So yesterday I quoted some random Spearheader who described women (well, white women in particular) as “complete parasitical whores roaming the landscape spreading VD like Johnny Appleseed and fucking men over.”
One reader wondered if Mr. Appleseed really went about spreading VD. So I did a little research, and it turns out that it is exceedingly unlikely that Mr. Appleseed – who actually was a real person — spread anything other than the magic of apples. And his Swedenborgian beliefs.
Why? Because Mr. Appleseed – real name John Chapman – was what these days we might call a Man Going His Own Way. Seems he didn’t have much truck with the ladies, according to one contemporary account quoted in his Wikipedia entry:
On one occasion Miss PRICE’s mother asked Johnny if he would not be a happier man, if he were settled in a home of his own, and had a family to love him. He opened his eyes very wide–they were remarkably keen, penetrating grey eyes, almost black–and replied that all women were not what they professed to be; that some of them were deceivers; and a man might not marry the amiable woman that he thought he was getting, after all.
So what led poor Mr. Appleseed to these dire thoughts about women? Apparently the underage girl he hoped to some day get with was more into dudes who weren’t him:
Now we had always heard that Johnny had loved once upon a time, and that his lady love had proven false to him. Then he said one time he saw a poor, friendless little girl, who had no one to care for her, and sent her to school, and meant to bring her up to suit himself, and when she was old enough he intended to marry her. He clothed her and watched over her; but when she was fifteen years old, he called to see her once unexpectedly, and found her sitting beside a young man, with her hand in his, listening to his silly twaddle.
That ungrateful little strumpet!
I peeped over at Johnny while he was telling this, and, young as I was, I saw his eyes grow dark as violets, and the pupils enlarge, and his voice rise up in denunciation, while his nostrils dilated and his thin lips worked with emotion. How angry he grew! He thought the girl was basely ungrateful. After that time she was no protegé of his.
But Appleseed, despite giving up on women in the real world, held out hope for the afterlife – explaining to others that he expected to have two spirit wives all his own after he died. Which I guess is the 19th century equivalent of the MGTOWers today who fantasize about the sexy robot ladies who will eventually, it is hoped, make actual human females – with their troubling “thoughts” and “needs” and “desires” of their own – obsolete.
Mr. Appleseed’s quest to remain alone was probably also helped by the fact that – if the illustration I found on Wikipedia is any indication – he looked a bit like Dale Gribble from King of the Hill. Only much, much sloppier, with long hair. Oh, and instead of wearing a baseball cap, he wore “a tin utensil which answered both as a cap and a mush pot.”
So, yeah, a creepy weirdo who hates women — definitely an MGTOWer all the way.
Oh, except that he actually did something with his life — you know, helping spread apple trees to a big portion of the midwest — instead of spending all his time going on about how all women are whores.
Oh, katz, you ninja’d me but good!
Maybe we should just call her Token Rand from now on. It’s OK to have a woman whose focus is intellectual rather than on wifely submission as long as there’s only one.
(I wonder if he knows about the affair with a much younger acolyte, though? That doesn’t seem very wifely or submissive of her.)
In 1971 the Big Mac was worth $0.55
In 2011 the Big Mac is worth $4.07
Therefore the Dollar has lost 86.5% of it’s worth!
Invest in Big Macs!!!
Like cat futures, except it feeds you instead of you feeding it!
CassandraSays – Unsubmissive women are okay so long as they go around demanding that other women be submissive (or at least providing the philosophies that enable other people to demand that). There’s a whole lecture circuit of fundamentalist Christian women who make their career out of going out and lecturing women on how they shouldn’t go out and have a career.
*sighs*
DKM you do know that DSC was referring to the 1800s not the 1900s right? Or are you really that stupid?
Because the reason we are telling you to stop talking about stuff you know zero about and talk about kittens is due to the aforementioned zero knowledge base.
Fun fact, at one point there were about 1500 different types of bank notes wandering the land and that is why the Secret Service came into being. 🙂
He just plays one on the internets.
Holly: Case in point: Beverly LaHaye.
Yes, of course I knew that darksidecat was referring to American banking in the 1800s (why did you think I made the remark on my commenting post about ‘the more things change, the more they remain the same’).
