Feminine Wiles Classified as “fraud in the quality of merchandise”

legal curb feminine wiles

The Brooklyn Daily Eagle, August 2, 1926

Paris–There is still a law on the French statute books, although not enforced, that imposes a penalty on women who beguile men into marriage by means of rouge, powder, perfumes, and similar feminine aids.

“Whosoever attracts into the bonds of marriage any male subject of His majesty by means of rouge or powder, perfume, false teeth, false hair, steel corsets, hooped petticoats, high heels, or false hips will be prosecuted for sorcery and the marriage will be declared null and void if the accused is convicted”.

The law passed by the parliament of 1770 is still on the French Statute books and could be appealed to by a present day complainant. It seems to show that the mere men of King Louis XV’s time had some protection from the wiles of women who resorted to artificial means to win a husband. Even the introduction of the new civil code in 1804 left it in force under the section “fraud in the quality of merchandise”.

Rumors

I have strong suspicions and even some evidence that an underground smear campaign has been going on against me. If you hear anything negative or rumors about me, please contact me to get my side of any story before assumptions and rushed judgments are made.  Thank you.

A Web of Men (repost from 2011)

“The clever woman sits at home, — and like a meadow spider spreads a pretty web of rose and gold, spangled with diamond dew. Flies — or men — tumble in by scores, — and she holds them all prisoners at her pleasure with a silken strand as fine as a hair. Nature gave her at her birth the “right” to do this, and if she does it well, she will always have her web full. But her weaving must not be to hold the flies, — i.e., to influence men, — solely for her own amusement and satisfaction; — she must learn to take a wider outlook and use her limitless powers for the benefit and betterment of the world.
I love my own sex, and I heartily sympathise with every step that women take towards culture, freedom, advancement, and the moral and intellectual mastery of themselves. I would fain serve them in all that may be for their peace and perfect happiness, but I honestly feel that such peace and happiness are not to be gained by violent or unnatural methods. The object of woman’s existence is not to war with man, or allow man to war with her, but simply to conquer him and hold him in subservience without so much as a threat or a blow. Clever women always do this; clever women have always done it. It is only stupid women who cannot command men.“ – Marie Corelli 1855-1924

Marie Corelli was not too keen on the women’s vote and not for the usual reasons, but because she felt women can have much more control over men and the world by webbing or conquering them with her feminine influence and charms. Women who sought the vote were seen as weak for having to resort to masculine tactics for influence. She was all about control as much as the suffragettes or feminists were, but her tactics were more stealth like. If a woman was clever or sneaky enough she could use her influences to come in under the cover of darkness and bend men and in turn politics to her will. It is manipulative and cunning and quite frankly how conservative feminists operate. Such women don’t command men by masculine or normal feminist tactics, no, they “sit at home”* and for pleasure subtly craft a web for men to fly into and do what they will. And don’t forget—nature gave her the right to do this.

*As much as like the idea of women in the home, I also recognize it can be used for trickery. As all things can be used for good or evil.

The Evolving “Cult of Domesticity”

I once thought the “Cult of Domesticity” (COD) was an over-exaggerated feminist made-up term, but time and time again it is appearing to be a real phenomenon that is alive and thriving today. Starting in the 1800s it emphasized femininity above all else and that only the women who lived and boasted piety, purity, domesticity, and submissiveness were true women. The rest, the poor, immigrants, the spinsters, servant class etc, while they should all strive to be those things they will never really ever be part of the club, and be a true, true woman. Even if you were doing those things as a lower class woman, if it wasn’t publicly noticed through social clubs, church, etc.,  it didn’t really happen.

Just as with feminism there have been different waves of this cult (or perhaps a better word is idolization). The 1800s was the first wave and then the 1950s brought back the second wave and now with blogs we are seeing the third wave, where droves of women are flaunting their femininity because only the feminine women (feminine as they define it) are true women.

