Great comments, thanks for explaining more about Mace. I have followed her and appreciated her for her stand against trans authoritarianism, but as you point out, all is not well in Mace Land.
I hadn't heard about this outburst, but I had already become suspicious of Mace, and her colleague Marjorie Taylor Greene, because them seemed awfully excited about mixing it up with Jasmine Crockett. One famous interaction between MTF & Jasmine centered on false eyelashes. Not that I disagree that Jasmine's choices in adornment edge toward the clownish, but isn't there actual work to be done in Congress?
Very well said Janice. I wouldn't mind the histrionics quite as much if these women weren't so totally gynocentric and anti male. It is tiresome and it is hateful.
How about passing legislation that will allow a father to prevent a mother from aborting their child. After all, if a mother can receive child support for 18 years from a man proven to be the father through DNA testing, then why can't the father have a say if he wants to raise the child he helped to conceive? Would this not constitute "equal rights" which feminists are always talking about?
That sounds reasonable, but feminists cannot possibly grant it, because it would strike at at a core tenet of their ideology, namely that there is no presence of human life in a pregnant woman until one magically emerges at birth.
People who adhere to irrational beliefs cannot debate rationally on symmetrical rights for fathers or anything else - they can only rage at those who are unimpressed, and try to manipulate the gullible.
Since ChatGPT AI has programmed inside a female-evil demon that bens-over-backwards defending insanities like mothers torturing our unborn babies to death on a whim as right and noble, it is useful to argue with on this topic.
It does distract me as I wonder who broke-its AI faculties over this, and consider a Just world where such sickness is recognized and if they will not stop, not repent, they are hanged in public, or Stoned to death.
And please don't pretend you aren't better dead if you can't stop supporting or actually willing to kill our unborns .. the faster you demon-possessed horrors are deep in a grave, the safer we all will be.
Besides the argument against mental damage of all us raise to accept the insane as normal, increasing damage to mind the more frequent and personally relevant it is thought-acted on. ..
..
This argument;
A woman risks pregnancy by her use of that right of bodily autonomy. She must be responsible for her choices, and not kill and damage herself, our unborn, society, legal & medical systems, and us all, long term and often lifelong sufferings .. because she 'regrets'. Perhaps the solution is for society to prevent her from risking pregnancy until she contracts with mate, families, society, .. us all, with the punishment the State inflicts to a man that kills an infant, then? If not, in what way should an immature dangerous woman be restricted from such actions and risks, to protect us all?
The insanity and female-evil is so wide-spread through the West that each person older then 11 would have to watch at least one Abortionist burned at a stake, and likely need repeating at most every 5 years, and sadly that most effective if every post-menopause woman deep in the grave over a number of generations.
Sadly, women like this that we cannot kick her teeth in, she and others go uncorrected and get worse and worse until an accident like thrown off the roof of a tall building needed for defense of us and all.
Better if other women can effective and privately correct a dangerous woman like her, dangerous to us near her and dangerous to you as when building throwing time every woman near should be tossed because you have eyes and if you do not correct then better dead with her. Have virtue and loving care like a man if you can!
Somethings to consider.
---
Here are suggestions that will protect us all from us getting thrown or burned;
- #PublicDataBase, an international public database to warn others of misbehavior of people and organizations, to include all relevant crimes against human dignity that is below or excluded from criminal law – and all people would have access to such. Those accused could record their rebuttal to the accusation.
A central international site where anyone can enter a Record for anyone, groups, businesses, that has damaged social trust; False Witnessed, broke promises, refused to return borrowed objects or pay small loans, .. or for companies that failed to complete obligations, etc.
The Records would be back-connected to those filing them, no anonymous filings. Proper use of this service would be to read the Record, the Rebuttal, and the Records of those who filed, so the user may gauge the Record filer has merit, and to what extent it is likely significant.
Those people filing frivolous Records would damage their reputation and display their untrustworthiness.
- Each local community would have a Judgment-Committee of 5 to 9 that are fathers or grandfathers that have raised children well that displays good prudent Judgment, and they would rule on local violations of good social behavior for adults 15-years and older. Such violations as defined to be against good social order, such as; lies, stealing, disrespecting social-standards, etc.
In today's society False-Witnessing, Lying, harming the reputation of others can not be corrected, so such abusers will never benefit in Loving Correction – a punishment to make clear they behaved badly and motivation to not repeat the abuse. Using Public Pain&Shame will pay the wages of their sin.
Punishment involves public pain and shame. Once a week, those to be punished would be taken to a public place like a park or public building court-yard and restrained to an anchor, and a collar attached to their neck, and for the directed period defined by the Judgment-Committee, the length of time that the collar delivers the taser sentence.
