Friday, January 02, 2015

Cuoco Steps Off the Feminist Reservation

The online feminists and manginas are in a tizzy. In one of those publicity interviews for a women's magazine, a young Hollywood lady managed to speak out about feminism in a way that irritated the activists. The hounds were released, and she is already backtracking. The Interview was in Redbook, which for the unaware is the magazine that women who read Cosmo graduate to. Ideological conformity must be enforced in every way and at every moment. What a sign of strength that random five question interviews release the Femi-kraken. To understand the disgusting outrage, let's review Cuoco's statement.

"Is it bad if I say no? It's not really something I think about. Things are different now, and I know a lot of the work that paved the way for women happened before I was around... I was never that feminist girl demanding equality, but maybe that's because I've never really faced inequality. I cook for Ryan five nights a week; it makes me feel like a housewife; I love that. I know it sounds old-fashioned, but I like the idea of women taking care of their men. I'm so in control of my work that I like coming home and serving him. My mom was like that, so I think that kind of rubbed off."

The biggest sin problem is saying she was never that feminist girl demanding equality because she never faced inequality. The media cannot have a 29 year old saying she has not faced inequality because that is a whole generation there. Wait, the media narrative is that women are still oppressed and this must be rectified. Just one little voice poking a giant hole in the Narrative. The "war on women" may have become a punch line for those on the right, but a Hollywood star implying equality for 30 years will take the wind out of the sails of your spinster aunt demanding the ERA be passed.

The rest is pretty simple and dare I say normal sounding. She feels secure in her place, and likes to take care of her man. God forbid a woman be allowed to make a choice ideologically or in how she lives. The fear from the Hollywood masters is that a 29 year old star likes being anything remotely traditional. Her statements would give a tiny little spot for regular gals around the social media realm to comment on their Faceborg accounts "I like being a wife too", "I love to cook for my man" or "See single 30-something b*tches. Your Facebook feed is all trips to exotic locations but you cry to me on the phone about being lonely you aging spinster". This is the outrage! Why oh why is a rich and famous television star saying she enjoys anything domestic! Why will the plebes think that that option to "The Choice" is tenable! We must shame her and any woman who tries being a woman.

If you want to talk about priorities, look at the answer she gave to another question. She mentioned how her implants were the best thing she did because it made her feel "more confident in her body". The feminists will gloss over a Hollywood star saying her body did not feel good enough to focus on the domestic issue. That reveals what is most important to them. Forget the body shaming or acceptance bullshit, as that is just self esteem boosting for fatties. The most dangerous idea is that a woman in the public eye would ever say she likes doing anything in the traditional gender role manner. One tv star saying "what inequality?" is worth more than a lifetime of Ann Coulter columns. The progressives know it. It ruins their message to low information voters. Come on folks, this is showbiz where the cute children of big stars start picking a different gender identity at 6, women wait until 45 for kids or heck, some never get around to kids. That is the right path little ladies reading US Weekly. Stop listening to your biological impulses, just dress up your dog for Christmas and watch cute cat gifs. Stay at work, we need you there for the TPS reports. Don't you dare opt out or we'll brand you a traitor.

18 comments:

Brannon said...

"A woman having sex with random dudes who could care less about her is empowering. A woman cooking a meal for her boyfriend is oppression."

This country is so fucked.

Lauren said...

This reminds me of a conversation I had a few months ago with a couple of male friends. We were driving back from helping another friend move and for whatever reason we got to talking about similar stuff to this post. They were absolutely shocked when I told them I don't consider myself a feminist because I've never been oppressed by men (or really, anyone). It was almost surreal when one of them was trying to actually convince me otherwise. I have a feeling she'll apologize for this due to her career, but it's a step in the right direction while it lasts.

Anonymous said...

also the name cuoco means 'cook' in italian.

tonsplace said...

Leftism is over when 51% of

White folk understand that it is moral and right to have a racial identity and desire what is best for White folk

Women understand its ok to be traditionally feminine

Random Black Guy said...

This blog, and the Rightosphere in general, really makes me laugh.

Women taking life strategy advice from MRA types and "traditionalists" would be as dumb as men taking romantic advice from feminists. In either case, you're trusting someone whose goals and motivations are at odds with your own. I mean, could it be that the beta hordes of the Manosphere really have hot womens best interests at heart, or are they just trying to lock her down as a housewife at 19 and keep her from persuing biologically optimal (and to her, far more interesting) alpha males?

I also put it to you that if Western women became everything you guys want them to be, ie subservient, deferential, and meek towards men, you guys would despise them even more than you do now. No one can respect someone pathetic enough to gleefully embrace their inferior position.

Its no coincidence that Athens, out of all the ancient Greek city states, had the biggest obsession with Amazon myths and stories. Their women were so downtrodden and so pathetically passive that Athenian dudes were dreaming of a race of women who didn't take male crap and didn't need no man.

