Friday, 5 June 2009

What Causes Women To Do The Things They Do

Terry Morris of Webster's kicked off yet another interesting discussion:
Attn.: Editrix

Our female German correspondent, The Editrix, has some intriguing insights about the female sex, and what causes women (as women) to do some of the things they do.

At VFR is posted an article concerning the actions of a Dutch female reporter putting herself in harm's way. Read the article -- titled: Wilders tells the Dutch elite what they are -- to understand what exactly I'm talking about.

Now, I'm not trying to make any sweeping generalizations, truly, but I've witnessed this kind of thing before in certain women who are (relatively) close to me. They engage themselves in certain self-flagellating, ceremonious, ritualistic behaviors, and in their particular cases I've generally identified it as a self-centered grasp for the sympathy due to victims as well as the applause and adulation due to someone so obviously self-less, warm, loving, non-judgmental, and so forth and so on. In other words, my sense in this particular case is that this woman seeks self-promotion and self-gratification, and she was willing to put everything (including her life) at risk to get it. What I find so irritating sometimes, is that people go along with it, legitimizing this kind of behavior, thus effectively creating a monster, er, a whole host of 'em.

But I want to hear (or read) Nora's point of view, as well as any other woman's perspective who would like to add her own thoughts or insights.


The_Editrix said...

Goodness, Terry! That must have been telepathy. I just read the entry at VFR, went to the BJ, was so angry that I left a VERY rude comment there and then thought I might have a look at Webster's for some sanity. I am suffering once more from acute blog frustration syndrome (you wouldn't BELIEVE what is currently going on here), but I am angry enough now to give it a break. I'll provide the link as soon as I've finished the entry. Thanks for encouraging me.

June 1, 2009 1:46 PM

Delete
The_Editrix said...

Terry, I did it! It's very rude and full of expletives, quite unlike my usual oevre, but heartfelt nevertheless.

June 1, 2009 6:03 PM

Delete
chiu_chunling said...

In what possible sense was this woman raped? I mean...I'm reasonably sure that sexual intercourse did occur, but her face doesn't show the medical evidence that she said "no" to the Taliban.

I very sure that the Taliban comforted themselves about their being seduced by this woman by pretending that she was somehow "captured" and thus technically a legitimate object of rapine rather than a Western harlot who set out to create this entire situation, but is there any basis for this delusion?

Wilders is wrong on this one. This woman didn't emotionally surrender to her 'captors' as a way of denying her fear and helplessness (though that problem does afflict a good part of Dutch society). The real point of the story isn't whether her 'captors' respected her, but that she had boundless contempt for them.

"The noble savage even “invited her to a threesome,” i.e. to have sex with him and one of his three wives. “Ghazi was a very religious man. It is all so hypocritical. He was a complete fool,” she writes." He actually thought we had something, it was sooo amusing to toy with him like that. As if I would really give his benighted wives any pointers on how a real woman does these things. Teehee!

June 2, 2009 2:46 PM

The_Editrix said...

Yes, I think Wilders overestimates the motives of a woman like that. Her dhimmitude is only a symptom for a larger problem. Women like that are suffering from the attention whore syndrome, which makes them going for a life and for experiences totally opposed to those of a woman in a traditional society. Something like that MAY end in dhimmitude (and it very often does), but, as the example of Oriana Fallaci, Patron Saint of the more hyperventilating faction of Islam-critique, shows, it does not necessarily end in dhimmitude. Basically, Wilders takes that woman too seriously or better: he takes her seriously where he shouldn't. Of course women like that are dangerous, but not so much because they tend to be dhimmis, but because they are undermining like no other group, the basis of our culture, the family.

June 3, 2009 5:50 AM

Delete
The_Editrix said...

Another aspect I'd like to discuss is what makes people compare women like Joanie de Rijke to Joan of Arc. I find it deeply shocking, but I have no answer to it.

A commenter at VFR said: "I assume this photo of her was taken before her exotic escapades. She may have a different deportment these days." Judging from the picture I put up at my above linked blog entry, she looks, if anything, more radiant, smug and, perversely, "happy".

I realize it is a nasty thing to say about a woman who has been, after all, raped, but maybe the experience to succumb to a man, even under unfortunate circumstances, was a new and, ultimately, positive one.

Feminism has given rape such an ambiguous meaning. If a woman regrets that she'd had sex with that guy the morning after she can go and get him for "date rape". So what do we expect will come out of that.

June 3, 2009 6:07 AM

Delete
The_Editrix said...

Ooops... I overlooked that: "The real point of the story isn't whether her 'captors' respected her, but that she had boundless contempt for them."

Yes indeed!

Isn't that my "condescension" theory in a nutshell? The one for which you, Terry, if I remember correctly, got so little positive attention at BE?

June 3, 2009 6:14 AM

Delete
Terry Morris said...

The answer to your question, Nora, is yes. I read the Joan of Arc comparison at VFR and almost fell over backwards in my chair. Seems like a dhimmi of a different kind.

My apologies to y'all. Our internet has been down since sometime yesterday. I'll have to get back to this later.

