Feminism, Floozies and a Fluke

During Lent this year my devotional companion is the “Gargoyle Code” by Fr. Dwight Longenecker. Subtitled: “Lenten letters between a master tempter and his diabolical trainee,” the book’s theme is borrowed from C.S. Lewis’s classic “The Screwtape Letters.”

In Longenecker’s contemporary version, “Slubgrip” is advising and educating novice demon “Dogwart” in the fine art of ensnaring souls.
 
Considering temptation from the other side of the fence, so to speak, makes us realize that it’s not always willfully doing wrong that gets us into trouble. More often we just get distracted with the business of day-to-day living, and don’t step back and look at the big picture. Like sponges we absorb the often destructive viewpoints of contemporary society, seldom noticing how far they may be tempting us from God’s word.
Subtlety is “Slubgrip’s” favorite weapon.

 
In light of the mainstream media’s endless propaganda coverage of the Sandra Fluke “I’m-not-a-floozie” farce – otherwise known as “Subsidize my promiscuity!” I found last Friday’s entry especially timely.
 
Here are a couple excerpts – on the cultural fallout from feminism…

Dogwart,
 
One of the greatest strokes of genius in our work was to call the movement feminism when there is nothing feminine about it. Nothing gratifies me more than to see some of our most pleasing female humans squawking about feminism while sporting tattoos, butch haircuts, wearing overalls, and clodhopper boots…
 
…The first step of indoctrination is to show the females that they have been repressed and abused by men throughout human history. They have been forced to stay at home “barefoot and pregnant in the kitchen.” We never allow them to see that for most women throughout history staying at home in the kitchen was the soft option. While they stayed at home, their men were out doing back-breaking work and risking their lives in the factories, the mines, the farms and the fields of battle.
 
They must see that the invention of artificial contraception is what liberated the females. We show them that it gave them reproductive freedom. It is a short hop from there to get them to see that they have sexual choices. From this point we neatly insert the illusion that the modern female can choose whoever she wants to have sex with whenever she wants it. If the silly blonde doesn’t actually want sex very often, we have a wide range of messengers from movie stars, pop singers and magazine editors who will convince her that something is wrong, and that if she isn’t a virtual nymphomaniac she is unhealthy and abnormal.
 
Our most successful cases will therefore have sexual relations with any man who shows even the smallest amount of interest in her. She’ll behave as, what her great grandmother would have called, a “common slut,” all the time proud of her sexual freedom.
 
We are aware that if we get the females to behave his way they will actually be disgusted with themselves, and be unhappy. You see, unlike the males, they don’t really want endless, meaningless sexual encounters. They want what the enemy wants them to want: a permanent, meaningful relationship. So when they become unhappy, instead of blaming themselves for their loose behavior, we get them to blame the male. Part of feminist theory is that the bad guys are the guys. We get them to believe that men, just by being men, oppress women…
 
…There is a whole genre of self-help literature out there for the females which bemoans the fact men are “afraid of commitment” and when they walk out on the girl they are abandoning her and abusing her in a different way. It never occurs to the little vixen that the man might walk out on her because she is a slut, and he’s looking for something better.

 
These “strategies” work especially well on agnostics; who may believe in heaven, but certainly not in hell. As long as they’re being subjectively good for goodness’ sake, they really don’t need to seriously consider the anemic nature of their worldview.
 
Today’s morally relative environment offers extremely fertile ground for the seeds of temptation. And most of us are oblivious to the fact that it even is temptation.
 

~~~~~~~~~~~
Related – on the Fluke Fiasco:
 
Sandra Fluke’s Appearance Is No Fluke ~ A little background on Ms. Fluke [She’s 30 years old and a past president of Law Students for Reproductive Justice].
Then we have Ed “the hypocrite” Schultz, in his “exclusive” interview with Ms. Fluke, sanctimoniously asserting “He defamed you!” – When this very same Ed was suspended from MSNBC for a week last May after he called radio host Laura Ingraham a “right-wing slut.”
 
This whole sorry episode is a charade – orchestrated to convince the public that right-wing radio hosts are evil and floozies should be totally free from the consequences of their own loose behavior.
 

This entry was posted in Good vs.Evil, Timeless Principles. Bookmark the permalink.

2 Responses to Feminism, Floozies and a Fluke

  1. Pingback: Let the Malcontent Circus begin! | Designs on the Truth

  2. Pingback: Right to happiness? | Designs on the Truth

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *