By Olivia Pierson

One of my bug-bears is how much feminism has messed with the heads of modern females - to the point where they have shot themselves in the foot so severely that it’s created an ugly limp in what ought to be a woman’s confident stride.  What makes this limp a travesty is that I am talking about women who have been thoroughly ‘emancipated’.

Emancipated from what, one may ask?  From yesteryear’s feminine models of being nothing more than appearing pleasing to men; that is, not practiced in the qualities of reason, virtue and knowledge, but instead affecting coquetry, resorting to cunning and always displaying overt softness -  in other words, wearing their sex’s “weaknesses” on their sleeve.

But surely the independent-minded 21st Century woman is way beyond those antiquated notions of womanhood. Today’s woman can be a doctor, a construction worker, a lawyer, a professor, an astronaut and everything in between - so what is the limp?

The limp is an entitled and misguided sense that a man should love her no matter what she is, does or says.  It is the absolute societal-reinforced conviction that pleasing a man has no relevance whatsoever to a woman’s happiness, when somewhere deep inside she feels that it might - thus she is knocked off balance by a gut impression (and desire) which contradicts everything she has been taught by feminist mothers, sisters, teachers and professors.

During the 20th Century, women demanded equality without giving enough consideration to what the word equal actually means.  Did they mean equal in will and mental accomplishments? Did they mean equal in earning power or equal division of household chores?  Perhaps they just meant equal in the efficacy of their civil vote or potentiality to stand for public office.  I’m not sure that even women today know what ‘they’ meant, but I do know that the result has been that today’s women will brook no opposition by their men - over anything. Too many women behave like petty tyrants whose polemic often doesn’t rise much higher than the weak remonstrance: “because I feel it.”

When I think of what 18th Century writer Mary Wollstonecraft meant by equal in her book, “The Vindication of the Rights of Woman,” she particularly highlighted the area of education.  She took great pains to push the idea that a woman’s mind was just as deserving of an education as a man’s, since without one, women remained in a state of ornamental uselessness barring them from even reaching the status of being adequate companions for their menfolk who governed the world.  She also considered that because women were the primary influence over the developing minds of the young, educated mothers would bring about a better generation of human beings than uneducated mothers ever could.  On this she was profoundly correct - and in the fullness of time, her ideal came to pass in European culture, only it seems to have overshot its mark considerably.

Here are Wollstonecraft’s words:

“Consequently the perfection of our nature and capability of happiness, must be estimated by the degree of reason, virtue and knowledge that distinguish the individual, and direct the laws which bind society: and that from the exercise of reason, knowledge and virtue naturally flow, is equally undeniable, if mankind be viewed collectively.”

Wollstonecraft freely admitted that men and women were not physically equal; on this score nature endowed stronger and superior qualities upon men which made them the natural protectors of women.  But she thought that men had taken this too far by not requiring their women to practise reason, virtue and knowledge (experience) which she considered the very essence of being an independent, happy human being.

Today, the norm of womanhood is immense independence, at least, most women are fully independent before they secure a relationship which brings forth children.  Even after the children are born it is exceedingly common now for women to return to the workforce within six months to a year after having a baby in order to help pay for the family finances.  Has this made women happier, or has it subjugated their stride into a limp?

In Wollstonecraft’s time, one of her contentions was that the middle-class woman was so “infantine” - is how she put it, so overly concerned with maintaining her beauty and “softness”, that her man ended up living a life of chronic infidelity when his wife either lost her looks or proved herself to be too boring and insipid for sex with her to be worth much.

In our modern time, if a woman oversees the running of a home as well as holding down full time employment, how much care do you think she will devote to the pleasure of her man?  I venture none.  She will expect their domestic life to be all about him pleasing her - and her expectation will be that of a tyrant, perhaps justifiably so because she is extending herself way beyond the call of duty and they both know it.

The problem is that a man does not like making love to an entitled tyrant, nothing could kill his feelings of desire more, so before long, he starts to have trouble getting his big-boy up (in the 20 minutes or so a fortnight that she has allocated in her diary for sexual connection).  She can’t understand this, for her needs are not the same, and it hurts her, resulting in her feeling undesirable to her companion. She also slams her mind shut to the idea that the extra 20 kilos she’s still carrying after a pregnancy doesn’t help things much in his big-boy department because he is always meant to faithfully love her “as she is.” He is far too polite - and grateful to mention any of these things, especially when he can see she works so hard for the family and the finances, like he does, so they never have the honest conversation about what a man finds sexually attractive - he can’t bear to be seen as “that bastard” who would say such things.  By the time baby number three comes along, and after little Johnny has been diagnosed with ADHD because he hasn’t quite received the attention and calm home life he needed to develop self-esteem and self-discipline, they are well ensconced in living a life that is disconnected from any natural order and nobody wants to mention that nobody is truly happy because aside from paying off their mortgage a bit quicker, nobody is really getting what they deeply need for a happy relationship and good family rhythm to thrive - and this is considered normal life to many.

Before you know it, he’s visiting the harlot across town, or at least doing porn every second day and we end up in a similar state to husbands and wives of Mary Wollstonecraft’s era, not because the woman is too insipid to shag, but because she’s too macho and harried… to say nothing of tubby.

Behold the emancipated woman with a limp.

By Wollstonecraft’s standards she has let herself and her marriage down, not by being uneducated in a field of chosen career, but by being uneducated in holding the long term sexual attention and amorous affections of her man because she lives in a time when that is considered silly, old fashioned and irrelevant.  If she applied the attribute of knowledge (or experience), she might open herself to the notion that men are highly sexual creatures who are visually stimulated by physical beauty in a woman and that after having a baby, perhaps one of the best things she could do for her marriage is not to help pay the mortgage, but to get herself back into good shape.  If he be a man in any meaningful sense of the word, let him pay the mortgage on his own while she runs herself and the household with excellent, long-range judgement.

If she applied the attribute of virtue, she might open herself to the idea that children need a caring, relaxed mother overseeing their growth and development every day and that well brought up children add great joy to a home - whereas frenetic living routines tend to complicate that joy and make for parental guilt becoming a permanent parental motivation influencing all things from discipline (or its lack) to too much unearned pocket money (spoiling).

If she applied the attribute of reason she might open herself to the idea that a harried woman who overworks herself on all fronts quickly loses her sense of humour and easy sense of joy, which were possibly the very things her man loved most about her when they first met.  A quality, happy home is one of the finest things anyone could create and it takes a lot of sound judgement, humour and optimism to make it so.  The greatest springboard into life any two people could give to their children is the experience of watching a real and fulfilling marriage at work, that they get to proudly call “their parents.”

I’m not saying that I think mothers shouldn’t work - they should if they want to and if they can run their homes well simultaneously, but most women cannot do this without feeling incredibly torn in an inordinately negative way until the children are at least of school age - even then it’s a great challenge.

If Wollstonecraft could take a peek at today’s emancipated women: emancipated in ways that she could not have even imagined, I think she would be a little shocked at how unhappy many middle class women are.  Not because they lack an education; they don’t.  But because they have put to bed so firmly any notions of men-pleasing that they fail to see that part of their happiness as heterosexual, monogamous women does in fact include helping to maintain the sexual, emotional and domestic happiness of their menfolk, if the goal is to have a loving relationship and family life.

Most men today couldn’t care less what their women do with their independence, so long as they come home to a happy, well-run domicile and a wife who does actually give a care about how he feels and what he may want or need. It is my experience that when men are afforded this decency from women they tend to bend over backwards to help make their women happy  - and the women put themselves in the advantageous position of holding their men’s attention, love and affection, perhaps even forever.  This has a huge effect on the personal happiness of women.

But when women buy into the lies told by feminists that to please a man is weak, insipid or a cop-out because men’s demands over women are the world’s number one social problem, they seek to mould the relationship into one where he has to be a woman pleaser in every respect, thus turning him into a lapdog.  I have never yet met a woman who admires a lapdog type of man - she may like him, she may even prefer him that way on many levels because she always gets what she wants, but the wellspring of her deepest respect for him as a man will be as dry as a desert along with their sex life.

Decent men love a strong woman who is independent and who pursues interests outside of himself and the relationship, but they don’t love it when their own wants and needs are consistently placed at the very bottom of the heap.  If a woman refuses to educate herself about how to keep her man happy over the long years ahead, she should not be surprised when not only his eye wanders but also his sexual affections.  Genuinely happy, longterm monogamy is the achievement of giants and many modern women need to be re-educated about how to help create and maintain it.