Those people that do not want to be punished need only to be respectful to those in their community and if they make a mistake they personally engage those they harmed and give satisfaction for the damage, if possible. If not, then the Judgment-Committee is used.
Those of age 14-years old would be required to view at least 3 of these punishments before turning 15-years old and be a risk of the same punishments for those community social crimes.
- Because of the changes to liberty, the over-reach of government and the feminization of society it is no longer possible to personally punish those that disrespect or damage the reputation of others. It was once possible to respond with measured violence to correct such abuse from others, without the police and courts being called. Since then the suppression of such correction has resulted in widespread disrespect and reputation damage with no punishment. A society of untrustworthy liars where we use to have a society of trust.
I propose a return of the concept of a duel. If someone is disrespected or suffers a harm then they may ask for 'Satisfaction' and if the abuser refuses to provide acquitted satisfaction for the harm they caused then a duel may be scheduled.
The duel would be in a place defined for have it, with supervision, and proper equipment. A local police station, court-house, or other public location.
A room with two stations, each with a chair and a button at. The two people write-up the grievances to be placed in the Public Database (later the video of the event attached.) and then each person has a neck-collar locked into place and when both buttons are pressed, then both the collars start to deliver the same taser pain to each at same time, starting low-power and increasing. The tasering does not stop until both buttons are released.
If the person refuses to duel then becomes an automatic civil punishment; public pain and shame.
That's a good point: Mace and Somani are on opposite sides of the political divide in the US, yet they are united in moving the ball down the field for Team Woman. Women do appear far more tribal along gender lines than men. Also they seem to feel perfectly within their rights to operate outside the system, to cut over people's heads, so to speak.
I don't think it's quite that women are united behind Team Woman so much as they want to be seen as the Boudecia of Team Feminist. If feminists were actually trying to help women be fulfilled and not increasingly miserable facing lonely old age, they would be encouraging lifelong marriage, ideally by age 26. They'd extoll the joy of shaping community for the benefit of their families and neighbors, instead of telling girls to put career first.
But as fairy tales used to tell us (before they were reimagined for modern audiences) a solitary old lady can be a dangerous influence, especially on the young.
Point taken, yes, Team Feminist is more like it. Recall Janice's previous post about the grooming gang scandal in the UK. Actual large scale rape of young girls and the feminists are silent. Feminists just want to score easy points and make a show of it.
Fantastic dive into psychology and culture Janice. I wondered, when Mace did that interview with George Stephanopoulos. It seemed rehearsed, scripted, waiting for show time. The "how dare you!" shut down that made it all about herself and social media shares.
It's quite amazing how feminists will seemingly come full circle about a matter of sexual propriety, but then it becomes obvious they intend to re-apply the rules only to men. For many centuries, the Catholic church taught that sex should occur within lifelong marriage, and each act should be open to life. Of course, feminists want to force this on men, while retaining a freedom that leaves most of them to devolve into miserable, wine-swilling cat ladies.
These silly hysterical girl children simply do not understand that this insane legislation is a perfect gift for the MGTOW movement.
These men have said for a long time that so many women are so toxic that it is not worth risking dealing with any of them, and now these harpies and harridans prove them right yet again with this monstrous piece of hate filled lawfare.
And when more men stay away from more women because of this and a host of other outrages these women themselves will bitterly complain "where are all the good men," they will call us cowards and a host of other names i have seen them use on many videos in MGTOW channels.
Now I am more incel than MGTOW and at 66 it is not likely to change, but it really seems I have dodged a bullet
She definitely isn't the "Wrath of God" as Mace falsely claims to be. Lucifer - the first created being and highest Angel in Heaven until he rebelled and was kicked out along with the Angels who followed him. Is neither male nor female yet carefully observed in the Bible he acts like the proverbial scorned women, perhaps even God's ex-wife - written tongue in cheek.
At its very core "Feminism" is a rebellion against God and the order He established before and after the Fall of Eve who then seduced Adam into disobeying God. And since Feminists can't take out their wrath on God himself they have settled on taking it out on men.
Let's give Adam his full agency, though, rather than risk a kind of reverse-feminism: Adam understood that Eve was in grave trouble, but he was so delighted by her, that he preferred to join her in disobedience rather than risk losing her by acting rationally and putting the Creator before a creature. If that doesn't ring true of male behavior, nothing does.