June 3, 2009 8:04 AM

chiu_chunling said...

But this woman didn't even regret having been "raped", she's positively proud of it. And I have absolutely no reason to believe that she didn't plan on having that happen. At the very least it was a carefully considered (and prepared) contingency. She had the guy asking her to give his wife pointers in the bedroom, for #@(*'s sake!

LITERALLY!!!

MY HEAD A 'SPLODE

The comparison to Joan of Arc is relatively easy to understand, by comparison. Joan of Arc was a young virgin. Pretty much everything else about her fades to insignificance in the eyes of the kind of people disposed to view her as a kind of historical sex object. Thus these people are just making what they think is a tasteful allusion to the 'liberating' influence of these self-promoting whores by the comparison.

It's horribly insulting, of course, but the insult is just built into the way they view the world. It isn't something that simply defies all possible explanation, like the claim that this woman was somehow 'raped' under any possible construction of the term.

I am filled with the urge to shout obscenities at the entire world, just thinking about this. It isn't good for my personal well-being. There isn't a pit in hell deep enough...there just isn't. You'd think that God, with a little of His infinite power, could have made the pits of hell a bit deeper.

Oh, yes, infinite wisdom too. I get the point. My bad, deeper pits not the answer, yeah, yeah...sure, whatever. I do get it...sometimes. I don't necessarily comprehend any of it, but infinity is like that.

June 5, 2009 2:25 AM

The_Editrix said...

CC, you said:

"But this woman didn't even regret having been "raped", she's positively proud of it. And I have absolutely no reason to believe that she didn't plan on having that happen. At the very least it was a carefully considered (and prepared) contingency. She had the guy asking her to give his wife pointers in the bedroom, for #@(*'s sake!

LITERALLY!!!

MY HEAD A 'SPLODE"

And:

"The comparison to Joan of Arc is relatively easy to understand, by comparison. Joan of Arc was a young virgin. Pretty much everything else about her fades to insignificance in the eyes of the kind of people disposed to view her as a kind of historical sex object. Thus these people are just making what they think is a tasteful allusion to the 'liberating' influence of these self-promoting whores by the comparison."

I agree on both accounts. Very astute observations!

June 5, 2009 3:34 AM

Delete
Terry Morris said...

I agree too, Nora. Well said, Chiu.

June 5, 2009 9:28 AM

The_Editrix said...

Maybe this makes an interesting addition.

June 6, 2009 5:08 AM

Delete
chiu_chunling said...

"If those perpetrators hadn't been female they would have been labelled simply evil."

I think that quote really gets at the core of the matter. It isn't that there aren't courageous, sane, good women, it's that there is a cultural bias against admitting that women can be evil. This creates a demand for lengthy explications of the non-evilness of every woman involved in some outrageously heinous activity. Thus you have a media firestorm of apology for every wicked witch of the west, much of which goes so far as to set her up as a heroine, while the genuine heroism (usually of the quiet variety but not always) gets almost no coverage because it doesn't take any special 'insight' to see that these women are good. Besides which, it's rather an embarrassment to the apologist for evil to set it side by side with good.

That is, of course, the 'innocent' explanation, which assumes no extraordinary wrongdoing on the part of the apologists. It covers much historical apology for evil women and most of the acceptance of such apologies, but most modern apologists for evil are not so innocent.

The truth is that many 'immoral' women are really the victims of evil men, but not all are. Probably not even most. And even the real victims are not thereby heroines.

June 6, 2009 1:39 PM

The_Editrix said...

"It isn't that there aren't courageous, sane, good women, it's that there is a cultural bias against admitting that women can be evil."

Of course there are. I think (I may be wrong, though) that Marianism has lumbered our culture with an unintended and unexpected burden. While Islam states that all women are temptresses and evil, our Christian culture presumes the opposite. That functioned as long as women were willing to perform their duties in a traditional society, i.e. as long as they were busy and satisfied with their role as wives and mothers and supervised and reined-in by society. In our permissive age, women's natural proneness for the shallow and footle coupled with an intense desire for attention wreaks havoc on society, the more as the latter won't understand what is happening. It can't be the saintly women's, images of the Madonna all of them, fault or can it?

And I seriously believe that men are more often than not the victims of women and not vice versa. If you look at a broken down marriage where the husband has really behaved like the proverbial swine, you'll in all probability find a woman behind the scenes.

June 6, 2009 2:41 PM

I will add further comments, should there be any. Thank you, Terry, for this!

2 comments:

Terry Morris said...

I don't know what's causing my inability to post comments, but it's an aggravating problem not confined merely to your blog.

But I think I should be thanking you, Nora. As well as apologizing for (sort of) abandoning the conversation once I helped to get it underway.

Great posts here. Thanks!

The_Editrix said...

Terry, maybe it has something to do with that irritating blogrolling service you are using and which wrecks your outgoing links, although I don't see how it can influence your posting at other blogs.

The lifely discussion at your blog is your own achievement as well as the commenters'. You are providing the environment.