Be careful of what you wish for, is what I'm saying.

Son of Brock Landers said...

RBG - Glad I help you laugh. I believe all women should have the choice and the consequences but we live in a media environment that clearly portrays one as superior. My mom outearned my dad 2-1. My wife works 10 hrs week while I work prob too much. To each their own to make a home stable and provide for kids.

Mehere said...

RBG: I expect you laugh at the Rightosphere because when you see the Leftosphere you would do what any normal person would do and weep at the ludicrously self-obsessed and hypocritical whines published there.

But hey, a good Lefty has no feeling other than what they are told to feel. Unthinking obedience to the narrative is all that matters.

Anon said...

"This blog, and the Rightosphere in general, really makes me laugh"

Typical disrespectful grinning monkey way to do interject oneself into adults' conversation.

PA said...

My experience with discussions at Gucci Little Piggy showed me that when the anti-whites concern-troll you over what you write, it means you're hitting them where it hurts.

For example: in this sphere, originally at Roissy's and later at GLP, I've articulated new and persuasive arguments against race-mixing -- both on the philosophical and the pragmatic level. Prior to that, the general consensus kind of ceded the subject to anti-racism, including the moral high ground and the "coolness" angle (ie, real alphas don't care about their peoples' future). Black commenters ran wild with their fantasies of gaming white girls; entire comment threads at Roissy's circa '08 featured such back and forths. The only opposition to mixing, prior to my contribution, was either ineffective N-bombing or easily-refutable red herring counterarguments that failed to address the essential case against mixing.

Later at GLP, there was a contingent of manosphere alpha-persona Indian or part-Indian commenters who defended mixing. In one epic discussion thread, I demolished one such commenter's line after line of argument. In one memorable instance, the commenter wrote about how he and his white girlfriend humiliated a bunch of grumbling old men at some party. I reframed his anecdote in a way that pointed out his essential aggression to whites as a whole, noting that those old white men are our fathers, our role models, and we-ourselves in the future.

And I do know that GLP posts and comment threads had a large audience, including CH, Sailer, and Derb. Over time, my lines of argument influenced the larger manosphere. There was an entire sub-genre of MRA bloggers, for example, whose editorial policy was strict anti-racism. The ones I know of, who have a large audience, have either become explicitly race-realist, or not hospitable to stealthily anti-white commenters.

Not too long ago at GLP, I had several sockpuppet commenters try to troll me with shaming language about the race-related comments I make. At that point I knew that when they emerge and screech, you're effectively attacking the edifice of the hostile ideology.

Suburban_elk said...

"Women taking life strategy advice from MRA types and "traditionalists" would be as dumb as men taking romantic advice from feminists. In either case, you're trusting someone whose goals and motivations are at odds with your own. I mean, could it be that the beta hordes of the Manosphere really have hot womens best interests at heart, or are they just trying to lock her down as a housewife at 19 and keep her from persuing biologically optimal (and to her, far more interesting) alpha males?" - Random Black Guy

Fresh off the bus, are we? come to impart a privileged and oh so special black perspective? wow who has ever heard the black perspective on things, it is so exotic it must be full of wisdom and vision.

But somehow and oddly your post disappoints.

Of course the manosphere and MRA is opposed to feminism. Duh times ten.

And also and again of course, white men and blacks have different interests and goals for white women. White men want them to be having white children. Black men are not capable of white children and are less forward looking anyways.

And so yeah, we do not want them cavorting with you.

As a white American, it is in my interests to discourage white women from going with black guys. Yes, i want to prevent her from doing that. It is in my interests as a white American, individually and collectively.

That is the end of that point. The individual and collective interests, of white and black, when they are in a closed environment of shared living space and in competition for resources especially females, are opposed.

It is not rocket science, but for some various reasons white Americans are struggling to articulate their interests. The interests of white Americans are opposed to those of black Americans, and at issue most particular is the sex proclinations of white females.

As for the comparison of young white women getting advice from MRA traditionalists, to young men getting advice from feminists, Random Black Guy writes that "In either case, you're trusting someone whose goals and motivations are at odds with your own."

That is true, but as an observation it is insipid and jejune because of course feminists and traditionalists have different goals. If this poster were interested in analysis he would include in his paragraph what might those different goals be, and, crucially, how those different goals align with the other factions at play in this competitive environment, which other factions are black and white.

The sexual license that comes with feminism lines up with the goals of black men in gaining access to white females, so in that their interests are, or at least might seem to be, aligned. The interests of the white man and the traditionalist MRA, on both those accounts, are otherwise.

It is worth noting here, that the primary goal of any traditionalist is children and their health, and in the case of a traditionalist and race realist, white children. And if that simple goal is opposed to feminism, then feminism is non-sense.

Ok that should be enough, but to go meta for a minute here. All that stuff above, is obvious, so why does it need such an elaboration?

