Feminism As Con Job

It would seem to me Feminism is a con job foremost, for purposes of robbing the public as well as providing a pressure against overpopulation (and demographic imbalance) to resources. The fact that it causes so many people to not only live unhappy lives but to force their unhappiness upon others is a further argument for its eradication.

The economic impacts of Feminism are multi-fold, and rely on the propensity of Western Women to be ill-equipped for mathematics and computations. This failure is pretty well limited to Western Women and is probably an outgrowth of privilege because poor men and women do not have the luxury of being so blind to mathematics or to dare delegate such pursuits to others, like men, for instance.

The notion of “equal opportunity” for women, I’m afraid has more negative consequences than positive ones when the notion is so easily translated into “equal outcome” as the perpetually non-achievable metric.

I suspect that both computational dysfunction and selective blindness on the part of Feminists is a function of generations of institutional brainwashing, that generally speaking, men and more intellectually fit women are more but not necessarily completely immune from. However, when “intelligence” is defined for political or “democratic” purposes, such as to apply to the greatest possible number of individuals, then it ceases to have meaning.

I wonder sometimes whether cradle-to-grave ostensible social engineering such as a caste system is ultimately less cruel than the promotion of the myth of social and economic advancement due to “luck,” “hard work,” or “privilege”. It would seem to me that these illusions are largely designed to set family members, neighbors, and peers against each other, as well as to set men and women against each other.

However, those families with strong patriarchs who are capable of bringing together the family in an hierarchical or authoritarian structure are more likely to lift themselves out of poverty than those who look toward the state or employer to fulfill “equal opportunity” and “fairness”. Therefore, any brainwashing that diminishes the ability of such patriarchs to effectively pursue their responsibilities and manage their risks serves to redistribute whatever economic advantage may have been previously obtained by such families.

Of course, it is possible that a woman can head such a clan however such women capable of the dispassionate professionalism required while meanwhile being above catfighting are rare. Those who are, chances are, learned those character traits from a man, rather than a woman.

The tragedy of the result of generations of propaganda aimed toward women that a) superior professional and social status is fun and men are mean to keep it to themselves; b) men and women are more natural rivals with each other than same-sex rivals are, has resulted in worsened economic outcomes for the middle class, not better.

Humans with low intellectual capacity assume a whole lot of untruths about the world and obsess over contrived and imagined dramas. Propaganda and brainwashing contribute to that inability to see the world as it really is.

Personally however I have my doubts that the effective countermeasure to Feminism is excessive baby-making. It would seem to me that excessive baby-making is more of a cause of Feminism than a cure. While it is true that baby-making provides women a meaningful vocation that perhaps will deter them from professions that require more dispassionate and rational thinking, too many babies means too much pressure on wages and resources, and leads to excessive conflict. It would seem to me that one way to at least take some pressure off of resources would be to put more women into rewarding but menial work such as to displace machines. Such work that could replace useless vocations such as “going to the gym,” would not only provide something meaningful, but contribute to physical fitness and attractiveness.

I think it is a shame that so many Western Women prefer to purchase consumer goods made elsewhere rather than to make their own items. I suspect that it is a form of learned helplessness that so few women have the courage to buck the consumerist trends promoted by media and instead create their own style of dress, home decor, etc. Misguided ambitions to acquire men’s professions rather than tend to one’s own home further export femininity to other nations.

 

Survival By Means of Supplication to Idiots

It has been interesting since the death of Axel, albeit not particularly pleasant, to have apparently attracted a few of his bitter ideological rivals, ostensibly dangling survival, emotional, and even luxury packages toward me as bait.

One of these creatures I did not immediately recognize, but then as time went on recalled specific warnings from Axel with regard to his character or lack thereof. As it so happens I did not myself meet this creature until after Axel’s death. What a surprise.

The odds of our contact being random, in an altogether different state of the union, give me pause. That said, my life has been a series of chance meetings and other instances which defy Occam’s Razor, so there’s just no telling. Perhaps it really is a mere coincidence if a creepy one.