If you enjoyed this article, please buy my book "Western Values Defended: A Primer" ​ 

By Olivia Pierson

When I consider that all world leaders in their different eras get handed complex problems not of their own creation - Lincoln and the scourge of black slavery, say, or Churchill with the outbreak of the Second World War  - I’m tempted to shrug and just conclude that it comes with the job.  But then I remember that these great leaders of the past never had to confront a foe where a nuclear attack on themselves or a close ally may be the result of their actions.
​
President Trump has on his shoulders some immensely vexing burdens: the evil shenanigans of the Kim Dynasty in North Korea, the aggressive expansion of China into the South China Sea and their stubborn complacency over reining in North Korea, the aggressive expansion of Russia into the sovereign state of Ukraine and their support of Assad in Syria - three of these regimes possess nuclear weapons.  There is also, of course, the ongoing catastrophe of Syria and its dastardly Iranian and Russian backed dictator, Assad. 

​Throw into the mix of these weighty matters the other black foe of Islamic barbarity, ISIS (and the many hundreds of militias who fight for a similar cause including the Taliban in Afghanistan), and one starts to get a dark overview of only some of the problems that the president has to wake up to every morning - and these are just his foreign policy concerns.

As I write this, the Iraqi Prime Minister, Haider al-Abadi has arrived in Mosul and prepares to announce a victory over ISIS in this last stronghold of the terrorist army in Iraq.  There is no longer an Islamic State of Iraq & Syria in terms of territory, it has been obliterated thanks to an aggressive offensive fought by a coalition of Iraqi forces, Kurdish Peshmerga, Shia militias and American air power and special forces.  But many ISIS fighters shed their uniforms only to melt back into the civilian population; they were not all killed unfortunately, but many thousands were.

Back in May, United States Secretary of Defence, James Mattis, said after being empowered by President Trump to annihilate ISIS:

“Our strategy right now is to accelerate the campaign against ISIS. It is a threat to all civilized nations. And the bottom line is we are going to move in an accelerated and reinforced manner, throw them on their back foot… Our intention is that the foreign fighters do not survive the fight to return home to North Africa, to Europe, to America, to Asia, to Africa. We're not going to allow them to do so. We're going to stop them there and take apart the caliphate.”

The fact that the feckless President Obama did not cut this beast’s head clean off when it first dramatically emerged in a country where American troops had just spent ten years fighting a savage insurgency, goes to clearly show that an American president’s actions or inactions can indeed be a force for evil or a force for good.  ISIS is just Al Qaeda rebranded and reinvigorated, until now.  As of this year they are thoroughly demoralised - their caliphate was meant to be the fulfilment of a dearly held prophecy.  They will meet the same fate in Raqqa, Syria, before too long.  They will also send as many of their fighters as they can into Western nations to wreak terror on modern cities - and that will be the fault of Western leaders and Western citizens who have taken an inflexibly soft-headed stance on the “refugee crisis” by demanding that they all be let in under the unquestioned sentiment of compassion. 

All I can say on this score is President Trump made it clear from the outset that he wanted to severely limit immigrants - and refugees - from coming into the United States if they were coming from the unstable parts of the Islamic world, and he was courageously and morally correct to take that stand considering whose interests he was voted in to represent.  As it happens he is also trying to protect the whole world from an adversary as wicked as ISIS, if Secretary Mattis’ words above are anything to go by.

Syria is going to be more tricky, with no simple solutions in sight.

Syria, unlike Iraq, comes with the hated Baathist dictator still in residence - and propped up by Iran and Russia.  Syria, under Assad, has lost over a quarter of its population in six years. An estimated 400,000 Syrians have been killed and around 5 - 6 million are displaced - 2 million reside in refugee camps in Turkey, between 1 - 2 million made their way to Europe (the official number is unknown - a major cause of concern for the West) and another 2.5 million have allegedly been absorbed into the Gulf States, Lebanon and Kuwait.  For those who always like to say, as far too many people did after Saddam Hussein and Muammar Gaddafi were deposed, that it’s ”better to leave the dictator/strongman in power no matter how brutal he is because he is the one who keeps the country stable”… how does that worn-out, cheap little bromide work for you now when you consider Assad’s Syria?

