Back in January our family moved across our great state to a new area, in a rather abrupt and surprising move to further my husband’s small business. Because we were so pressed for time, we rented a beautiful new town home, sight unseen except for a video tour online. We did all paperwork via FEDEX and just packed up and moved, knowing that God would give us exactly what we needed in a home for our still-growing family.
I must say, we are blessed. Our cup runneth over; our home is lovely. Isn’t it amazing how God knows what we need before we even do, and He provides for us so perfectly? As you read what follows, know that it is spoken to expose and discuss the spirit of this modern age – and the egalitarian state in which we live – and not to murmur and complain against our Creator who has given us more than we could possibly ask or imagine for our family.
One of the perks of the town home development (small, with two dozen separate units) that we chose is internet access included. This is hard-wired ethernet in each individual unit, wired through a major cable internet provider into one corporate account, which is billed to the management company of the property. When we moved in, we received a notification with one of those giant circles with an ‘X’ through the middle regarding the use of a router: in other words, “Thou shalt not hook up a router with our community ethernet, lest thine internet privilege no longer be available.” Followed by a small caveat: “If thou insisteth upon installing a router for multiple wireless devices, thou shalt ask permission from thine property manager.” Okay, fair enough.
Soon it was quite obvious that we would require the use of our old router, so we phoned and after much toil and trouble, we were given the heads-up to use it and we were able to configure it properly. Ah, the pleasures of streaming children’s movies when you do not use network TV. Blissful oblivion ensued. Temporarily.
Two weeks ago, suddenly, the internet was interrupted. All weekend. Now, we do just fine without it, and we are not movie junkies, but we needed to determine what had caused the outage and have it repaired. Also, when we were able to actually get a wireless connection, not one, but ALL of my conservative, anti-feminist websites were BLOCKED by some strange piece of hardware showing up that WE DO NOT OWN in our home! (Mrs. Laura Wood’s website was blocked due to “sexual content” just to give you an idea of how ridiculous this was).
It never occurred to me to call the property management company, but after a weekend of tech support from my son, long-distance (we do call him Neo), he determined that the problem was with our ISP and not our particular connection or modem or computer software/hardware. Soon, Monday rolled around, and we noticed an email from the property manager, a post-menopausal spinster and an extreme Feminista with a rigid mindset for total socialistic egalitarianism within her “property.” It seems she had taken it upon herself to hire a tech to install a middle-man network to “patrol” each tenant’s bandwidth (she really means data, but she doesn’t realize this) usage, because SOME PEOPLE WERE GETTING MORE DATA THAN OTHERS out of their personal, in-home internet connection provided by her office. The brilliant tech she hired (who indeed works for a company that specializes in installing televisions and audio equipment, but hey, it’s all electronic, right?) had ignorantly left SSL certificate blocking in place in his settings (hence The Thinking Housewife being seen as sexually explicit!) and had configured his Socialist-Modem-Feminista-Fairness-Badwidth-and-Data-Distribution-Device incorrectly, blocking everyone else’s private networks from accessing the signal.
It has taken another week in order for him to unscramble the egg, so to speak, and now we are live again without interruption (or SSL blocking). Now, Feminista-Property-Manager-Chick has IMPLORED everyone to purchase their own modem, setup their own wireless WPA network, and has sent out a memo that details why it is imperative and the connection will no longer work without it. Odd, how women change the “rules” whenever their emotions seem to dictate. (Myself included, thank God for Colonel T.)
So, here is the question that I posed in the title: Why is it that women just cannot TOLERATE it if everything is not divvied up in what they perceive as a completely fair and equitable portion? Everyone should have the SAME! It’s only “fair!” If one person is getting more than another person, something is terribly out of kilter and the Powers That Be must immediately remedy this situation because it is UNFAIR. Right?
Why can’t women just have a little logical critical thought about things like this? Permit me a couple of examples: Perhaps, in the internet situation, one tenant is a business-man who works at home and uses more data than the full-time student/part-time worker who is rarely AT home to use the computer. Perhaps, the full-time housewife uses less internet than the twenty-year-old semi-professional video gamer next door, who consumes 10G in data in less than a month.