There is extremism on both sides. The cult/idolization of domesticity meets it counter with the cult/idolization of feminism. Both ends define what it is to be a woman and neither just let women simply be, simply exist and to live to the best of her abilities. If you want to be in the feminist cult you have to be liberal, pro-abortion, pro-career, independent, sexually liberated, anti-patriarchy. If you want to be in the domestic/true woman cult (third wave), you have to be anti-feminism, reformed feminist/slut, sexual goddess, domestic goddess, mom of multiple “awesome” children, have a blog with flowery images or pin-ups of the perfect wife, and oh one other tiny detail, married to or seeking an alpha, stud male. You see, this is what makes the third wave of the COD set apart from its former waves, a pedalstalization of the alpha male and a disregard for beta males or less.  The alpha male is a trophy prize, an object, and women love to flaunt their winning of one.

Are women really feminine for feminine sake or is it just so they can get and keep an alpha male? They love and harp on being wonderful, submissive, feminine wives, but almost always these women have or hope to capture studly, masculine men.  I want to see the women boasting of her femininity and submissiveness for her omega man.  Funny, how you just don’t see that though, going to show that femininity is conditional upon what she can get in return.

Suppository or Tea?

Read this and then mosey on back.

Which of these two approaches describes us? Are we like the scribes and Pharisees who were quick to pronounce judgment on others and rid their life of offensive sinners who were beneath them?

Relating to blogging, in a rush to keep our rosy, superior worldview, do we ban people and declare “troll” because an offensive sinner crosses our path? For a Pharisee, anyone who does not exhibit their near or same level of perceived holiness is a thorn in their side that must be plucked and removed.

Or are we like Jesus who—without lowering God’s standard of holiness—reached out to sinners with patient grace? Have we forgotten that the ground is level at the foot of the cross? Do we recognize that no matter how long we’ve been a Christian we will never get to the point where we will have the “right” to condemn another? Are we daily conscious of the reality that there is only one who has the power to condemn and that it is not you or me? (Rom 8:34)

Perhaps the thorns, those pesky fornicators/sluts, feminists, frivorced women, messy people, etc., cross our path as a lesson in extending patient grace.  A person in rebellion is only going to get more fire for their rebellion from a Pharisee.  The Pharisee approach is akin to stripping you naked in shame and shoving their version of correction and holiness in like a cold suppository. In contrast, the Jesus approach is a warm cup of tea where the medicine is subtle and still goes down, but in a much more gracious, patient way. Sipped over time.

How the Internet Dumbs Down Discourse

Here is a great article on how the internet dumbs down discourse. A few key passages:

There are a number of reasons for how things have turned out. The ease of entering discussions has meant a lot of very bad discussion, much of it hardly worthy of the name. Obstinate people who have one answer for everything and ignore what others actually say find it easy to churn out commentary. Combox exchanges especially tend to devolve into repetitious gibes, slogans, and personal abuse. Normal people give up, and the bad drives out the good.

Intelligent discussion is work, and often unrewarding, since the same errors and dodges come up again and again and resist correction. Even if someone wants to understand a position it takes a great deal of imaginative effort to do so if he doesn’t already almost agree with it. If someone hears an assertion, he thinks of what it would be for him to make it. If he believes that “gay marriage” advances the purposes of public recognition of marriage and hears opposition, what he hears is “I want to pick on gay people.” That’s what it would mean if he took such a view and all his other beliefs remained the same. Such barriers can be quite difficult to overcome.

To make matters worse, the very diversification of opinion and information promoted by the Internet has put a premium on more effective ways of dismissing disfavored views. All too often people don’t want to understand because it would complicate matters to do so. To maintain the stability of their intellectual and social world in an age without legitimate authority they find ways to exclude whatever doesn’t fit. The result is that the more open public discussion seems to be the more partisan and taboo-ridden it becomes. Opposing positions are not described fairly or understood correctly, and what’s presented is less argument than insult, sophistry, bludgeoning, and half-truth or outright fiction. Issue is never joined, and discussion goes nowhere. At times in the past there has been a conception of honor that demanded a certain standard of honesty and good faith in public discussion. Those who violated it were discredited and ignored. In today’s marketplace of ideas that’s disappeared, and cheating pays off as long as it supports the answers people want.

It is true that discussion can seem pointless today. How often do we convince anyone? How often do we even think we’ve made ourselves understood? Saint Ambrose commented that it has not pleased God to save His people through argumentation (“non in dialectica complacuit Deo salvum facere populum suum”). If so, it seems even less likely He’ll save His people through blog posts and combox rejoinders, or even thoughtful essays on esteemed websites.

