Conservative stand-up comedian, Robert Knight, reports that a wingnut Bible school teacher has spoken to both homeschooled women and feminists and decided that homeschooled girls rule and feminists drool. The matter is settled, feminists. Pack it in and move out.
That said, let me present the best and most interesting excerpts from Knight’s cromulant reportage.
“The gays and feminists run the New York publishers, so you have to take out that stuff,” the agent told me, adding that my chances of publication would improve if I backed the idea of “gay families.”
Ah, yes. This sounds like exactly like something a professional literary agent would say. Go on.
Dr. Markos begins by noting that “academic feminism rests on the fiercely-held belief that there are no essential differences between the sexes,” the shibboleth amply exposed by post-feminist authors Christina Hoff Sommers, Jennifer Roback Morse and others, not to mention modern conservatism’s founding mother, Phyllis Schlafly, and Concerned Women for America’s founder Beverly LaHaye.
We’re off to a great start here, as I can’t think of anyone who has a more even-keeled, clear-eyed take on feminism than Phyllis Schlafly.
Having taught home-schooled girls in his classes over the past 30 years, Dr. Markos observes that they are head and shoulders above feminists in every way imaginable:
“They possess a razor-sharp wit with which they can cut pretentious people (especially males) down to size, but they rarely use this skill, and only when they are sorely provoked.”
Dr. Markos has also learned that feminists have cooties and are teh suck. Plus, they’re ugly and they smell bad.
The second observation is appreciated. I hate it when women express an opinion before being sorely provoked. Comes across as bitchy, ya know?
There’s more. Home-schooled girls “have wonderfully synthetic and creative minds that make connections across disciplines … they are gifted in the arts; almost all of them can sing and most play instruments and draw. … They have not bought in to the lies of our modern consumerist state: that is to say, they do not judge their value and worth on the basis of power, wealth, or job status.”
I thought this was interesting, because until today I had no idea that feminists could not sing or draw. Feminists must excrete some sort of anti-artistic-talent enzyme that prevents them from dabbling in the creative arts, which is a shame, really.
And how nice for homeschoolees that they do not judge peoples’ value based upon their power, wealth or job status; I had no idea they were Obama voters.
All of them plan on being wives and mothers – whatever else they do.
What more do they need to do? Besides, won’t they be too busy wifing, mothering and singing gay carols at the piano to pursue other passions?
There’s a reason that anything by Jane Austen is a still a hit and why “Downton Abbey” attracts millions of viewers. Feminine strengths are on full display, largely unfiltered by politically correct feminist lenses.
This is one of the reasons I love this article–it’s not bogged down with details. What are feminine strengths? The author doesn’t tell us. What, outside of marriage and child-rearing, would these homeschooled girls do? When did a wingnut Bible school teacher have the opportunity to meet so many feminists? Here, again, author doesn’t bother to tell us, which I like, because it lends a sense of mystery to his writing!
They also take issue with feminists’ role in promoting promiscuity and the decline of marriage, which is the real “war on women.”
Well, this is disturbing. Promiscuity is already an upper-level manager; I don’t want promiscuity to be CEO of America, Feminists!
“Re-establishing the walls of morality, faith, and marriage is no longer something that would be merely nice; it is a vital necessity for the well-being of the nation’s girls and women.”
Yes, I agree with this. There should be more walls around women. That doesn’t sound confining or limiting or prison-like at all.
“They have the wit and discernment to perceive that the feminist is finally a greater threat than the male chauvinist: for whereas the chauvinist demeans femininity, the feminist dismisses it altogether as a social construct that has no essential grounding in our God-created soul.” It’s no wonder feminists hate the feminine Sarah Palin with white-hot intensity.
I’m afraid he’s got us there, feminists. Let’s be honest: we hate Sarah Palin because she’s feminine. Not because she’s a tacky, smarmy, hateful derp factory.
When I was at the Hoover Institution doing research for The Age of Consent, I was amazed at the amount of material in Stanford’s library and courses that exalts gender confusion. Androgyny was the wave of the future, and feminism the underlying creed.
That’s right. And dressing up for David Bowie Day is mandatory!
I feel sorry for girls who are marinated in feminist ideology via government schools and our predatory popular culture.
Oh, shit! I’ve been marinating in feminism? I thought I was just soaking in Palmolive! Well, I know one thing for certain: feminism hasn’t made my hands any softer.
Increasingly, they are given the false choice of misusing their sexuality, like Miley Cyrus, or keeping a chip the size of an anvil on their shoulders.
I want to snark on this, but I literally have no idea what it means.
A third way is to seek God’s wisdom in how to live life fully, like the accomplished woman in Proverbs 31: 25-26: “Strength and honor are her clothing; she shall rejoice in time to come. She opens her mouth with wisdom, and on her tongue is the law of kindness.”