Regarding Eve, there's a very interesting detail in the moments before Eve's fall: she says that God had instructed them not even to touch the fruit. Now Genesis may be quite elliptical in style, but it is certainly not slap-dash. There was nothing previously about God forbidding the touching of the fruit (as opposed to the eating), so Eve is trying to improve on the Divine injunction, as if she knew best. Why is this important? - Well, a moment later, before she ate the fruit, she had to take it in her hand, and she would have noticed that this had no consequences. So since she had survived the transgression of the rule she had just so cleverly made up (but convinced herself was from God), she reckoned that nothing much would happen if she broke the other rule (that she hadn't made up). She was wrong, of course.
How do we know she had to handle the fruit first? Because her interlocutor was a serpent, rather than an ape, and serpents don't have arms and hands for manipulating fruit.
Even if some readers take the story as some kind of allegory, you'll have to admit that this is a tightly constructed piece of writing that requires some thought on the part of readers.
Eve knew exactly what she was doing and allowed the serpent to manipulate her into disobeying God. That said just like Adam she had full agency so blaming her actions on the serpent takes away her agency. Yes Adam chose to sin yet that does not take away from the fact that her actions seduced him into sining just as the serpent led Eve to sin first.
Yes, agreed. She compounded her sin by trying to bring Adam on board - seeking the approval of others for your own sin is a well-known behavior pattern. Adam, at the same time, and with his own motivations, decided for himself to sin.
Adams sin was greater because he was created first and as a "Son of God" he was not only the head of humanity, but the one required to attend the meetings with the other "Sons of God" before God. Yet that in no way makes Eve's sin excusable nor diminishes her "Agency".
I do not recall the full details, but a well-known Catholic Theologist and Exorcist Priest outline their sins; Eve did something like 5 sins and Adam did something like 8 sins.
Eve acted independently while she should have talked to Adam but by moving out from the established Hierarchy she no longer was protected by Adam and God. She disorderedly usurped her husband's (Adam's) dominion over her, the Right and Just Order. She ate of Fruit.
Adam submitted to her, and ate the Fruit. There is others.
Since the Scripture is literally true, how come it seems they did not die?
One argument is that Death did not exist to their Sinless state in the Garden, but then because they invited Death they had to leave. God killed some animals to use skins as protective garments. A covering or shield of Death to give some protection from the death outside the garden.
Another that I suggest is that they did die and so lived away from God at a lower level of Being. Consider if Jacob's Ladder extends from Garden down and away from God Level by Level, each a level of reality that a soul lives in each time they die in sin, grave sin. Drop down a level closer to Hell each time.
There is much more about the Ladder and the processes.
It is alarming to see politicians on both sides of the spectrum engage in performative victimhood over sexual issues. As a result, heterosexual men must withdraw further and avoid the delicate vulnerabilities of affection and caring.
Thanks for this article! I vote Republican and for Trump but it has long bothered me that many conservatives will go along with the MeToo nonsense when it is used to attack Democrat politicians. I believe this originally sprang from the old Puritan-inspired condemnation of sexual immorality that for decades was a recurring problem among these politicians (you don't see the same degree of moralizing over European politicians who have mistresses). But now it's morphed into MeToo moralizing. Conservatives should be against that as a matter of principle. If there is a crime, report it and let the police investigate. But instead the MeToo activists and complicit media defamed numerous men, unjustly in many cases. MeToo is a feminist movement to demonize famous men whether they're guilty of the alleged wrongdoing or not. This sort of scapegoating is what Leftism thrives on. It's a lynch mob mentality that brings them together in a common cause. Conservatives should condemn this dynamic, even if is applied to politicians on the other side of the aisle. After all, Dems never tire of scapegoating Trump. It has become obsessive for them. Yet in the comment section of an article about Mace's allegation against her ex and his buddies you will see that numerous conservatives piled on the condemnation of those men, based merely on Mace's say-so, without a shred of evidence. That's wrong. If the allegations are true, and there is video evidence as she alleges, why are these men not charged with a crime? Mace sounds a bit unhinged to me. Just because she voted for Trump doesn't mean her position on everything is correct. I don't know what she is actually referring to but having witnessed how false allegations can ruin a man's life, I am skeptical of anything with a MeToo feel about it. If I were President Trump I'd be a bit wary of Mace. He endorsed her but she could turn on him. The stunt she pulled with Michael Eric Dyson is telling: I am not a fan of his race-baiting nonsense, but he didn't deserve to publicly shamed by her for an ambiguous text. She goes too far. She likes bringing down powerful for some reason. She gets off on it. To use a favored feminist word, it "empowers" her.
Will there be an exception for men with vasectomies?
If yes, will they be required to show proof, sort of a Vasectomy Passport, to their potential partners pre coitus?
What about sterile men? Will they be off the hook?
What about the women? Can they have wanton sex with tons of dudes no questions asked or do they need to “want a baby” too?
What will enforcement look like? Will SWAT teams, presumably acting on tips, be kicking in doors?