I endorsed Ayn Rand’s ideas about the gold standard, along with the type of society it evolves into in her masterpiece Atlas Shrugged, NOT Ayn Rand as a romantic interest, not Ayn Rand as an example of contemporary womanhood, and certainly not as any type of norm, much less ideal, of women in human society! the notion of Ayn Rand as any of the above, when she almost destroyed any man who came within her orbit, would indeed be almost psychotic on my part!
Ayn Rand in almost every PERSONAL aspect was indeed everything that I find repellent about modern women. However, I am willing to acknowledge the same mutant intellect in her that I acknowledged in e.g. Gracie Hopper and Ada Lovelace in computer sciences, or Roselyn Yalow in genetics and molecular biology, Marie Curie or Lise Meitner in physics, or Emma Noether in mathematics.
Ayn Rand as a womanly interest? You must be KIDDING!
These female geniuses are extreme exceptions to the rule; not examples, not the norm, and certainly no any ideals to aim for! It is a fundamental falsehood to suggest that just because Marie Curie excelled in physics, that the only reasons that today’s Frieda Feminist, Gina Girlybrains, or Shirlene Shrillmouth fail to excel in physics, or the other sciences, is because of patriarchy or anti-woman discrimination; the same objections apply to the irresponsible folly of using Ayn Rand as any kind of example to contemporary females!
Unfortunately, I am not devoutly religious enough to be happily married to any of the fundamentalist women (Jewish, Catholic, Protestant, or Moslem) who are otherwise raised to be good wives to their husbands, and devoted keepers of their homes. I am moderately religious myself, I think that the religious temperment and soul (if you would) deserves respect, and I like seeing other people being devout, even though I am not; that would not be good enough for a woman who would see my salvation as her personal wifely responsibility! I could not accomodate her, and she could not yield to me on this very important issue, and hence good marriage would be impossible! The fact that marriage to such a woman would also involve a kind of “marriage” to her family (in a certain sense), and hers to mine, would give rise to additional complications, and one that I have neither the personality nor the “people skills” to successfully navigate! Nevertheless, I am convinced that Mrs. LeHaye, Helen Andelin et al have a lot to teach us, and maybe fundamentalists have a lot to teach secular people, especially in relationships between the sexes! There are times where quality is better than equality, and too many modern women have forgotten this! You are the losers here, not they!
Meller: …Okay, I was saying that I’m not the biggest fan of Rand or her followers, and that’s what I meant by beware the Randroids.
Of course, like any True Libertarian Girl Completist, even Rand not-likers, I’ve gotten through Atlas Shrugged. (And most of the other stuff – I actually LIKE Anthem.)
So, would you say Rand is a woman who is to be admired, and Atlas Shrugged a book that should be read?
‘Cause Dagny Taggart’s a lot of things, but fluffy and adorable isn’t one of them.
Because even the Randragon, who I suspect hated most of 2nd wave feminism largely because it impudently refused to declare her the best woman ever, and didn’t give primacy to her kinks, wanted women to be strong, focused, unsentimental, hard-working individualists when they weren’t melting into the arms of the great and new Romantic Man that grabbed them cause he knew how much they really wanted it!
She HAD a notion of “perfect femininity” complimenting “perfect masculinity” but it was the clear-eyed, unflinching, Athena sort of femininity. And when it comes to traditional womanhood, she thought the idea of being a full time lifelong housewife wasn’t “immoral” as she defined it, but unfullfilling and “impractical” – Also leading to the dangers of falling into sentimentality! – Pretty much the opposite of soft, fluffy, delightful, sweet, etc. Even if you’d still get bitching about the feminists. And the Weak. And modern Art. (Also the compliant thing only works when they WANNA be raped which makes it not rape and all that other stuff )
PLAYBOY: In your opinion, is a woman immoral who chooses to devote herself to home and family instead of a career?
RAND: Not immoral — I would say she is impractical, because a home cannot be a full-time occupation, except when her children are young. However, if she wants a family and wants to make that her career, at least for a while, it would be proper — if she approaches it as a career, that is, if she studies the subject, if she defines the rules and principles by which she wants to bring up her children, if she approaches her task in an intellectual manner. It is a very responsible task and a very important one, but only when treated as a science, not as a mere emotional indulgence.
