Why I Appreciate the Guardian Article written to Bad-mouth Candace Owens
The article's premise was that high-profile conservative women namely Candace Owens, Brett Cooper, Alex Clark, Riley Gaines and Allie Beth Stucky are part of an 'organised effort' to turn young women against liberalism, and this was written as if it's a bad thing.
 |
| The Matt Walsh podcast episode that highlighted The Guardian's weirdly inspiring article |
 |
| Imagery from the article shows beautiful, intelligent women who have bravely rejected the dangerous mainstream narrative and are on the right path to joy, peace and well-being. |
Firstly I do not agree that these women, all of whom I follow regularly (apart from Alex Clark who I knew nothing about prior to reading this article and Riley Gaines who I'm aware of but don't follow) all belong to some right-wing media conglomerate paying them all to say similar things with the same motives and similar goals in mind.
They may be part of the conservative movement, but this is because of their honestly-held views which they express in varying ways. What unites them is arguably their faith in God and commitment to promoting wholesomeness and innate human tradition, as opposed to being iconoclasts moulded by the media to rail against nature and their bodies in pursuit of 'freedom'.
Silman does allude to this by stating:
"While the women behind these outlets all have different styles and tactics, they are mostly aligned in their desire to return to a gender-essentialist worldview: women as submissive homemakers, men as strong providers."
Amen to that.
As Matt Walsh opined, a gender-essentialist worldview is the one that upheld humanity for millennia until late last century when feminism took hold and sold women the lie that they could supress, nay defeat, the demands of their sex and reach for what they never had: freedom from men, domesticity and child-bearing.
In short, the three things that women naturally embraced and fashioned their identity out of. The three things that grounded the fairer sex and gave her life meaning and purpose, the three things she held down that allowed civilisation to flourish. And now that she is no longer encouraged to desire and be accomplished in these things, instability and dysfunction becomes evident in her life and in society as a whole.
Yes folks, the whole world goes off-balance when women no longer their place.
Feminism changed women, but not men. Men still want to lead, work and protect, but how can they when the object of their desire doesn't want to be led, wants to work harder and doesn't want protection? The object of their desire no longer wants to even be desired.
The irony is that the writer, in her attempt to describe all the horrors of a right-wing worldview, not only exposes the moral bankruptcy and bleakness of the alternative, but she actually extolled the innate values and goodness of conservatism.
She says:
"Like the manosphere influencers, these outlets are animated by... the belief that conservatives are the real oppressed minority. They claim that the liberal media and Hollywood are promoting feminist propaganda, and so they must fight back."
But ma'am, this is true.
Silman, in her article for a major publication confidently decries conservatism and her audience cheers her on. The one conservative magazine mentioned in this article, Evie, Silman concedes doesn't have the reach of Cosmopolitan or Vogue.
The question to ask is, apart from the women profiled, Evie, Daily Wire and Fox News, what major media publication out of the many we know actually pushes the conservative viewpoint full time?
I'll wait.
Silman then goes on to say that:
"Though they present themselves as independent thinkers, their ideology lines up neatly with the Trump administration’s quest to dismantle reproductive rights, roll back protections for LGBTQ+ people, and advance an anti-science agenda that puts the health of millions of Americans at risk."
Firstly the idea that these 'womanosphere' influencers always parrot Trump's agenda is not true, especially recently with Candace Owen's speaking vehemently against Trump's incursion into Iran.
By reproductive rights the left means abortion, which should not even be a right. That Trump has challenged the push for more abortion across America is a good thing, but of course those who are blind to the realities of what abortion actually is (the killing of something alive and growing inside a woman) won't agree.
Rolling back protections for LGBTQ + is a misnomer because they've always had all the same rights as everyone else (the right to live, work, vote, freedom of speech etc) but not the right to impose their deviant lifestyle or mental illness on society and demand special status whilst doing so.
Why should who you want to have sex with dictate anything about your life? It literally only matters when it comes to procreation, of which heterosexuals can partake (meaning this is as nature intended) and homosexuals cannot. That's it!
The 'anti-science agenda' aspect of that paragraph could mean many things and nothing at all. What is interesting is that the main image at the heart of The Guardian's article about 'Trump's 'attack on Science' that Silman linked to, is this:
Looks like Scientism has become a religion, where adherents 'Trust the Experts' more than their own common sense.
Next comes Silman's main attack:
"The type of woman these commentators valorize is thin, straight, fertile, traditionally feminine, conventionally attractive to men and white – though they try to avoid overt racism, instead opting for sentiments like, “as a minority woman, I’m here to say that you’ll be happier and more fulfilled if you aren’t consumed by thinking about your race.”
I see nothing wrong here.
As Matt Walsh rightly states, this is an indictment against health. Being thing, straight, fertile, feminine and attractive (or trying to be) is literally what all women aspired to up until 20 years ago. Now it's counter-cultural and wrong? How far we have fallen.
Tell me how fast the world will end in misery and dysfunction if all women aspired to be the opposite: fat, lesbian, infertile, masculine and unattractive. Is this REALLY what the left wants women to aspire to?
As for race, this is absurd, because Candace is black, and so am I. Maybe the majority of conservative female writers are white, but that doesn't mean minorities are excluded from reaching for the ideal. But we will be (and I am) happier and fulfilled when not consumed with thinking about both real and imagined racial oppression. Many black people have become race-narcissists, where they are obsessed with the politics of their colour and how historical, perceived and actual racism impacts them.
I focus on and pay close attention to my faith and family, not my race. Not everything circles back to my colour, and I don't live with the irrational paranoia that white people are my enemy.
 |
| Candace stays living free from racial narcissism |
Candance Owens is an example of a woman free from the social confines of her race and is flying high, thinking free and living freer.
Everything Silman writes about Candace I agree with and co-sign, and I thank her for outlining the best of what Candace is doing in society today. She mentions her investigative journalism, book club, fitness app and criticism of Kabbalah, all great things, thank you.
In shining a spotlight on the bright stars of the conservative movement, Silman has teased out why the right-wing is becoming so attractive, and offering no appealing alternative. Here we have a group of women encouraging other women to be healthy, have children, honour their husbands and seek the kind of wellbeing and contentment their grandmothers took for granted, and they all look gorgeous doing it. Say what you want but conservative women are beautiful and well-groomed.
What inspirational, life-giving, wholesome ideology is the left offering, and who are its aspirational proponents young women should emulate?
I'll wait.
Comments
Post a Comment