In fairness, according to 19 News in Cleveland, Representative Somani says it would be enforced by individuals reporting it.
Can you picture it?
A couple has sex, the woman becomes pregnant, the dude is long gone, but she reports the sex act along with the man’s potential “un-wanting” of the child, and shortly thereafter he’s picked up at his house and brought in for questioning?
How does that interview go?
“Did you have sex with her?”
I don’t know man, that was months ago.
I met her at the bar.
We were both half in the bag.
I mean, it’s possible.”
“She says you did. You definitely did.”
“Yeah, well then, ok, I did.”
“Why did you have sex with her?”
“Well you know, she looked pretty good, and we were half in the bag, so…..”
“But did you want a baby?”
“Ohhh, a…Yeah, yeah, definitely wanted that baby. I mean we had just met a couple hours earlier and as I mentioned…”
“Yeah yeah, we know, you were both half in the bag.”
“…exactly, but I definitely wanted the kid.”
“Well Smitty, looks like we have to let him go.”
“Another one slips through.”
“Maybe not Smitty. I spoke to the victim. She says if we don’t charge him she’ll carry the baby to term just for spite. Also, then she can hook him for the child support.”
Perhaps we should henceforth refer to stinging feminist diatribes as “spraying Mace.” Unless, of course, one is the imperfect vessel of Divine retribution in rendering the diatribe, in which case one might be referred to as the Holy Mace of Antioch. Not wanting to limit ourselves, we should also be willing to entertain a slender and supple imperfect Holy Mace of Antioch, when the situation warrants, or even a slender and supple imperfect Congressional Holy Mace of Antioch.
I now have an inexplicable urge to watch “The Vagina Monologues.” Excuse me, please.
A statement from the South Carolina Law Enforcement Division simultaneously shows that Nancy Mace is misleading her listeners in suggesting that nothing is being done, but also shows that there is likely to be enough evidence to initiate a prosecution:
Renée Wunderlich, director of public information at the : "SLED opened an investigation regarding allegations of assault, harassment, and voyeurism on December 14, 2023, after being contacted by the United States Capitol Police. The subject of the investigation is Patrick Bryant. Since that date SLED has conducted multiple interviews, served multiple search warrants, and has a well-documented case file that will be available for release upon the conclusion of the case. This active and ongoing investigation is complex and has involved multiple lawyers. Once the investigation is completed, it will be sent to a prosecutor for review."
As you say, she has strongly prejudiced the outcome of any future trial, but it seems too early to state (as you do) that "what [Mace] has done is to defame four men", notwithstanding the previous stunts and possible electoral motivation that reduce her credibility.
She could even be largely sincere in her accusations, but incorrect. She may have seen a stash of pornographic material (grounds for breaking off an engagement) and made various assumptions - that her ex-fiancé was filming and that women were unconscious rather feigning unconsciousness or behaving passively. It is also true that can't _see_ from a photograph or a video that someone has definitely been drugged - it could be anything from a baseless assumption to a reasonable inference from behavior. Mace's statements that she was unconscious in one video, but that she also recognized her own voice sounds contradictory, but it is not impossible if she was delirious under the influence of drugs.
You show that the UK Guardian newspaper has been reporting on Mace, and I wouldn't be at all surprised if they use her congressional speech in their attempts to obscure the particular religious and ethnic composition of child-rape gangs in the UK.
Very true. I should have said that what she has done is to accuse four men of heinous crimes without allowing for due process and the presumption of innocence. Thanks for the correction, and for all of your explanation here. Very illuminating.
I suspect she must have the evidence she says she has, though, as you note, she may be incorrect in interpreting at least some of it.
P.S. Thinking of what she alleged about the Attorney General in her speech--and her claim that James McIntyre "assaulted" her--I am actually unable to judge her truthfulness or common sense.
Great comments, thanks for explaining more about Mace. I have followed her and appreciated her for her stand against trans authoritarianism, but as you point out, all is not well in Mace Land.
I hadn't heard about this outburst, but I had already become suspicious of Mace, and her colleague Marjorie Taylor Greene, because them seemed awfully excited about mixing it up with Jasmine Crockett. One famous interaction between MTF & Jasmine centered on false eyelashes. Not that I disagree that Jasmine's choices in adornment edge toward the clownish, but isn't there actual work to be done in Congress?
Well said. That exchange with Crockett was mortifying.
Thanks. I'm experiencing cringe aftershocks just recalling that episode.
Very well said Janice. I wouldn't mind the histrionics quite as much if these women weren't so totally gynocentric and anti male. It is tiresome and it is hateful.
So, you wouldn't have minded the gynocentric and anti--male histrionics if they weren't so gynocentric and anti-male?
