briefly, it's more money, power, and control.


Imagine if only lottery employees could win the lottery and that lottery prizes came from taxes. Everyone would want a job at the lottery and after getting a job would want regular increases in taxes. That is the Democrats' relationship with government in a nutshell.


The following is a paragraph about the concept of “mass society” from Wikipedia. My comments are in brackets.


“Mass society as an ideology can be seen as dominated by a small number [and populated by an enormous number of government bureaucrats] of interconnected elites [feminists, liberals, and socialists] who control the masses, often by means of persuasion and manipulation [and deceit through the Feminist Media]. Mass society theorists are advocates of various kinds of cultural elite [ubermenschen] who should be privileged and promoted over the masses, claiming for themselves both exemption from and leadership of the misguided masses.”


The following is from an article by Peter Berkowitz about philosopher Leo Strauss. (“Leo Strauss' Political Philosophy: Reviled But Redeemed.” August 17, 2014.) Strauss observed that, “Mass society fosters political disengagement, narrow specialization, and preoccupation with creature comforts and shallow entertainment at the expense of the claims of conscience, duty, and virtue.”


That is exactly what has happened to America's women. Men have their bad habits, diversions, and vices too, but they still get a lot done for the good of everyone in the country.


American women were never expected to defend their country and they were never expected to risk their lives for strangers. There is a small percentage of women in the military as tokens and there are some women first responders due, at least in part, to affirmative action.


Do we expect women to do their political duty? Public political participation has a cost. It seems women won't even use their communication skills to speak out for their country because it might cost some popularity. Women have learned that if you don't click with the feminist clique, they will destroy you. Feminists use intimidation to silence women.


Do we expect women to do their moral duty? Remember what Ann Coulter wrote about women in part one, “It is not an accident that the relentless attacks on morality spring from America's women.” And, “Obligations to family, children, and God mean nothing.”


Do we expect women to do their marital and familial duties? Women have almost completely abandoned their roles and responsibilities of adulthood. To the point that Dr. Laura Schlessinger felt it necessary to write a book, The Proper Care and Feeding of Husbands. Feeding their families is the only somewhat selfless thing women do for men. I say somewhat selfless because women like to eat too.


The Underclass is what feminism looks like when fully applied to society. Underclass women and men take little accountability for themselves and little responsibility for their families, jobs, and communities. There is a lot of bad attitude, sexual promiscuity, abortion, illegitimacy, adultery, divorce, unwed mothers and unwed fathers, poor education, unemployment, welfare, crime, drugs, and prostitution. This is your dismal future, America!


Feminism has been a major cause of the social problems listed above. From promoting bad attitude and sexual promiscuity, to abolishing the “nuclear family”, to policies supporting abortion and prostitution. The Socialist Party USA's platform in the “Women” section says, “We call for the decriminalization of prostitution and demand that sex workers, just like all women workers, are guaranteed a full range of health, social, and legal services.” The only difference between a feminist and a member of the Underclass is that a feminist has a job.


Our side is losing. But we aren't losing because right of center men aren't speaking out. We are losing because right of center men are the only ones speaking out. Not to be too bleak, there are more Ann Coulter-types than ever. But if right of center women don't start speaking out on principle, we will continue to lose.