Should we punish the gamer and reward the housewife by creating legislation that ensures that the gamer “give” some of his data to all housewives, even though few housewives really NEED the equitable distribution of data?
You know where I’m going with this. This is why we find ourselves with another four years of Mr. Obama as Commander in Chief. This is why women vote. This is why frivorce reigns in modern marriage. This is why we have the Un-Family Courts. Fairness and equality. This was the (supposed) purpose of the Nineteenth amendment and First-Wave Feminism. Yet, somehow, fairness turns to “superiority” in the mere bat of an eyelash, due to the fallen nature of men and women alike.
WHY? Why do women think like this? Is it sinful? Is it inherently neutral? Is it good if used within the confines of a home environment, when managing children and household, and bad when used in the public sphere and marketplace?
All comments are welcome.
I cherish your readership and welcome your responses. (smile).
songtwoeleven
The Lady I Can't Explain... 
You know I was thinking about buying a townhouse too. Guess what I’m no longer thinking about?
It might be slightly different if you purchase…although, when I was an insurance agent, lots of people complained about “Townhome Association” rules (i.e., fascist, two-hundred page handbooks that cost $175 per year to tell you that you cannot air-dry your child’s diapers on the property). No, thank you. But to each his own.
I was thinking of investing in a condo to minimize the upkeep, but it seems those condo/co-op boards are getting so fascist these days that it no longer might be worth the tradeoff between that and owning a home. :-\
It’s not simply communism (the most extreme form of socialism), but all forms of socialism which are the problem: if you have more money than I do, then that’s just tough. Provided you didn’t steal it, it’s yours. Period. If I can’t feed my children, then it’s my problem, not yours (women almost never grasp this, as they are basically stupid, sentimental, idolatrous creatures). And if I argue that the state should take a chunk of what you have and give it to me, then I would not be a Christian, I would be just another covetous thief who is abusing the power of government. True Christians recognise Leftism for what it is: man’s age-old search to justify theft and dress it up as virtue. Sadly the churches have drunk the Left’s Kool-Aid.
However, if I am rich and prepared to sit and watch you and your children starve when it is in my power to help you, then I can expect serious ramifications in the afterlife. (Christ explains this in the story of Lazarus and the rich man.) And being rich is a snare: though of course it is not impossible for rich people to enter the Kingdom, it is clear from the Gospels that very few rich people get to Heaven, because they trust their riches, they worship work, sex, success (and all the other trappings of luxury), and reject God.
So, whether rich and indifferent or poor and covetous, Hell awaits. God’s no respecter of persons. If my neighbour has more than I have, then I must not covet what he has (or seek to plunder him through the ballot-box), even if I cannot feed my children. I have no claim on his wealth or possessions — they are his. Period. …And on the other hand, if I am rich, then I must ensure that my wealth — though indeed mine — does not become a snare and is used in a way which pleases God. I must open my hand to the poor and give freely.
And women should never be in the workplace. They are too emotional and cause too much damage. They belong at home. The great Western experiment has shown that if women as a whole are to be of use at all, then they should be literally owned by men: first by their fathers (to protect their virginity; rather than letting them play the whore and wreck others’ lives), before being sold to their husbands (if the father agrees) — just as in the Law. That’s how God ordered His society. And He knows best: He made us. Women’s role is to help men in their service of God: whether it be their husband, their father, their uncles, their brothers or whatever. Set women ‘free’ and they can’t handle it: they’ll show you what screwed up really looks like. They’ll burn the house down.
Our society’s whacked.
Welcome! Thank you for writing. Your comment was an enjoyable read. Truly, the Church in Acts was not just “Christian Communism”, which you have so eloquently stated.
I especially enjoyed the bold statement that you made that women should NEVER be in the workplace due to emotional make-up. I am in total agreement. I am a much more balanced and relaxed woman, less stressed and more emotionally stable, while at home caring for numerous young children, than I ever was in the workplace (no matter the job!). Women just don’t belong in the marketplace competing with men or submitting to men other than their husbands or fathers. We intend to raise our daughters to understand how much more peace they will have if they pursue marriage and motherhood in the home, as opposed to the college/career/then-marriage, then two children model.