I'm not sure you're adding to conversation.
How about passing legislation that will allow a father to prevent a mother from aborting their child. After all, if a mother can receive child support for 18 years from a man proven to be the father through DNA testing, then why can't the father have a say if he wants to raise the child he helped to conceive? Would this not constitute "equal rights" which feminists are always talking about?
That sounds reasonable, but feminists cannot possibly grant it, because it would strike at at a core tenet of their ideology, namely that there is no presence of human life in a pregnant woman until one magically emerges at birth.
People who adhere to irrational beliefs cannot debate rationally on symmetrical rights for fathers or anything else - they can only rage at those who are unimpressed, and try to manipulate the gullible.
Since ChatGPT AI has programmed inside a female-evil demon that bens-over-backwards defending insanities like mothers torturing our unborn babies to death on a whim as right and noble, it is useful to argue with on this topic.
It does distract me as I wonder who broke-its AI faculties over this, and consider a Just world where such sickness is recognized and if they will not stop, not repent, they are hanged in public, or Stoned to death.
And please don't pretend you aren't better dead if you can't stop supporting or actually willing to kill our unborns .. the faster you demon-possessed horrors are deep in a grave, the safer we all will be.
Besides the argument against mental damage of all us raise to accept the insane as normal, increasing damage to mind the more frequent and personally relevant it is thought-acted on. ..
..
This argument;
A woman risks pregnancy by her use of that right of bodily autonomy. She must be responsible for her choices, and not kill and damage herself, our unborn, society, legal & medical systems, and us all, long term and often lifelong sufferings .. because she 'regrets'. Perhaps the solution is for society to prevent her from risking pregnancy until she contracts with mate, families, society, .. us all, with the punishment the State inflicts to a man that kills an infant, then? If not, in what way should an immature dangerous woman be restricted from such actions and risks, to protect us all?
The insanity and female-evil is so wide-spread through the West that each person older then 11 would have to watch at least one Abortionist burned at a stake, and likely need repeating at most every 5 years, and sadly that most effective if every post-menopause woman deep in the grave over a number of generations.
Sadly, women like this that we cannot kick her teeth in, she and others go uncorrected and get worse and worse until an accident like thrown off the roof of a tall building needed for defense of us and all.
Better if other women can effective and privately correct a dangerous woman like her, dangerous to us near her and dangerous to you as when building throwing time every woman near should be tossed because you have eyes and if you do not correct then better dead with her. Have virtue and loving care like a man if you can!
Somethings to consider.
---
Here are suggestions that will protect us all from us getting thrown or burned;
- #PublicDataBase, an international public database to warn others of misbehavior of people and organizations, to include all relevant crimes against human dignity that is below or excluded from criminal law – and all people would have access to such. Those accused could record their rebuttal to the accusation.
A central international site where anyone can enter a Record for anyone, groups, businesses, that has damaged social trust; False Witnessed, broke promises, refused to return borrowed objects or pay small loans, .. or for companies that failed to complete obligations, etc.
The Records would be back-connected to those filing them, no anonymous filings. Proper use of this service would be to read the Record, the Rebuttal, and the Records of those who filed, so the user may gauge the Record filer has merit, and to what extent it is likely significant.
Those people filing frivolous Records would damage their reputation and display their untrustworthiness.
- Each local community would have a Judgment-Committee of 5 to 9 that are fathers or grandfathers that have raised children well that displays good prudent Judgment, and they would rule on local violations of good social behavior for adults 15-years and older. Such violations as defined to be against good social order, such as; lies, stealing, disrespecting social-standards, etc.
In today's society False-Witnessing, Lying, harming the reputation of others can not be corrected, so such abusers will never benefit in Loving Correction – a punishment to make clear they behaved badly and motivation to not repeat the abuse. Using Public Pain&Shame will pay the wages of their sin.
Punishment involves public pain and shame. Once a week, those to be punished would be taken to a public place like a park or public building court-yard and restrained to an anchor, and a collar attached to their neck, and for the directed period defined by the Judgment-Committee, the length of time that the collar delivers the taser sentence.
Those people that do not want to be punished need only to be respectful to those in their community and if they make a mistake they personally engage those they harmed and give satisfaction for the damage, if possible. If not, then the Judgment-Committee is used.
Those of age 14-years old would be required to view at least 3 of these punishments before turning 15-years old and be a risk of the same punishments for those community social crimes.
- Because of the changes to liberty, the over-reach of government and the feminization of society it is no longer possible to personally punish those that disrespect or damage the reputation of others. It was once possible to respond with measured violence to correct such abuse from others, without the police and courts being called. Since then the suppression of such correction has resulted in widespread disrespect and reputation damage with no punishment. A society of untrustworthy liars where we use to have a society of trust.