The answer to that, is because white men in America, and white Americans in general, are having a difficult time articulating their interests, defining who they are and saying what they want.

And here is the kicker. If and when they struggle in doing so, if and when they hesitate on their quest for living space and identity in its pursuit, they are consigned to the basement, to failure and loserdom, because life happens fast and goes on all around.

Those in competition with white people never miss a chance to mock insult and berate. They (naturally) want to keep the white man from getting up and getting to work on doing what he needs to do, which is to secure the realm.

PA said...

white men in America, and white Americans in general, are having a difficult time articulating their interests, defining who they are and saying what they want.

This is a concept you started saying at GLP, which you summarize as the question "do white americans exist?"

This is an important question. A few days ago, commenter Trainspotter said something at CH that helped me think abut it. A quote from his comment follows; the full comment is in the "Era of the Apex Alpha" thread.

[Trainspotter's quote follows]

"Brown vs Board was a seminal moment in breaking down the traditional order of things. It wasn’t the only factor, of course, but it’s definitely one of the biggies.

Once the schools were integrated, everything changed for the simple reason that it had to. Our very understanding of ourselves transformed: who we are, where we came from, where we are going. Our story could no longer be one of a fundamentally white, European civilization, but instead became one of overcoming whiteness." [end quote]

Suburban_elk said...

Our story could no longer be one of a fundamentally white, European civilization, but instead became one of overcoming whiteness.

The problems that white people are having are of their own creation. Literally: the culture that they have created no longer works for them. It no longer allows them to be, and it seems to not work for them to evolve into (or out of), either; or whatever the fuck. Peter Frost at Unz has an article today which includes this theme. Frankly i am not reluctant to admit that such questions are very difficult and beyond my pay grade, though i will try and make a stab here and there.

The culture in question is broadly known as civilization; and now when it is made borderless on a global scale, it seems to favor more r-selected types.

Somehow this problem of evolving into and out of a culture of its own creation, is analogous to white people overcoming themselves.

Suburban_elk said...

These sentences are from Random Black Guy,

Women taking life strategy advice from MRA types and "traditionalists" would be as dumb as men taking romantic advice from feminists. In either case, you're trusting someone whose goals and motivations are at odds with your own.

I said that this was true, but that is not right, and it deserves further consideration.

Remove the racial aspect, and there are three angles to consider for the players in the quote above: there are the men, there are the women; and then there are the men and women together.

And obviously it is the last that is the thing! and that is what the traditionalists are going for. The feminists are concerned with the women, and men's rights advocates with the men. But traditionalists will be concerned with men and women together, and their children.

So in getting back to the quote, women taking advice from MRA's would be comparable to men taking advice from feminists, but traditionalists are men and women who are more concerned with the children then they are with themselves.

And the terms MRA and feminist and traditionalist are not the important thing. What is important is what they designate. The first two indicate interests selfish and short term, whereas the last is a different thing.

At this point everyone knows that feminist advice is a rotten egg. Go forth and sell your sex, young lady! and have fun! and take a bunch of pills!

But actually not everyone knows that is not the way to go. The young girls themselves don't know that, yet. So they need the traditionalists looking out for them.

PA said...

So they need the traditionalists looking out for them.

I once worked with an early-20s girl. Bright, pretty but no knockout. As blonde as blonde gets, but in that bookishly mousy endearing sort of way. She was the kind of girl you'd peg as traditional in temperament but worried that she's doing it wrong because she is not Sex and The City like some of her girlfriends. She actually went to church. If you ever saw a girl say "gawd, I'm such a dork!" and sort of agree with her -- that's her.

There were two occasions I 'looked out' for her. Once, she was boyfriedless for a stretch and confided in me that a black neighbor in her apartment is making overtures toward her. I think she needed somebody to tell her that it's OK to turn down a black guy. I told her that cross-cultural couples hardly ever work out. She seemed extremely relieved to hear that.

On another occasion, she mused about getting a tat on her lower back. I replied "nothing says 'marry me' like a tattoo."

Son of Brock Landers said...

One thing you guys need to consider for RBG is he's coming from a culture that is run by its women. It is a matrilineal and matrilocal society with little regard for male life. This goes for Sub-Saharan African economies as well where small plot female farmers make up the backbone of many communities.

peterike said...

"I think she needed somebody to tell her that it's OK to turn down a black guy. I told her that cross-cultural couples hardly ever work out. She seemed extremely relieved to hear that.

On another occasion, she mused about getting a tat on her lower back. I replied "nothing says 'marry me' like a tattoo."

PA - Doing the work that Americans won't do!!

PA said...

Aw shucks Peterike. I just think of myself as her father's guardian angel.

Robert What? said...

Interesting that RBG would pop in and toss a troll into the room. Assuming he is actually black, that is. Black men and the black family have been utterly wasted by the modern feminist left.