The easiest way for me to recognize these creatures, to include those who offer merely a platonic emotional acceptance plus the implication of financial goodies, is their ostensible or tacit insistence that I must deny positive memories of Axel in favor of flattering the ego of my aspiring benefactor and pretending to share their vacuum of respect in the irrational or unexplained.

A few of such creatures have crossed my path after Axel’s death. Do they honestly believe I can be converted into a Leftist Atheist? Or is this some sort of perverse revenge or exercise of their envy of Axel’s remarkable magnetism and life?

Although I recognize that Axel was human, particularly toward the end, I am not going to suddenly manufacture respect or affection for anyone who demands that I forsake his memory entirely, to include ideological principles.

Of the many “faults” which Axel and I share, I have never put survival ahead of principles except on an emergency or temporary basis such as when I have been threatened by a monster. I am capable of temporarily placating a monster but to voluntarily put myself in the clutches of one especially under the guise of either romance or friendship would erase my learning experiences garnered in marriage to a con artist (a.k.a. “The Han”).

Another “fault” is my lack of respect for jealousy and possessiveness except in purely practical terms. I attempt to address the various dilemmas of monogamy vs. it’s alternatives here: Prosperity and Generosity.

In summary, in my view, emotional insecurity is not a good enough reason for monogamy. Practical and material concerns may well be but these are individual considerations subject to analysis, trust, experience, and even faith. Monogamy is a poor salve for an insatiable ego. It’s a reasonable tool for shared purpose in times of economic and emotional strife. It’s also something that when discarded demonstrates a level of trust that may perhaps only be reasonable in times of plenty or at least some surplus of time and wealth. It is also sometimes reasonable when there’s not enough resources for an insurance policy or back-up plan should either partner leave or die, when the state does not suffice as such a back-up plan.

However, an Atheist is not capable of faith in anyone but an arbitrarily admired authority figure or himself. Therefore, it would stand to reason that an Atheist would assume that merely the appropriate material inducements are enough to cause me to accept him or her as my sole authority in the universe and to otherwise discard my life experiences in such a blind trust.

They are not.

Whereas neither I nor Axel submitted to anything that could be called “Dogma”, we both agreed that unknown, spiritual, irrational, and undefinable elements in the universe existed and that the full knowledge thereof was by definition beyond the reach of man. Therefore, the clearest way to reach spiritual growth and that transcendence of the human experience that is possible during the phase we know of as ‘life’, is through one’s heart in terms of courage and love.

Axel’s heart and courage were made of legends and he taught me that I had those things as well, even if I was made to doubt them by the aforementioned Han who I had the poor sense to marry.

As a result of my four years with Axel, I am a) still alive; b) believe that I am capable of love and courage; c) believe that I have worth as a human being. Therefore, any mortal human who believes that he or she can dissuade me from those lessons represents to me that mythical creature we all know so well as Satan, the tempter, a vital part of the universe in terms of teaching us all that we have the strength to resist it.

So, I thank God for delivering to me these messengers of temptation and showing me that I can resist them and I thank Axel for being my model and example of that resistance.

Although I still have not figured out the practical means of my future survival, for the present, I’m OK. Some people tell me that I should “write a book,” however those people may not be aware of the odds of such a venture actually netting a reasonable return per hour, drop of sweat, blood, and loss of privacy extracted, particularly since I know that I am not sufficiently detached to tell my own story. I’m open to nearly any sort of collaboration venture however with regard to my story or his.

It occurs to me that those persons all too keen to offer me advice, do indeed have a tool to demonstrate their sincerity toward me, albeit after the fact, and that is that I invite anyone who desires that I continue to write my thoughts in this free-to-all, no-contribution-required blog, to include me in your will.

Such a gesture, assuming it actually bears fruition, would force me to consider that the character of the person willing such to me is worthy of my emulation to even include ideological concerns, with the exception, of course, of Atheism. However since an Atheist is not concerned with any principle beyond his or her life not rooted in his or her own sense of authority, such an exception is of course a moot concern.