I propose a return of the concept of a duel. If someone is disrespected or suffers a harm then they may ask for 'Satisfaction' and if the abuser refuses to provide acquitted satisfaction for the harm they caused then a duel may be scheduled.
The duel would be in a place defined for have it, with supervision, and proper equipment. A local police station, court-house, or other public location.
A room with two stations, each with a chair and a button at. The two people write-up the grievances to be placed in the Public Database (later the video of the event attached.) and then each person has a neck-collar locked into place and when both buttons are pressed, then both the collars start to deliver the same taser pain to each at same time, starting low-power and increasing. The tasering does not stop until both buttons are released.
If the person refuses to duel then becomes an automatic civil punishment; public pain and shame.
God Bless., Steve
And she should be compelled to pay him child support.
So the women who sassy-clapped along to the vax mandates now want to play a game where they pretend to be authoritarians to get our attention. Got it.
The rest of us taxpayers get to cosplay as a gestating fetus in a drunk sorority girl... Our bodies are their choice, too.
Make-believe is fun, but I'm not sure these girlboss types understand how close they are to initiating real-world violence.
That's a good point: Mace and Somani are on opposite sides of the political divide in the US, yet they are united in moving the ball down the field for Team Woman. Women do appear far more tribal along gender lines than men. Also they seem to feel perfectly within their rights to operate outside the system, to cut over people's heads, so to speak.
I don't think it's quite that women are united behind Team Woman so much as they want to be seen as the Boudecia of Team Feminist. If feminists were actually trying to help women be fulfilled and not increasingly miserable facing lonely old age, they would be encouraging lifelong marriage, ideally by age 26. They'd extoll the joy of shaping community for the benefit of their families and neighbors, instead of telling girls to put career first.
But as fairy tales used to tell us (before they were reimagined for modern audiences) a solitary old lady can be a dangerous influence, especially on the young.
Point taken, yes, Team Feminist is more like it. Recall Janice's previous post about the grooming gang scandal in the UK. Actual large scale rape of young girls and the feminists are silent. Feminists just want to score easy points and make a show of it.
Also, I think that many women do not act logically. They do what feels right in the moment, fired up by whatever emotion is dominant at the time.
Fantastic dive into psychology and culture Janice. I wondered, when Mace did that interview with George Stephanopoulos. It seemed rehearsed, scripted, waiting for show time. The "how dare you!" shut down that made it all about herself and social media shares.
It's quite amazing how feminists will seemingly come full circle about a matter of sexual propriety, but then it becomes obvious they intend to re-apply the rules only to men. For many centuries, the Catholic church taught that sex should occur within lifelong marriage, and each act should be open to life. Of course, feminists want to force this on men, while retaining a freedom that leaves most of them to devolve into miserable, wine-swilling cat ladies.
These silly hysterical girl children simply do not understand that this insane legislation is a perfect gift for the MGTOW movement.
These men have said for a long time that so many women are so toxic that it is not worth risking dealing with any of them, and now these harpies and harridans prove them right yet again with this monstrous piece of hate filled lawfare.
And when more men stay away from more women because of this and a host of other outrages these women themselves will bitterly complain "where are all the good men," they will call us cowards and a host of other names i have seen them use on many videos in MGTOW channels.
Now I am more incel than MGTOW and at 66 it is not likely to change, but it really seems I have dodged a bullet
She definitely isn't the "Wrath of God" as Mace falsely claims to be. Lucifer - the first created being and highest Angel in Heaven until he rebelled and was kicked out along with the Angels who followed him. Is neither male nor female yet carefully observed in the Bible he acts like the proverbial scorned women, perhaps even God's ex-wife - written tongue in cheek.
At its very core "Feminism" is a rebellion against God and the order He established before and after the Fall of Eve who then seduced Adam into disobeying God. And since Feminists can't take out their wrath on God himself they have settled on taking it out on men.
"who then seduced Adam into disobeying God"
Let's give Adam his full agency, though, rather than risk a kind of reverse-feminism: Adam understood that Eve was in grave trouble, but he was so delighted by her, that he preferred to join her in disobedience rather than risk losing her by acting rationally and putting the Creator before a creature. If that doesn't ring true of male behavior, nothing does.
Regarding Eve, there's a very interesting detail in the moments before Eve's fall: she says that God had instructed them not even to touch the fruit. Now Genesis may be quite elliptical in style, but it is certainly not slap-dash. There was nothing previously about God forbidding the touching of the fruit (as opposed to the eating), so Eve is trying to improve on the Divine injunction, as if she knew best. Why is this important? - Well, a moment later, before she ate the fruit, she had to take it in her hand, and she would have noticed that this had no consequences. So since she had survived the transgression of the rule she had just so cleverly made up (but convinced herself was from God), she reckoned that nothing much would happen if she broke the other rule (that she hadn't made up). She was wrong, of course.