“She’s Just Jealous”

Jezebel actually gets something right here with this article on female jealousy:

When you’re in eighth grade and you don’t understand why your best friend has suddenly teamed up with the class bully to write you jerky, unsigned notes that they leave in your locker every day (without fail) between fourth period science and fifth period study hall, having a mother who tells you that the girls are mean to you because they’re “just jealous” can provide a mental sanctuary necessary for temporary self-preservation. But when entire swaths of the population — from Real Housewives to real pundits — internalize and spout the notion that all women who so much as disagree with another woman must be jealous bitches, we have a problem. The phrase “just jealous” is not only usually incorrect, it’s reductive, and paints women as petty harpies. It’s fucking ruining America.

Yes, entire swaths, manosphere included. Any time a woman disagrees with another woman a catfight is called and then swiftly followed with “she’s just jealous”.  It shuts down debate and prevents women from having to defend themselves with logic and argument or have any moment of introspection. This is why it is easier for women to just go along with the herd, never disagree, lest the dreaded “she’s just jealous” accusation be thrown.

I have to hand it to the phrase “she’s just jealous.” It’s pretty much the most perfectly infuriating thing someone can say to another person who is trying to have a legitimately critical discussion besides “relax.” Simultaneously lazy, self-aggrandizing, and indicative of a pathological lack of self-awareness, “she’s just jealous” does it all. It’s a humblebrag! (I’m so fabulous that every possible thing I or this person I support does is not only unassailable, but envy-inspiring.) It’s a quick and dirty dismissal! (You’re wrong; I’m awesome.) It’s a way to characterize enemies as petty! (There is no legitimate way to disagree with me! All disagreement is bullshit!) And it reliably shuts down dialogue; it’s nearly impossible to respond to accusations of being jealous without sounding defensive. It’s the idiot trump card.

Yes, for the person saying “you’re just jealous” not only does it reek of pettiness, but also implies a sense of superiority. The person saying it is so overly confidant of themselves that they think women should be jealous of them and they love drawing attention from it.

This isn’t to say that it’s never possible that any woman is jealous of any other woman, ever. But here’s a foolproof trick for telling the difference between the green-eyed monster and legitimate criticism — jealousy-based criticism isn’t substantial, it’s not based in actual, back-uppable disagreement with a viewpoint someone may hold.

In order to end the tyranny of “she’s just jealous,” there will have to suddenly be a mass realization that it’s possible for a woman to talk to or about another woman without first assessing how she stacks up to her physically. And we’ll all have to accept that sometimes, they’re not just jealous; that it’s possible that maybe you’re actually a jerk. But I’m not holding my breath.

Modern Women Summarized

3fa34dace9e27adcec218fb214434004

This one graphic says it all.  A comment on Pinterest said, “this will be my daughter’s bedtime story every night”.  Part of me wishes I had time to give this a proper fisking, but really I just feel sad. Young girls growing up today and many of the current young women, just never ever had a chance. This is what society and their mother’s have trained them to be.  Sold down the river by the sisterhood.

UPDATE: A reader sent me this.  The natural outcome of the princess saying no.

once-upon-a-time

Why do Women Blog?

See this study on why women write personal blogs.  Its all a bit too scientific for my tiny brain (you would think this was a study on cancer), but I am throwing it out here for discussion. Please share passages you find interesting and any of your own theories.  Here is the abstract:

Hierarchical OLS regression of survey results from a random sample of 312 women bloggers reveals a sta-tistically significant positive relationship between need for self-disclosure and seeing blogging as a way  to express one’s own voice, mediated by need for affiliation and time spent blogging. In essence, women with a strong need to self-disclose information about themselves are more likely than other women to say they blog to express their own voice in the blogosphere, compared with blogging to connect with other people or to gain influence in the blogosphere. In contrast, for women who blog to connect with other people or gain influence in the blogosphere, the strongest predictors is time spent blogging, not needs that motivated them to blog. Results are discussed in relation to need theory.

The Feminine Jekyll and Hyde

The Feminine Jekyll and Hyde is alive and well. List it along with death and taxes for being certainties in life.

3b48964r