Naturally, I would only ask such a consideration from those without other heirs. Someone like me!

Meanwhile, I am proud to survive, a pauper, not so drunk with material or wealth of status such as those who have nothing better to do than to tempt the likes of me out of no more noble purpose than boredom and the desire to reflect on one’s own glory within the mirror.

That must be it, because obviously no one could seriously harbor the attempt to convert me to an Atheist Leftist. That would be ridiculous.

 

 

 

The Mating Game, Feminized

Occasionally, I have to get out there to watch the various generations do what people do. Generally speaking, I find that I am the sole representative of whatever my demographic may be. That demographic of mine is unclear, being that I effectively skipped adolescence by identifying with two generations ahead of me more than my own. However, in harsh terms, women my age (fifties) don’t get out there much except in pairs or groups. Men my age, are justifiably resistant to meeting women of their demographic unless they are fools. Perhaps I pass as a woman of forties or perhaps that’s just a diplomatic lie that men tell me. I’ll never know.

Security personnel intercept me in terms of interpreting whether I am some sort of an economic threat.

Back when I was a hot young thing prowling Las Vegas, casino goons would determine whether I was breaking the rule in terms of whether I was a “pro” or a grifter. (the former was a concern for legal and turf concerns, the latter less so). I wasted a lot of employed men’s time because I am neither. It is somewhat gratifying this Thanksgiving night to see that I indeed attracted a real live mobster to feel me out. Handsome too. I wasted a good twenty minutes of his time with conversational gambits and small talk. I hope it was fun for him. I passed. I’m not a threat. Merely an eccentric.

Had I been a twenty-something, this would not have occurred, but a healthy, vital woman of a certain age traveling alone is considered to be some sort of player. Am I the law? a spy? a rival? slumming? a cougar?

The nepotistic clan-in-charge wants to know.

I’m just a writer and a tourist with an esoteric agenda in terms of saving the world.

The young men look suspiciously weakened, even though the prevailing demographic is well-to-do. The women, by-and-large are vital, charismatic and well-nourished. But, who do they plan to marry? The slop-shouldered trust fund baby? The indeterminate sexuality trophy-car driver?

It makes me wonder whether the water is poisoned here in Southwest Florida albeit of course, the populace here has sophisticated water-filtration.

Even the Black cab drivers from elsewhere look like they would fall down in a stiff wind.

The women, however, are broad shouldered, work out, and speak loudly. Others wear skyscraper heels and are anorexic. The hookers took the holiday off.

I feel as if I am witnessing the end of Western Civilization. On the other hand, I don’t belong here. These people are not my people, whoever those are.

At least the weather is perfect and there are places where I can smoke my cigars without attracting undue notice.

The notion that “rape culture” is alive here is ludicrous. It would take ten of these meek stick figures to subdue me but that wouldn’t occur to them. They’d probably rather do each other.

Self-Reliant Amazon Raises Bar, Threatens Feminists

One of the many motivations behind my anti-feminism is the apparent Marxist/Quaker/Fabian notion that outcomes based on conformity of action must be guaranteed by The State, with such outcomes subsidized by taxpayers, the majority of which by both numbers of persons and origin of capital seized are male.

Given that The State effectively stands in as the ultimate religious, social, and moral authority on all things today, its agents can be found in women everywhere particularly television watchers, “good students,” and, of course, Feminists.

In terms of State-mandated outcomes translated into ordinary Feminist rhetoric, I’ll use as an example the following: if a certain population of men apply to be firemen (yes, I used the gendered form of the word), and of those a certain percentage are accepted, then Feminists assume that therefore regardless of how many women apply to be firefighters, then an equal number of female candidates as the men must be accepted; otherwise it is the fault of oppression. This calculation has no rational basis.

If all outcomes are not equal, then, according to Feminists, the standards are too high or biased. The same idiocy applies to the current furor over STEM (Science Technology Engineering Mathematics) study and careers.