Thanks again!!!
You’ve no idea how nice it is to hear a woman say that…
Yet how often have you heard some nincompoop citing it as having been Socialism? The key point was that the sharing was voluntary. …As the episode with Ananias & Sapphira showed, where Peter said that their possessions were entirely their own, to do with as they wished (their sin was that they lied not only to other believers but also to God). The amount of disinformation (and ignorance of what the Bible actually teaches) that one encounters today is woeful.
Aw, pleased to oblige, ma’am! …Joking aside, why is it that even manosphere men & women say all sorts of things, but stop short of saying this? They just want to try to regulate the workplace (I read a manosphere article the other day, about how sexual harassment should be dealt with — the authoress opined that the harassment laws should either be applied equally to men & women or should be done away with completely — yet nowhere did she point out that women just didn’t belong in the workplace, or that the mixed-sex office is a modern and unbiblical invention, which leads to all manner of horror in the name of ‘progress’.)
You seem to be just about the only woman around here who actually wants women OUT of the workplace for good and fulfilling their God-given role as keepers at home. (A woman can of course have a home business if needed, but it should be just that: a home business — something which doesn’t draw her away from her duties as daughter/wife, home-maker or mother, i.e. a part-time occupation which does NOT involve submitting to a stranger, competing with the guys/gals, or bossing other adults around, etc.. That cr@p’s not Scriptural and it’s not feminine, either.)
Of course. It’s the way your Creator made you.
Woman belongs under the protection and authority of man: woman was designed to inhabit a world of God’s Word, prayer, femininity, submission, caring for family and — if she’s married — lashings of willing, wifely sex with her man and bearing, raising & teaching their children. It’s a warm, nurturing environment, and one in which those women who embrace it fully will flourish, just as God intends. Everyone wins: women, men and children.
Put women in the workplace and their environment is totally out of kilter with that for which they were designed. …And chaos ensues.
I wish you every success with this. Ensure they know to prize their virginity, too, and not to allow feminist sluts to shame them for their innocence. If you home-school, then your problems will be drastically reduced on that score.
And as a man, I’ll say now that the ideal wife is the Biblical one: a godly, feminine virgin who seeks to be a helpmeet to a godly man — one who embodies 1 Peter 3:2-4 and embraces submission so that God may be glorified in her life. …Rather than an overschooled foolette who amasses an expensive yet worthless pile of paper from U. of Sodom, throws away her virginity for kicks, and spends her life in Mammon-worship, trying to elbow her way to the top of the greasy pole (and who then, finding herself chronically depressed, seeks a pharmaceutical solution for an existential problem).
God has the answer, if we’ll only heed His Word. It’s just a case of being bold and trusting Him.
You’re welcome.
First stage thinking. It’s similar to when a kid sees a sibling get a bigger piece of cake and wonders “why do they get more than me?” Deep Strength hit on it with this –
“one of Rollo’s articles stated that men are basically taught to produce more than you consume in society. The better you produce, the better off you are overall. ”
Note the key word there is “taught.” Men learn young that if they produce more, more accrues to them. Women generally aren’t forced to learn this through hard experience like men have to until they have kids. Then they can understand the difference in needs and wants, instead of a flat, fake “equalism.” For example, Jill might get less cake than Jack because Jill gets too hopped up on smaller amounts of sugar than Jack. Or maybe because Jack got better grades in school.
Kinda random, written in a rush before I forget. Hope it makes sense.
This makes perfect sense, actually. I am going to need to read the Rollo article that is being referenced.
I think it’s interesting that modern women aren’t learning this until having children: yet another benefit of “being saved through childbirth” as God has spoken. I really don’t think this is random at all, but very concise and again, easy for me to understand.
It is so infuriating, though, to live in a world with women who DO NOT understand this or even wish to change their mindset, because to them it is perfectly acceptable. It makes me angry! I don’t know what to do or say about it, or how to correct this kind of thinking in a female.
