The Maverick Conservative

We know women are dangerous (see prior entry).  We suspect that it became manifest that civilization was on its downward slope when women got the vote (only as of 1919 in this country, and I think the two world wars distorted the picture for awhile until about 1964 when the real effect of this became obvious).  If liberals have their way, we will soon have cloning.  And Maureen Dowd (New York Times columnist for those of you who correctly ignore the sensational and irresponsible media), is titling her new book something like "Men:  Are They Necessary."   So my question is:  Are women really necessary or desirable anymore (as to whether I am bitter against women on a personal level--no--see prior entry.

I thought I had this figured out.  Women voted something like 58% for that stiff, Al Gore.  My own mother adores Bill Clinton and hates George W. Bush.   That is not to mention that women are vicious, selfish creatures (see the film noir movies--this has long been known).  These creatures obviously not only shouldn't have a vote, but we should figure out how to do without them.  Yes, I have two daughters.  That only proves my point.  I KNOW my daughters.  One is a selfish wanna be Eastern snob who has adopted Boston after growing up in El Paso, Texas.  The other is also selfish, but she is a feminsist (I know, the shame of me raising one of those is almost impossible to bear) with the modest goal of ruling the world.  These girls are only 22 and 24, and they prove my point.  Men should not have to deal with them, or creatures like them.

But now a new poll is out on abortion.  Something like 54% of women, if you believe the poll (I don't believe polls), believe abortion is not morally right.  Only about 35 % believe it is morally acceptable.  I know, this doesn't mean the 54% are advanced enough in their thinking to realize that if it is immoral it should be illegal (because the reason it is immoral is that it is the moral equivalent of infanticide, which is illegal).  Nevertheless, this is progress.  Meanwhile only something like 47% of the men thought abortion was immoral while something like 45% thought it was morally acceptable.  SAY IT AIN'T SO.   Surely men are not suddenly thinking less clearly than women. 

I have an explanation.  We have established that women are selfish. I think they are seeing through this idea that unversal acceptance of abortion is good for women.  It is clearly not.  It promotes the idea that pregnancy is ENTIRELY the woman's problem.  It lets men escape any consequences for what happens.  LOTS of men would like to be able to pressure their girlfriends to have abortions rather than have to deal with a pregnancy (I never said men weren't scum--I just said they were capable of thinking and voting better than women).  Then the men can just walk away, and never think about it again--not even any guilt since the men are sure to tell their girlfriends:  "Of course, it is your decision in the end."   In a way, this even promotes the pre-feminist idea that children are entirely the woman's problem, and that men are sort of like observers out there.   So women are thinking:  "Are we going to let men slough this all off on us like they do everything else.  Hell no."

Women may even eventually come around to examining the sexual revolution a little.  Now the morality of abortion has to do with life and death instead of sex.   But it clearly has a side effect for abortion to be accepted like taking an aspirin for a headache.   Sex has fewer consequences (we will ignore for now that promiscuous sex is the most unhealthy activity in which you can engage).   That is why Playboy is all for abortion.  Men can walk away. 

One of the strangest aspects of feminism is to label sexual chastity as something imposed upon women by men.  So feminism did away with the double standard by having women adopt the same morality of free sex as men.  That really showed us.  So the men who treated women the worst had feminists hand to them on a silver platter exactly what they wanted:   sex without consequences or emotional involvement.  Yet it was women who professed to believe that relationships are the most important thing in their lives (my daughters certainly act that way).  So why adopt a philosophy that devalues emotional commitment--not to mention the value of human life?  It directly contradicts what you say you want (I did say women didn't think clearly, didn't I).   This philosophy is the Playboy philosophy that nothing is more important than free sex, and anything that stands in the way of that is bad.  Now Playboy likes to say that conservatives want women to be punished for non-marital sex.  The point of this entry is that it is men that benefit from this philosophy more than women.   But it has things backwards in any event.  Conservatives don't want women to be punished for non-marital sex.  Conservatives just are umimpressed with the Playboy philosophy that the most important goal of life is sex without consequences, especially if it means sacrificing human life in the process. 

Like I said,  I thought I had this figured out.  My own daughters (yes, they are pretty smart in some things, even if handicapped in their thinking by being women) have bought this feminist idea that abortion on demand helps women.  And they (sort of) bought the idea that they had to be "modern" on sex.  If my own daughters bought it, despite me giving them the benefit of my brilliance, then what hope was there for other women?  Then came this poll.  Even with my explanation (see above), this is disturbing.  Could women be figuring it out?  NAH!  There is something wrong with the poll.

|  Add to del.icio.us |  digg this