Similarly, a woman such as myself who tends to exceed the norms in terms of the various metrics to which the majority of Feminist women ostensibly aspire yet conveniently fail, to include the various markers of intelligence, my pre-retirement earning capacity and tax bracket, physical strength, size, ability to manage risk, STEM ability, sex drive, and even generally-accepted health markers, is therefore operating from an unfair advantage. Therefore, a person such as myself must either be suppressed or I inadvertently and under protest set a new standard that from now on all women must achieve or it is men’s fault that they don’t. (And it is also my fault for skewing the grading curve.)

Moreover, this droning herd mentality causes men of my interest who might otherwise be interested in me to be hesitant to approach me given that definitions of the terms, “intelligent woman,” or “strong woman,” now mean Feminist because Feminists say so. I am therefore obliged to appear less intelligent and less strong, such as to encourage predators and parasites to feed on me. I can’t win.

If I fail to be sympathetic to such women, then by definition, I am a Patriarch myself and otherwise contributing to their oppression simply by out-achieving them.

However, I have to believe that deep down they know that neither my “achievement” or “intelligence” actually raises the bar in terms of the men who are attracted to me (thanks to the sociological damage of Feminism); therefore it is essentially my youthfulness and health privileges which oppress these female competitors (because those things are attractive). Those privileges nowadays are attributed to luck given that obedience to mainstream healthism diktats is assumed to be a given for me (it most certainly is not) and therefore supposedly it is entirely genetic or accident of birth.

Never mind that the sort of Feminist who tends to target me in this manner, given my current environment, is likely to be white and otherwise share much in common with me genetically, and so, what is it? Could it possibly be my sheer resistance to Feminist and Marxist programming which confers on me certain advantages? Probably so!

As a woman, I am supposed to feel obligated to assist these women in either raising their own youthfulness and health privilege or to give them my money and time for free as compensation, or to even to submit to them in terms of subverting my own personal power in favor of allowing them to rule over me. Why? What qualification exactly does eternal victimhood confer?

Sometimes, after a conversation with such a woman, and I rise from my seat to tower over her, I am confronted with the ridiculous realization that this Feminist actually believes that she is entitled to my service as if I were a heterosexual man interested in doling out chivalry to her.

Sorry lady. I’m straight.

 

 

The Boy must die that the Man can appear

Yes indeed. Spoiler alert: One way to increase both testosterone and human growth hormone is to reduce carbohydrate consumption, within reason, depending on multiple factors. Carbohydrate reduction also helps prevent testosterone (including that added therapeutically) from mutating into estrogenic forms which promote inflammation. Real men kill for their food. Everyone does really albeit women, children, and less masculine men are often insulated from this reality. Even a rice-eater consumes bugs, except in “civilized” society. Here’s to that less civilized faction who we all depend on to maintain domestic tranquility. It’s time we honored it.

Freedom Power and Wealth

Boy must dieOften is has been said that we are living in an infantile society in which more and more poeple who are adults according to their age, live a life more appropriate to a child or to a teenager at best, but not the one of an adult person. At all times there have been such individuals but their number has always been quite small. But this phenomenon of people who refuse to grow adult makes the whole society suffer to an increasing degree. Both sexes are subject to this growing immaturity but I will only address the one relating to the males, because the effect of their immaturity is much bigger then the one of the females.

Society is tolerating immaturity

Western society for the longest time has tolerated infantile behaviour in adults. We have allowed “circumstances” to do with us what they did and we are facing the results…

View original post 1,422 more words

“Rape Culture” = Mandated Chivalry

In my view, the notion that ordinary men ought to be financially, emotionally, and intellectually enslaved to the state is the basis of the fiercely-held “rape culture” delusion. It’s also the basis of Sharia law as far as I can tell. Hence, the unholy-alliance between Feminism and Islam.

Strangely enough, the “rape culture” delusion tends to be self-perpetuating right up until all decent men are entirely emasculated except for the sheer monsters who resist all shaming and marginalization tactics perpetuated by the Feminist Brown Shirts and take to raping anything they can get their hands on, to include men, of course.