So is a Randian Housewife, her eyes black as coal, and glinting with merciless fire, her cigarette smoke curling in blue elegance, her trousers sharp and her loafers immaculate, fearlessly managing her young with unsentimental precision okay compared to feminism? Would you accept a world filled with those instead of fluffy pom-girls because of her opinion on the Gold Standard and importance to libertarianism for good or for ill*
Or was she an overeducated bitch ruining women?
Is it okay to be an objectivist, but not a feminist, with all Rand’s opinions on the ladies intact? If so, why? Or why not.
Also I can’t believe I’m making a Randian Objection.
You drive people to strange things, Meller. Truly, you do…
POMS AND FREEDOM!!!!
*ill. definitely ill.
Ooh, Holly and Kave you’re totally right with the LaHaye types,. So now the question is, what about important feminist-hating women who go around telling women not to be submissive and stay home (along with lots of other stuff. Lots of really, really weird stuff.).
I was going to say – for a man obsessed with soft fluffy adorable femininity, Rand is an odd choice of idol. She was none of those things, and neither were any of her heroines.
wanna meet that mom
soccer practice
bake sales
pta meeting
child-wearing natural parenting consciousness-raising circle
Actually that sounds very much like the mother of one of my friends from high school. She once sent a letter to her daughter titled “In reference to your callous disregard of our request re. schedules”. My friend was 15 at the time. Her mother was an imposing, rather impressive woman, but I don’t think Meller would have liked her very much. Rand on the other hand would probably have adored her.
All that I suggested was that feminists take AR’s writings on gold, trade, and value cited in Atlas Shrugged seriously. I am not interested in what she had to say about women (I even said earlier that she “made some noisy and misinformed pronouncements on other subjects”) and as I have just finished saying above, I regard her as anything but a sexual, romantic, or love object in any sense whatever!
No, I do not want a world where rand-women dominated! I can agree–and do–with her observations about the gold standard, private property, and laissez-faire while still finding “fluffy pom-girls” attractive–and horrid rand-women repellent! There need be no contradiction there!
Rand’s ideas and opinions in certain areas and subjects were the work of genius! In other, more traditionally feminine areas, she, her ideas, and her personality were almost worthless, and indeed could easily have been a feminist, if she wasnt’ one already!
For sound money, support of private property, and admiration of technological innovation and entrepreneurship, Ayn Rand is your man!
For home, family, church, community,and the virtues of traditional womanhood: Good Heavens, NO!!! A more poisonous female(?) is difficult to imagine, even here on manboobz!
VOIP – Yeah. I wrote that description then went in the kitchen to have sentimental feminist fun with my little one and baking. Then the whole time I was all. Damn, when I have the time someday, I gotta do a comic called Shelly Steelystuff, The Perfect Objectivist Housewife. XD
Actually Rand strikes me as perhaps the strongest argument that can be presented in the defense of DKM’s thesis that it’s bad to teach women to read.
Now, if we could get the feminists on manboobz to reject Ayn Rand’s–and their own– conceptions of modern womanhood, and embrace sweet old-fashioned girl fluffiness and femininity, and embrace Ayn Rand’s economic ideas, we would be on our way to something worthwhile here!
Who knows, maybe we would evolve toward a truly free society, where women were free TO BE FEMALE as traditionally understood, men would be free to be–and welcomed being– MEN, and we would also be blessed with an inflation (and depression)-proof world with ever improving material standard of living and (men’s) economic opportunity outside the home!
The best of both worlds!
katz-
I’m not sure she ever really mastered it, to be fair. Also, remember, I think for a long time she used that funny Spanish alphabet they used in Russia, that’s not really writing…
Maybe anti-feminist women should be extra fluffy and squishy, so that when they lie down adoringly at the feet of their male masters we’ll have a particularly difficult time wading through/over them as they goosh angrily around our ankles. It’s like a human shield of self-hating taffy. (Anti-feminist women are probably a bitch to scrape out of feminist leg hair, too.)
All right, so can you please give us some names, real or fictional, but concrete examples of what you think is true womenhood, whether they exemplify it or approach it? When did the fluffy women proliferate? . What’s an example of real or fictional womanhood we can latch onto?
Also, if your comments are in moderation, we can’t see them. I wasn’t ignoring you.
I heart this sentence
The first honest thing Meller has said on this board.
I’m presuming after the Nuclear Apocalypse, ’cause, mutants and all, but I await instruction!