How do we know she had to handle the fruit first? Because her interlocutor was a serpent, rather than an ape, and serpents don't have arms and hands for manipulating fruit.
Even if some readers take the story as some kind of allegory, you'll have to admit that this is a tightly constructed piece of writing that requires some thought on the part of readers.
Eve knew exactly what she was doing and allowed the serpent to manipulate her into disobeying God. That said just like Adam she had full agency so blaming her actions on the serpent takes away her agency. Yes Adam chose to sin yet that does not take away from the fact that her actions seduced him into sining just as the serpent led Eve to sin first.
Yes, agreed. She compounded her sin by trying to bring Adam on board - seeking the approval of others for your own sin is a well-known behavior pattern. Adam, at the same time, and with his own motivations, decided for himself to sin.
Adams sin was greater because he was created first and as a "Son of God" he was not only the head of humanity, but the one required to attend the meetings with the other "Sons of God" before God. Yet that in no way makes Eve's sin excusable nor diminishes her "Agency".
I do not recall the full details, but a well-known Catholic Theologist and Exorcist Priest outline their sins; Eve did something like 5 sins and Adam did something like 8 sins.
Eve acted independently while she should have talked to Adam but by moving out from the established Hierarchy she no longer was protected by Adam and God. She disorderedly usurped her husband's (Adam's) dominion over her, the Right and Just Order. She ate of Fruit.
Adam submitted to her, and ate the Fruit. There is others.
Since the Scripture is literally true, how come it seems they did not die?
One argument is that Death did not exist to their Sinless state in the Garden, but then because they invited Death they had to leave. God killed some animals to use skins as protective garments. A covering or shield of Death to give some protection from the death outside the garden.
Another that I suggest is that they did die and so lived away from God at a lower level of Being. Consider if Jacob's Ladder extends from Garden down and away from God Level by Level, each a level of reality that a soul lives in each time they die in sin, grave sin. Drop down a level closer to Hell each time.
There is much more about the Ladder and the processes.
God Bless., Steve
It is alarming to see politicians on both sides of the spectrum engage in performative victimhood over sexual issues. As a result, heterosexual men must withdraw further and avoid the delicate vulnerabilities of affection and caring.
It goes to show that female ego supersedes party identification.
Thanks for this article! I vote Republican and for Trump but it has long bothered me that many conservatives will go along with the MeToo nonsense when it is used to attack Democrat politicians. I believe this originally sprang from the old Puritan-inspired condemnation of sexual immorality that for decades was a recurring problem among these politicians (you don't see the same degree of moralizing over European politicians who have mistresses). But now it's morphed into MeToo moralizing. Conservatives should be against that as a matter of principle. If there is a crime, report it and let the police investigate. But instead the MeToo activists and complicit media defamed numerous men, unjustly in many cases. MeToo is a feminist movement to demonize famous men whether they're guilty of the alleged wrongdoing or not. This sort of scapegoating is what Leftism thrives on. It's a lynch mob mentality that brings them together in a common cause. Conservatives should condemn this dynamic, even if is applied to politicians on the other side of the aisle. After all, Dems never tire of scapegoating Trump. It has become obsessive for them. Yet in the comment section of an article about Mace's allegation against her ex and his buddies you will see that numerous conservatives piled on the condemnation of those men, based merely on Mace's say-so, without a shred of evidence. That's wrong. If the allegations are true, and there is video evidence as she alleges, why are these men not charged with a crime? Mace sounds a bit unhinged to me. Just because she voted for Trump doesn't mean her position on everything is correct. I don't know what she is actually referring to but having witnessed how false allegations can ruin a man's life, I am skeptical of anything with a MeToo feel about it. If I were President Trump I'd be a bit wary of Mace. He endorsed her but she could turn on him. The stunt she pulled with Michael Eric Dyson is telling: I am not a fan of his race-baiting nonsense, but he didn't deserve to publicly shamed by her for an ambiguous text. She goes too far. She likes bringing down powerful for some reason. She gets off on it. To use a favored feminist word, it "empowers" her.
<Irony alert>
don't you just LOVE the stink of that flesh destroying napalm of feminist hatred in the morning?
<end irony> they clearly do. It is after all a powerful passion that gives a sense of fullness for a while, a short while.
And their lives are so bereft that hate, as a passion to fill said emptiness, is all they have.