However, so long as such men are barred from entering The Harem, the Feminists couldn’t care less. As for those “sluts” who dare to defy the rules of The Harem by venturing out amongst those marginalized men/monsters? To Hell with them, say the Feminists. Only us good and true in-group-loyalty Feminists deserve protection of any sort.

When such Feminists declare unabashedly that they can’t handle the “reality” of what they create and that which devises their own privileges, security, and protection, it is all I can do to hold my tongue and not subject them to that reality. However, such would only tar me as one of those women who do not deserve protection. Now, I ask you, dear reader, which one of us is the misogynist?

 

Odd Woman Out

I like to think that my unique outlook is a strength albeit of course it is also a weakness. Whereas I suppose I was always “an individual,” not having anything to call a “hometown” or culture to which I can authentically claim as my “heritage,” (except genetically, perhaps), it took extreme trauma in order for me to recognize and discard the Leftist indoctrination that nevertheless took hold in my psyche, albeit unbranded and therefore perhaps more easily shed.

Part of my mission is to attempt to devise rhetorical memes that ideally prompt or “trigger” the less-disillusioned to reexamine their closely-held beliefs. Occasionally I am urged that I should “write a book,” or otherwise devise a forum that will somehow catch the attention of other women and otherwise reach them where rational minds have failed. (I operate on a more “intuitive” sense than rational in most of my writings and may or may not have insight to the workings of the female mind. So far, I would say that this insight doesn’t actually assist my mission but who knows?)

Men praise me for my “intelligence” in this respect but generally speaking are reticent to be intimate with me except in foolhardy or “casual” fashion (which I spurn). It would seem that my uniqueness is even a threat to “rational” minds, because, in fact, no one is free of cognitive dissonance.

It is my belief that the primary method of institutional mind control that infects our world today has to do with our unconscious, subconscious, and sense of “sacred” or sexuality and love. Discussions of these sorts of things tends to “feel threatening,” or at least exhausting to the listener and otherwise cause either emotional over-engagement or detachment, depending on the personality of the listener. The former is a more “feminine” or Feminist response and the latter a more “masculine” one but still gynocentric, in my view.

A hot-headed anti-feminist male may conversely be both emotionally over-engaged and even threatened by my arguments such as to approach me in an emotional rather than rational manner. The irony of course is that my philosophy has large areas of agreement with the disenfranchised young man if I tend not to feel submissive to that population. I am sympathetic not submissive, maternal not adoring.

Therefore the population of my romantic interest is a narrow intersection of both passionate anti-feminist, rational detachment, and probably a dose of foolhardy courage such that principles outweigh the drive for either longevity, chivalry as masculine identity, or social acceptance by the gynocentric majority. It’s a tall order and not an easy demographic to reach. The age of that demographic is also probably going to trend younger than my comfort level rather than quietly, sedately, “going with the flow”. I’m also going to assume some sort of genetic resistance to the estrogenization of both our food supply and institutional programming, such as to result in high testosterone production but hopefully not a lot of insulin or alcoholism to counteract that production and convert it into estrogenic (inflammatory) forms.

I therefore refuse to limit my search to those of similar phenotype to myself even if I am by all means open to similar phenotypes as well as cautious with regard to the “foreign,” given my extremely negative experiences there as well. It takes a supremely transcended male, in my view, to not find my own views to be threatening to the “maternal feminine sacred” within his subconscious. Threatening a strong man’s “maternal feminine sacred” is foolhardy. In other words, if his mother was a feminist dupe, then anti-feminist rhetoric from me is going to sound like a challenge and a threat. I have to be extra careful of that reaction given that I may well end up being a target of the poorly differentiated “fatherless son” avenging his mother’s insecurity upon me as described in Why Do Women Hate Each Other?

Some men are effectively or emotionally “fatherless” even if their father is still around. I would put myself in the emotionally “fatherless” category myself, however, have no desire to avenge the insecurity of either of my parents on anyone. That may be because I haven’t been steeped in “chivalry” and otherwise feel as if I already gave my parents more of me than they deserved and for a very poor return on that investment.

