Posts Tagged ‘feminists’

Feminist Fantasies

Monday, April 4th, 2016

One of the greatest champions of the conservative right, Phyllis Schlafly wrote a book called _Feminists Fantasies_ in 2003. As she has been doing for decades, Mrs. Schlafly elaborates upon this “fantasy” of third-wave feminism, constantly creating the specter of male aggression, male entitlement, and patriarchal dominance. Feminism went from the advancing suffrage movement to gain voting rights for women at the turn of the 1900s, to the advancing ERA movement and the move out of homemaking in the 60s and 70s (courtesy of Betty Friedan and Gloria Steinhem) and finally, the passive-aggressive third wave, that sought to portray women as constant victims in every situation, laying blame on society, the specter of male aggression, entitlement, and patriarchy. The recent set of photos from Allaire Bartel is no exception.

allairebartel_boundaries-3

Among the girls at our organization, we have members who have worked full time in corporate offices from secretarial to executive positions. And yes, some of us have majored in Women Studies / Gender Studies in established liberal arts universities. Men at the office today carry out orders without the chauvinism portrayed in the tv show “Mad Men.” The sort of aggression and over-stepping of boundaries portrayed in these photos is exactly what Phyllis Schlafly would call “Feminist Fantasies.”

boundaries-2-jpg

Almost all of our members visit local gyms regularly – in addition to working out at home on machines. No men – NO MEN ANYWHERE – behave like this in gyms. Anyone who has been to gyms know this. If anything, men have a very narrowed, allowed field-of-view, as women obnoxiously prance around in shamefully skimpy outfits showing off tattoos daring men to sneak a peek. In contrast, men at gyms are overly polite and keep their eyes and certainly, hands to themselves.

Other photos from this set include women being groped by anonymous hands while walking down a public street, being choked while cooking. These, are feminist fantasies. Walk down any public street in America if you are a woman, and chances are, men will walk to the side and give you the right of way.

Mrs. Schlafly said it best when she said the American woman has it best in the world today. We have the most power and choice to choose our destiny.

And we, at the Stepford Wives Organization choose to return home to cook, make the beds, clean the home, and serve and entertain our men where we belong!

The Bernie Sanders Essay “Man and Woman” is the modern roadmap to Stepford

Thursday, June 11th, 2015

The Vermont presidential candidate Bernie Sanders recently had one of his vintage essays unearthed. As usual, the media knee-jerked to the most sensational lines of assault and pornography to _blind_ the general public against the subtle cry of the modern man. We girls here at the Stepford Wives Organization have always agreed that you have to gently sift through the chaff of male-speak to discover the sensitivity of the male identity.

Stepford Wives 1975 Stepford Wives Village townline billboard

Though the full 1972 essay “Man and Woman” is reproduced in it’s entirety below, we put our blinders on against the sensational bits and bring your attention to several noteworthy lines.

The modern battle of the sexes is really one of language. We have several members who are fairly well-read in the feminist canon. You cannot read Sanders’s essay by taking it out of context. After all, this was 1972, a time between bra-burning and ERA, when Gloria Steinham and the National Organization for Women were coming into their own. Now if you take look at language carefully and reinspect this essay, it’s really the same traditional message we’ve always espoused.

Women, for their own preservation, are trying to pull themselves together. And it’s necessary for all of humanity that they do so. Slavishness on one hand breeds pigness on the other hand. Pigness on one hand hand breeds slavishness on the other

Substitute the patronizing “pigness” with masculinity, and “slavishness” with femininity and what do we have?

“Women, for their own preservation, are trying to pull themselves together. And it’s necessary for all of humanity that they do so. Femininity on one hand breeds masculinity on the other hand. Masculinity on one hand hand breeds femininity on the other….”

In the modern technological industrial era, the dependent role of man and wife have become just that, “roles.” Even homosexual couples adopt these roles to some degree, even if it fluctuates between two people constantly.

“In the beginning there were strong men who killed the animals and brought home the food — and the dependent women who cooked it. No more! Only the roles remain –waiting to be shaken off.”

At our organization, these roles are still valid and they are not negotiable. We Stepford girls cherish being dependent on our men.

Their (women) qualities of love, openness and gentleness were too deeply enmeshed with qualities of dependency, subservience, and masochism. How do you love — with-out being dependent? How do you be gentle — without being subservient? How do you maintain a relationship without giving up your identity and getting strung out? How do you reach out and give your heart to your lover, but maintain the soul which is you?

The Stepford roadmap is that we women maintain our relationships without giving up the identity of love, openness, and gentleness, EVEN if it is enmeshed in “dependency, subservience, and mascohism.” That is how we love.

The closing lines of Sanders’s essay give us:

And she said, “You wanted me not as a woman, or as a lover, or a friend, but as a submissive woman, or submissive friend , or submissive lover….”