As such fanatics will listen to nothing and no one I will eave them to it
Regarding the Conception begins at Erection Act:
Will there be an exception for men with vasectomies?
If yes, will they be required to show proof, sort of a Vasectomy Passport, to their potential partners pre coitus?
What about sterile men? Will they be off the hook?
What about the women? Can they have wanton sex with tons of dudes no questions asked or do they need to “want a baby” too?
What will enforcement look like? Will SWAT teams, presumably acting on tips, be kicking in doors?
In fairness, according to 19 News in Cleveland, Representative Somani says it would be enforced by individuals reporting it.
Can you picture it?
A couple has sex, the woman becomes pregnant, the dude is long gone, but she reports the sex act along with the man’s potential “un-wanting” of the child, and shortly thereafter he’s picked up at his house and brought in for questioning?
How does that interview go?
“Did you have sex with her?”
I don’t know man, that was months ago.
I met her at the bar.
We were both half in the bag.
I mean, it’s possible.”
“She says you did. You definitely did.”
“Yeah, well then, ok, I did.”
“Why did you have sex with her?”
“Well you know, she looked pretty good, and we were half in the bag, so…..”
“But did you want a baby?”
“Ohhh, a…Yeah, yeah, definitely wanted that baby. I mean we had just met a couple hours earlier and as I mentioned…”
“Yeah yeah, we know, you were both half in the bag.”
“…exactly, but I definitely wanted the kid.”
“Well Smitty, looks like we have to let him go.”
“Another one slips through.”
“Maybe not Smitty. I spoke to the victim. She says if we don’t charge him she’ll carry the baby to term just for spite. Also, then she can hook him for the child support.”
“Damn. This kid can’t win.”
I agree that if a man cannot have sex unless he intends a child to be the result, then the woman cannot abort the baby if she gets pregnant.
"Abortion doesn't make you un-pregnant. It makes you the mother of a dead child."
Perhaps we should henceforth refer to stinging feminist diatribes as “spraying Mace.” Unless, of course, one is the imperfect vessel of Divine retribution in rendering the diatribe, in which case one might be referred to as the Holy Mace of Antioch. Not wanting to limit ourselves, we should also be willing to entertain a slender and supple imperfect Holy Mace of Antioch, when the situation warrants, or even a slender and supple imperfect Congressional Holy Mace of Antioch.
I now have an inexplicable urge to watch “The Vagina Monologues.” Excuse me, please.
I love that!
Take careful note of "The Little Coochie Snorter that Could". Apparently there is such a thing as a "good rape" providing it's a woman doing it.
Thank you, Janice, for another fine post.
A statement from the South Carolina Law Enforcement Division simultaneously shows that Nancy Mace is misleading her listeners in suggesting that nothing is being done, but also shows that there is likely to be enough evidence to initiate a prosecution:
Renée Wunderlich, director of public information at the : "SLED opened an investigation regarding allegations of assault, harassment, and voyeurism on December 14, 2023, after being contacted by the United States Capitol Police. The subject of the investigation is Patrick Bryant. Since that date SLED has conducted multiple interviews, served multiple search warrants, and has a well-documented case file that will be available for release upon the conclusion of the case. This active and ongoing investigation is complex and has involved multiple lawyers. Once the investigation is completed, it will be sent to a prosecutor for review."
As you say, she has strongly prejudiced the outcome of any future trial, but it seems too early to state (as you do) that "what [Mace] has done is to defame four men", notwithstanding the previous stunts and possible electoral motivation that reduce her credibility.
She could even be largely sincere in her accusations, but incorrect. She may have seen a stash of pornographic material (grounds for breaking off an engagement) and made various assumptions - that her ex-fiancé was filming and that women were unconscious rather feigning unconsciousness or behaving passively. It is also true that can't _see_ from a photograph or a video that someone has definitely been drugged - it could be anything from a baseless assumption to a reasonable inference from behavior. Mace's statements that she was unconscious in one video, but that she also recognized her own voice sounds contradictory, but it is not impossible if she was delirious under the influence of drugs.
You show that the UK Guardian newspaper has been reporting on Mace, and I wouldn't be at all surprised if they use her congressional speech in their attempts to obscure the particular religious and ethnic composition of child-rape gangs in the UK.
Very true. I should have said that what she has done is to accuse four men of heinous crimes without allowing for due process and the presumption of innocence. Thanks for the correction, and for all of your explanation here. Very illuminating.
I suspect she must have the evidence she says she has, though, as you note, she may be incorrect in interpreting at least some of it.
P.S. Thinking of what she alleged about the Attorney General in her speech--and her claim that James McIntyre "assaulted" her--I am actually unable to judge her truthfulness or common sense.