Even Axel was somewhat put off by my anti-feminist rhetoric and he thought of himself as highly transcended from his mother’s emotional (and vicariously physical) abuse upon him. Fortunately for me, he was able to detach, and paradoxically channel his frustrations with me in a manner to which I not only welcomed but my sexuality (and personal sacred) is defined by it. However, when he met me, I was a lot more meek and less grandstanding with regard to my views on society.

Nowadays I suppose I’m both passionate and cynical which tend to cancel each other out in terms of my attractiveness.

After four years of slow reintegration into society, my views have crystallized and otherwise become more dogmatic not less. I suspect that this is a natural psychological fidelity mechanism. If my views are more dogmatic then I am less submissive and receptive to the views of other men whereas my man knows how to compartmentalize and otherwise tune me out before dominating me psychologically as well as physically and sexually, with “my man” being a rhetorical construct at the present date.

Just my theory, of course.

 

Entertain me for free, you meanie!

I know that civilization is doomed when a reader (presumably male) denies that I am entertaining and yet continues to comment.

Is that not what feminists do?

The feminist and her great-grandmother, the suffragette, expect guaranteed outcomes for all effort. Some of that effort is merely obedience. For example, if a website declares, “click here,” and the reader obeys, then a reward of some sort is expected.

This reward is “free stuff” whether it is entertainment, education, advertisement, propaganda or some hybrid notwithstanding that a sufficient barrage of “clicks” might add up to a small value to the entities involved in the “click” mechanism; i.e., the sender and the receiver, which may even be monetary. For example, advertising placements may be priced according to “hits” and/or the demographic make-up of those “hits”.

WordPress, the host of this site, probably does something like that when it occasionally places ads on this site or its other sites. However, since I don’t pay them for this space I can expect that WordPress somehow finds a way to extract value from my participation herein and that of my readers.

To that end, it doesn’t really matter if I offer anything of value here or not to my readers, so long as they click and hit me. Petulant comments are therefore of equal value to praise, in theory. However, truthfully, I personally obtain more value from insults because I think they are funny and ironic.

Imagine a juggler on a street corner entertaining the passerby but yet not passing the hat afterwards. Now imagine a passerby voluntarily stopping to observe but being disappointed in the costume that the juggler wears. Imagine that same passerby conceding that the juggler has juggling expertise but is incensed that the juggler has wasted his time by wearing a disappointing costume without expressing exactly what changes to such a costume would assuage the passerby’s disappointment.

Sometimes this blog is free entertainment for yours truly, delivered right to my door.

Kindness vs. Honesty

My girlfriend tells me that my writing provides a misleading picture of me and that is probably true. While I strive for honesty, given that in my view such a thing is rare in the rhetorical offerings available, I am neither so foolish or vain to attempt to project such forthcoming bluntness in person. In other words, I believe that circumspection is a more prudent course than live verbal diarrhea, in most cases. Circumspection in general reflects a sense of consideration for the feelings of others.

I do not generally share with acquaintances that this blog exists. After all, I write under a pseudonym. Caprizchka is neither my given nor legal name and does not represent any known national, geographic, or cultural heritage to which I can lay any legitimate claim. Rather, I have culturally-appropriated a vaguely Russian or Eastern European name of my own invention. If I am a blonde, vaguely Germanic person, I thought it would be a reasonable costume that doesn’t appear to be entirely unreasonable. Am I wrong?

Since I am not making any money off of this blog, I have no incentive to be anything other than honest. In effect, this blog is an experiment to see if my honest views have any sort of traction with a regular audience. Since the reader can participate entirely anonymously, there is no need to be concerned that my feelings matter. I have no way of knowing whether a reader actually reads an entire blog piece or clicks away in disgust or boredom. There is no reason for me to censure my thoughts whatsoever on that front. If I censure myself it is generally to protect someone, to include myself, should I determine that complete honesty might be dangerous.

This blog therefore does not aim to ingratiate or placate my readership, who, for all I know, may be comprised of a majority of persons hostile to my views.