In the Stepford Organization, the two are one and the same. We help make our husbands whole by fulfilling our rightly place as submissive woman, submissive friend, and submissive lover.

That is the path in finding our way towards rediscovering and restoring the traditional role of man and woman.

Essay with transcript follows:

Bernie Sanders 1972 Essay Man and Woman

Bernie Sanders 1972 Essay Man and Woman

A man goes home and masturbates his typical fantasy. A woman on her knees, a woman tied up, a woman abused.

A woman enjoys intercourse with her man — as she fantasizes being raped by 3 men simultaneously.

The man and woman get dressed up on Sunday — and go to Church, or maybe to their “revolutionary” political meeting.

Have you ever looked at the Stag, Man, Hero, Tough magazines on the shelf of your local bookstore? Do you know why the newspapers with the articles like “Girl 12 raped by 14 men” sell so well? To what in us are they appealing?

Women, for their own preservation, are trying to pull themselves together. And it’s necessary for all of humanity that they do so. Slavishness on one hand breeds pigness on the other hand. Pigness on one hand hand breeds slavishness on the other, Men and women — both are losers. Women adapt themselves to fill the needs of men, and men adapt themselves to fill the needs of women. In the beginning there were strong men who killed the animals and brought home the food — and the dependent women who cooked it. No more! Only the roles remain –waiting to be shaken off. There are no “human” oppressors. Oppressors have lost their humanity. On one hand “slavishness,” one the other hand “pigness.” Six of one, half dozen of the other, Who wins?
Many women seem to be walking a tightrope now. Their qualities of love, openness and gentleness were too deeply enmeshed with qualities of dependency, subservience, and masochism. How do you love — with-out being dependent? How do you be gentle — without being subservient? How do you maintain a relationship without giving up your identity and getting strung out? How do you reach out and give your heart to your lover, but maintain the soul which is you?

And Men. Men are in pain too. They are thinking, wondering. What is it they want from a woman? Are they at fault? Are they perpetrating this man-woman situation? Are they oppressors?
The man is bitter.

“You lied to me,” he said. (She did).

“You said that you loved me, that you wanted me, that you needed me. Those are your words.” (They are).

“But in reality,” he said, “If you ever love me, or wanted me, or needed me (all of which I’m not certain was ever true), you also hated me. You hated me — just as you have hated every man in your entire life, but you didn’t have the guts to tell me that. You hated me before you ever saw me, even though I was not your father, or your teacher, or your sex friend when you were 13 years old, or your husband. You hated me not because of who I am, or what I was to you, but because I am a man. You did not deal with me as a person — as me. You lived a lie with me, used me and played games with me — and that’s a piggy thing to do.”

And she said, “You wanted me not as a woman, or as a lover, or a friend, but as a submissive woman, or submissive friend , or submissive lover; and right now where my head is I balk at even the slightest suspicion of that kind of demand.

And he said, “You’re full of _______.”

And they never again made love together (which they had each liked to do more than anything) or never ever saw each other one more time.

Is The Stepford Wife the Secret to A Long Lasting Marriage (Emirates Woman Article Nov 2012)

Sunday, June 23rd, 2013

Our organization – thanks to our Carolyn – got a request to write an article that was published in the Emirates Woman magazine in November 2012. It’s an interesting read because it counterpoints Carolyn’s viewpoint on the traditional wife with those of a professional career woman Bidisha, a broadcaster and writer who specializes in arts, culture, and social affairs, including gender, sexuality, and race. The referee, and compiler of the articles is Alexandria Gouveia.

This is what page 116 of the intro article looks like. Click on the photo to see a larger image of the picture.

Carolyn’s article precedes career woman Bidisha’s. If you want to read Carolyn’s complete article, click here to our page: Carolyn Snowden: The Relationship Debate

The following is Bidisha’s counterpoint article, which appears on page 120 following Carolyn’s:

“The surrendered wife deserves our sympathy,”says, Bidisha, broadcaster and writer specialising in the arts and culture and social affairs including gender, class, sexuality and race.

There is no person more boring, or bored, than a stay-at-home wife. I would recommend such a role only for women who have small brains, small hopes, small potential and small personalities. But I know no such women. What I do know is that 5,000 years of inequality, machismo, conditioning, intimidation and oppression have resulted in this strange, stunted creature – the surrendered wife – who finds some kind of sick nobility in grovelling to a man. The wretch believes that her highest virtue lies in giving the greatest attention to the smallest things: the dustpan, the oven, the crib, the sink – and the contents of her husband’s underpants.