Just before the war started, in 2011 at the time of the so-called Arab Spring (or Islamist Winter) when Syrian students and citizens came out to protest against Assad’s dictatorial regime, never let it be forgotten that Assad had in his slaughterhouse of a prison at Sednaya many high ranking, ferocious Al Qaeda operatives whom he let out when he feared that the United States might also be of a mind to depose him as they had done with Hussein and Gaddafi. Better to risk violence from terrorists and look like the man standing between them and peace than look like the bastard standing between dictatorship and democracy.  Since then he has allegedly used chemical weapons (sarin, mustard, chlorine) and lied about it around 50 times - so it was with great relish that I watched President Trump order the 59 cruise missile attacks on the Shayrat airbase, which decimated 25 percent of Assad’s airforce.  Good job President Trump!

President Trump is now seeking to negotiate a ceasefire in Syria with President Putin, who insists on abetting this piece of filth, Assad, but whether or not the ceasefire will hold is anyone’s guess. Trump has made it clear to Assad, Putin and the whole world that if Assad uses chemical weapons again the United States will unleash hell on them every time.  Trump doesn’t call this a “redline” but that’s exactly what it is and he has already enforced it - and all civilised countries of the United Nations should give him their support since it is an important part of the Geneva Protocol.

The most imminent foreign policy threat on President Trump's plate continues to be North Korea as they are a rogue nation which has nuclear weapons.  No person of sense anymore doubts that they will use them, whether provoked or not.  Their leader, Kim Jong-un, makes constant threats to hit the American homeland with nuclear warheads, which can no more be ignored than the similar threats made by the Iranian regime to hit Israel and America, but they aren't a nuclear power - yet - and hopefully never will be (Israel would certainly strike their nuclear facilities preemptively before allowing that to happen).

The Kim Dynasty for the last 70 years has absolutely no regard for its own people, it is well known that North Korean citizens live in a state of abject fear and slavery, as is a common story for citizens living inside an ultra communist nation.  Hundreds of thousands of North Korean citizens: men, women, children and babies, subsist in concentration camps which have been modelled on the gulags of Stalin.  The crimes for which a citizen can be sent to one of these ominous slave-pens range from being an official who has fallen out of favour with the regime, to being a third generation relative of someone who has fallen out of favour with the regime, or for not keeping the compulsory household portrait of the nation’s founder, Kim Il Sung, clean enough - in other words, you can be sent to a death camp for no reason at all.  Some of these hell-holes have 50,000 prisoners who are subject to beatings, torture, medical experiments, rape, barbaric executions, starvation and being worked to death.  We know these facts because of the testimonies of people who have defected, like Lim Hye-jin, who was a prison guard lucky enough to defect to South Korea.

Every American president since Bush Senior has kicked the can of dealing with North Korea down the road, but now that it is clear the regime possesses nuclear weapons technology, the dead end of that road has loomed large.  After the horrific incident of American student, Otto Warmbier, being arrested in North Korea on a spontaneous tour to the rogue nation and then obviously tortured into a coma, only to die in America after Secretary of State, Rex Tillerson, instructed by President Trump, negotiated his release, the President is motivated to deal with North Korea once and for all.   No one is quite sure what that is going to look like; China is committed to enabling North Korea’s dependency on them and fears the humanitarian crisis which would pour over their border if there were a war - or a liberation.  Frankly China deserves it since its economic enabling of the North Korean regime has augmented in the first half of 2017, not diminished, as President Trump hoped it would.

This is a huge diplomatic struggle for President Trump who has a range of options on the table: strikes on North Korea’s nuclear facilities and its leader, or fresh economic sanctions and a trade off for something North Korea may want from America (like a reduction in troops on the South Korean border). Another option may be to nuclear arm Japan. South Korea is understandably nervous - a war with its northern rogue neighbour could mean millions of deaths.  However, the time for successful sanctions and negotiations was before they acquired nuclear weapons.  For an overview of the military options on the table go here.

President Xi of China enables the Kim regime as President Putin of Russia enables Assad's. Is it any wonder that in his first year of the presidency Trump has been striving to cultivate decent diplomatic relations with both these men?  If he didn’t, the world (let alone the main stream media) would crucify him for not taking a diplomatic approach.  He must try that option before becoming heavy handed with either of these super powers.

When President Trump says, as he does from time to time, “I inherited a mess,” upon winning the presidency, he is by no means engaging in exaggeration.
​


If you enjoyed this article, please buy my book "Western Values Defended: A Primer" ​ 

​