Therefore, it would be entirely subjective of any party to determine whether this blog is in the public interest or whether it is kind of me to devote energy toward it. Furthermore, the reader only has my say so that it is honest. Albeit I would hope that my record of consistency buttresses my claim of its honesty, if I have been forced to fudge a little there as well over time.

For example, whereas I repeatedly refer to my “ex-husband” in earlier entries of this blog, the man is in fact my current and missing husband. However, prior to Axel’s death, I didn’t find it to be useful to emphasize the fact that he was cuckolding a missing man. It did not seem useful to me to show Axel in such a negative light according to conventional morality, particularly when I worshiped the ground that Axel walked on.

Moreover, it is likely albeit uncertain that my missing husband is dead, in which case, that would effectively supply the “ex” of “ex-husband”. It was a concerted choice to make that slight distortion in my earlier pieces.

Axel, on the other hand, left such things entirely up to my own discretion in that he was about the most indifferent to the opinions of strangers as a human being can be.

I suspect that a lot of his attitude in that respect has rubbed off on me. It was somewhat preexisting but perhaps needed an environment where social indifference was paradoxically nourished. This indifference is why my girlfriend is concerned that this blog is misleading and therefore alienating of social prospects. What sort of a woman doesn’t care what strangers think of her? A woman like me. That’s who. After what I have experienced in this life, the fear of being socially shunned is way down on the scale. Walking away alive after being confronted with some of my dangerous life experiences overshadows vague approval symbols from strangers.

However, since I like her, treat her with respect and affection, and cater to her interests, I am obviously not completely immune to her approval. The fact is, when it comes to people who I care for, I relish the opportunity to cater to their passions. I am in fact overcome with the capacity to cater to the passions of others. I enjoy it and live for it. I love to serve. However, indifference to my service doesn’t hurt my feelings. In my view, service that is not given freely or is loaded with expectations such that it requires quid pro quo is not service at all.

♣ ♣ ♣

Why are so few women publicly critical of feminism? Because to most women, the opinion of the public matters and we’ve been told that sympathy toward feminism is the majority public opinion (or the socially sanctified one) even if that isn’t true. Therefore, to be a female anti-feminist is a paradox in that even one’s own femininity is questioned. The paradox continues in that, in my view, feminism redefines femininity as well as masculinity.

The paradox continues when a man who is himself anti-feminist proceeds to overtly or subconsciously question my own femininity because I am being honest and otherwise not considerate toward what is supposedly majority public opinion.

It might therefore come as a surprise to some element of my readership that I am capable of kindness. It would probably come as less of a surprise that I don’t generally put a high value on kindness myself whether to give or receive it. I tend to put a higher value on honesty. If a person shows pleasure in my company or appreciation thereof, I would hope that such manifestations are honest rather than kind.

Similarly, if I show such manifestations of pleasure or appreciation to another, why is it that so frequently the object of my attentions calls those manifestations, “kind”?

Is this some sort of modern cultural or rhetorical tic?

Am I cruel to deny that “kindness” is my motivation?

Isn’t honesty a greater reflection of admiration and esteem than kindness?

 

Tomatoes in a Fruit Salad?

Why not.

Fruit Salad with Cherry Tomatoes

1 package cherry tomatoes, cut in half

2 Kiwi fruits, peeled and thinly sliced

2 Handfuls of grapes—purple, red, green, or an assortment, split

1 Mandarin orange, peeled, sectioned and diced, including juice

2 Ounces Blue-veined cheese such as Gorgonzola, crumbled

2 Tablespoons fresh cilantro, finely chopped

2 to 3 Tablespoons of Balsamic Vinegar  (to taste)

1 teaspoon honey

Sea salt and fresh ground pepper (to taste)

 

Combine first five ingredients in a bowl large enough to allow ingredients to be tossed. In a small bowl, combine remaining ingredients and whisk together until honey is dissolved.  Pour dressing over fruit and toss gently. Cover with plastic wrap and refrigerate for at least an hour to allow flavors to blend.