The surrendered wife deserves our sympathy. Without realising it, she has been subjected to a deep cultural, social and political lobotomy, internalised the propaganda that says she is naturally destined for wife-work according to her innate capacities, and has emerged competent but wholly unrebellious. She is good at organising the home, judicious with her children’s upbringing, efficient about the family’s comings and goings, savagely chic when entertaining. But she is dependent for her survival – and that makes her submissive. If she doesn’t please her lord and master, she has nothing to fall back on. In order to survive, she must turn herself into a giver in the bedroom, a maid on the landing, a cook in the kitchen, a nanny in the nursery, a secretary at the desk, a housekeeper in the pantry and a hostess in the lounge. No matter what reflected status she may gain from her husband, at the core of it she herself is merely a geisha: there to serve. She exists to be exploited for her sexual, social and physical labour but, as a dependent subordinate with no power of her own, she can be bullied, hurt, disparaged or replaced whenever her owner chooses.

When a woman’s scope is reduced to the four walls of her home, her soul shrinks accordingly. Her frustration, boredom and bitterness are sublimated into obsession with petty surface details, extreme self-objectification, obsessive shopping and the bullying of staff. Because she is isolated, she doesn’t have the resources to fight the source of her oppression – that is, her husband and the entire macho ethos that keeps her in her place – and so she transfers her rage onto other women, satisfying her insecurity by making small-minded, insecure, sniping judgements. She begins to police other women’s behaviour, perhaps even her own daughters’ behaviour, punishing them if they do not conform. This is understandable and it’s what oppressed groups have always done. It is easier to lash out laterally than face the reality of oppression; easy to submit to misogynist ‘tradition’, hard to fight such entrenched views, especially when they are backed up by the threat of violence.

I believe women deserve much more than a life of service. That is not a life, it is merely an existence in which all of our resources are used up for others’ benefit. That said, the hardest and most profound free work we do – bringing up children, caring for elderly relatives, keeping communities together peacefully – should be acknowledged, honoured and credited instead of being assumed, expected, unpaid, undervalued and taken advantage of.

Instead of women judging each other, or themselves, they should judge men. We deserve to go into the world to fulfil our potential without being leered at, opposed, judged, sexually harassed, sexually assaulted, followed or abused. We deserve to be treated equally as minds and personalities, not as objects. A woman has a basic human right to be seen as a person in her own right, an individual, and not a man’s wife, someone’s daughter, someone’s mother, someone’s sister or someone’s neighbour, with all the labour and duties that entails. And when we come home unmolested from our studies, our work or visiting friends and family, we will do precisely half of the work required, and the man should do the other half. Since a man makes half a baby, he should do half the childcare. Since he makes half the dirt, he should do half the cleaning. And since he eats half the food, he should do half of all the kitchen work.

Men have killed each other in great wars, put other men on the moon, created vast architectural structures and tiny electronic circuits, and constructed complex governments in which men help other men achieve wealth, status and power. Women have done so too, of course, but their names are erased from history and their contribution ignored, belittled, downgraded or sidelined. Men have developed intricate religions, laws and courts in which, year after year, men who abuse women walk free using a variety of excuses. Are you telling me that Man, this great and complex creation, in all his genius and abusiveness and hypocrisy, is not capable of wiping a baby’s bottom?

Being a surrendered wife is dull, repetitive, unjust, unfulfilling and submissive. Obedient women don’t make history, they merely clean it and furnish it for men to inhabit, and are not credited afterwards. Never forget that surrender is the very last resort of heroes, warriors and adventurers. It is easy to be a slave because you know what your fate is: to be a slave forever. But that is no life. Women are too interesting to be hidden from the world, too intelligent to be barred from contributing in full, too witty to be silenced in public, too dynamic to be held back from the outside world and too strong to be denied.

How To Please A Modern Woman In Bed vs. How To Please A Man In Bed

Monday, December 13th, 2010


There are so many female psychologists, organizations, and female writers who seem to come up with a new study every other week. The titles are along the lines of “If it hurts, there’s something wrong”, “Women want more in the bedroom,” “Sex: Should women be more like men?”

We at the organization all are in agreement that this sort of increasingly high-maintenance “ME” attitude among Western women is succeeding in driving our men in droves towards mail-order brides and foreign, developing-country women. That’s not acceptable, as Western Civilization and our self-absorbed, narcissistic women are quickly losing grounds to overseas girls who are experts at manipulation. We believe that our product is good, and that we are the country that created the loving, faithful, godly wife in a civilized culture. It’s a shame after all that work and years of tradition, an erosion of the family beliefs, Christian commitment and sacrifice towards the interest of selfish egotistical obsession with personal happiness will erase our customs.

Wasn’t it George Bernard Shaw who once said “Those who can have good sex do, those who can’t, get together to intellectualize, theorize, and form a movement?” We believe fetching slippers and paper, cooking delicious meals, raising a family, looking after our men and being genuinely obedient (as opposed to the complex, ulterior motives of mail-order brides from third world countries ) to them is truly the path to great sex. Sometimes you can’t think too much or write a dissertation about an activity that is based on animalistic passion, pure chemistry, and physical aggression.

If you are sitting around whining about what good sex is, we are going to guess you are doing something wrong and there’s an absence of action in your bedroom.