Perhaps it is not up to me to correct this in our landlord, or course, but given the opportunity, I sure do speak out on the MSM blogs to those who “expect” free daycare, free housing, free maternity leave for a year, etc. BUT: I get flamed. Not that I care, but I ALWAYS get flamed by the Girlzzzz.
Thanks for your comment!
Women don’t have to do any real work growing up these days. Everything is tilted in their favor. It’s not til they have kids that they learn what work is.
I suggest we call it “Fequality.”
Better yet, “Shequality.”
Ten bucks sez someone already bet me to that one.
Equality and fairness…. Communism… redistribution so everyone has everything equally. It’s the reverse entitlement mentality, which is equally as poisonous. The societal application that goes against the commandment #10 — “do not covet your neighbors possessions.”
Deep Strength:
Communism, yes. I never thought of it in terms of going against “do not covet your neighbor’s ________________”, but it certainly fits the bill. Frankly, I didn’t think I’d encounter such thinking as a tenant of a rented dwelling!
Seems to me that this philosophy is much more commonly accepted by females. It seems to me that it appeals to females because it promotes “fairness” and “equality”, but of course, communism does not ever result in true freedom or equality for females if it is allowed to fully manifest in social structure.
Is it popular thinking amongst females because it would be useful in a household environment with children (promoting lack of favoritism amongst children in a large family, or ensuring that each child had just the right amount of food at mealtime, for example)? Or, is it not INHERENTLY desired by females, but rather, has it been bred INTO females via the feminist (Marxist) social structure which evolved over the past forty years?
The caveman explanation may be too simplistic, but it seems to explain pretty well what’s going on. Women stayed with the community, and were in charge of preparing and dividing food. They also cared after children, who can’t stand for themselves. An instinct obsessed by equality favors the survival of the whole group. Contrast that with the activity of men: going out hunting, and protecting the group. Having an instinct that respects an greater reward for greater achievement/sacrifice meant that the incentive to do your best was preserved, which meant better odds of survival for the group.
Yes. This makes sense. My mind was wrapped around the idea that this must be beneficial on some level in a more primitive society and one where men actually rule.
Don’t worry; I do best with “simplistic” explanations – LOL!
In the same vein as what zykos said, as one of Rollo’s articles stated that men are basically taught to produce more than you consume in society. The better you produce, the better off you are overall. That’s why men tend to hate communism/equality/redistribution because we inherently have to work hard for everything we do.
On the other hand, women generally are given a pass nowadays. People are more forgiving of their errors. If you don’t have to work as hard for what you have then you’re more inclined to be entitled to things that you don’t have. You want everything to be redistributed equally and fairly so you get what you need from the community. If you’re provided for (by society, or males) then of course you want more from everyone.
Yes. Every time I read an article on motherhood or child-birth in the MSM, I notice in the comments section that women unilaterally support all this government-sponsored maternity leave, such as they have in Sweden. (Something like a year off work or more, I’m not sure, I haven’t researched it.) In any event, they do not EVER think of what this means for the men in their lives (or themselves, if they are “cubicle-dwelling” working women) – they do not ever think of the tax implications. They do not ever think of the fact that, in Sweden, after your “free” maternity leave is over, it is EXPECTED that you place your child in “free” daycare full-time, of course, so you can pay for everyone else’s “free” family benefits, since you are done being pregnant and your child is over XX age old now.
“Free” becomes bondage. Just like my internet.
Precisely.
Men are generally producers while women are consumers. Heaven forbid if someone else is able to “have more” than they are. Not that those pesky consequences to other men or other women matter much anyway!
Like I said, pretty much all falls under “do not covet.”
That’s why I don’t understand why the church is so liberal nowadays. Clearly not following the Bible at all.
On a more societal wide setting.
Additionally, parable of the talents. God has given us different gifts et al each according to our abilities.
To try to attempt to smash it down to “equality” is to deny the talents and abilities that God has given us.
I really like this, because it is contrasting the wicked and deceptive thinking of communism with God’s word. Often, it seems there is a lot of evo-psych explanation for behaviors and thought processes, without just stating the obvious: it is sinful behavior and not of God, and it doesn’t line up with His Word at all. Thanks!