Feminist ‘looks down’ on married women; man exposes her pseudo-intellectual gobbledygook

Chrissy Stockton

Months ago ‘I Look Down on Young Women with Kids and I’m Not Sorry’ was published. It was written by Chrissy Stockton under the pen name “Amy Glass.” My wife read some of it out loud to me last weekend and asked what I thought. I told her that it required a blog post, even if the original piece was released in January. Besides, sometimes feminist drones get really upset and say things about me like: “I want to boil his nuts in Aunt Trudy’s cast-iron chicken pot and set a match to his wiener until it explodes like a cigar,” which also provides a window into their soul.

Let’s start from the beginning:

Do people really think that a stay at home mom is really on equal footing with a woman who works and takes care of herself? There’s no way those two things are the same. It’s hard for me to believe it’s not just verbally placating these people so they don’t get in trouble with the mommy bloggers.

Having kids and getting married are considered life milestones. We have baby showers and wedding parties as if it’s a huge accomplishment and cause for celebration to be able to get knocked up or find someone to walk down the aisle with. These aren’t accomplishments, they are actually super easy tasks, literally anyone can do them. They are the most common thing, ever, in the history of the world. They are, by definition, average. And here’s the thing, why on earth are we settling for average? …

You will never have the time, energy, freedom or mobility to be exceptional if you have a husband and kids.

Indeed, any two fools can have kids. That is easy. But it is difficult to be a father and a mother. It is hard to shape and mold young hearts and minds and spirits so that little human beings grow up to become productive members of civil society. One could make the argument that being an “exceptional” mother and father is society’s most important task. Ms. Stockton confidently crosses “exceptional” off the list for young married women, even though she’s never even been in love. Sad.

Ms. Stockton writes in ‘Successful Women Do Not Fall in Love’:

Let’s say you want to have a husband and kids and a job that pays enough for you to be comfortable. That’s an achievable dream for most of my peers, the upkeep of a relationship with an easy to moderate job can work for a woman. You can balance. However, there’s people like me who don’t like middle ground, it’s not for everyone. I don’t want to be a latte, I want to be an espresso. I want all of something, or I don’t want it at all.

Ms. Stockton obviously considers herself a “successful” woman, or at least on her way to being a success, so we must deduce from her own statement that she has never fallen in love. How is it that a woman who has never been in a loving relationship — especially a loving marriage — is so sure about what is possible for those couples? If a mother is doing what truly makes her happy, why is her life any less “successful” or “exceptional” than Ms. Stockton’s? Answer: It isn’t. Ms. Stockton just fashions herself an intellectual espresso-in-progress when in reality she’s more like drip-brew coffee.

Let me explain. First, Ms. Stockton writes of her previous pen name:

In the case of Amy Glass, a pen name is justifiable. Amy Glass did not (and cannot) destroy anyone’s life by publishing “I Look Down On Young Women With Husbands And Kids And I’m Not Sorry.” It can make people feel bad, yes. It can make people rage, yes. But it can also lead to a massive, weeks-long discussion about the merits of the argument, rather than the merits of the person who published it. This distinction—exactly how the pen name is used—is crucial.

Then she says of her core beliefs:

I think of all my opinions as in transit. None of them are destinations: stagnant, immobile things that don’t change. I’m human—I have all sorts of ideas, and not all fall in line with one grand, value-consistent philosophy. Like Whitman, I am large, I contain multitudes.

Ms. Stockton pats herself on the back for not destroying someone’s life, and then brushes off the fact that she says mean and hurtful things that she might not even believe a month, a week, a day or even a few hours after hitting the publish button. Why? Because she “contains multitudes.” I agree: her mind houses the belief that she’s smarter than the young married woman next to her while also possessing deep wells of vapid pseudo-intellectual psychobabble.

Chrissy Stockton Amazon book

If the nonsensical ramblings of this self-absorbed single woman sounds like a philosophy major to you, then give yourself a hand.

Ms. Stockton, OMG-Philosopher extraordinaire, is the author of PhiLOLZophy:

A popular question in philosophy is “How do I know I exist?” That seems really boring though. How about, “How can I use logic to get over my ex?” If you really love wisdom, you love it in all situations—you don’t need to be spoonfed unsolved problems in philosophy, because you’re already analyzing the US Weekly you’re reading or your kinda significant other. Sarah Heuer and Chrissy Stockton are writers living in Minneapolis who are determined to do something more interesting with their philosophy degrees than talk about dead white guys.

The picture is becoming so much clearer now: A female philosophy major who has never been in love — who has convinced herself that she can’t be successful and in love — finds out after graduation that a.) being able to quote Plato’s The Republic is nice but it isn’t particularly a marketable skill, and b.) she may not have the chops to be a “philosopher king.” She soothes her inner frustrations by lashing out at women who are in truly loving relationships before moving on to denigrating “old white men” — intellectual giants — who would “L-O-L” at “PhiLOLZophy.”

I hope that one day Ms. Stockton does fall in love. I hope that she enters into a healthy marriage. When that happens she’ll see ‘I Look Down on Young Women with Kids and I’m Not Sorry’ for what it really is — shallow self-centered tripe. There’s something deliciously ironic about a philosopher who doesn’t see that she’s The Allegory of Cave vivified. I’m confident that one day an older and wiser version of Ms. Stockton will see the light.




Feminists: Silent on Iranian Stoning, Shrieking at Palin.

Because Iran hasn’t perfected its nuke program (yet) it still has to deal with Western diplomatic pressure and “ugly hostility” to things like stoning women to death:

“The hue and cry that the West has launched over this case will not affect our judges,” [Mohammed Javad Larijani] said. “The implementation of Islamic regulations like stoning and the headscarf have always been faced with their ugly hostility and opposition.”

Indeed. And once upon a time the Brits had an “ugly hostility” to suttee (i.e., the Indian tradition of turning widows into flesh-flavored roasted marshmallows by throwing them on a funeral pyre).

The funny thing about liberal muti-culturalists is that even though they

Liberal American feminists care more about what Sarah Palin says on Facebook than fighting for the rights of women who are actually oppressed. Telling.

spend their days on American college campuses bashing the pillars of Western Civilization (while thinking of ways to liken the cave doodles of random tribes to the works of Shakespeare), the uglier aspects of other cultures are never mentioned.

What’s also interesting is the deafening silence among American liberal feminists and their allies in academia on the affronts to individual liberties faced by women in the muslim world. They seem to get more bent out of shape about what Sarah Palin writes on Facebook on a daily basis than muslim clerics who are trigger happy to declare holy war on the social networking website.

The left likes to say that the conservatives seek a perpetual state of war, yet the “war” over women’s rights was largely won (in the United States) a long time ago. So why then do they continue to treat Middle America as the main theater for a cultural battle that needs to be fought overseas.  Why aren’t liberal “feminist cultural warriors” parachuting into Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan, Iran, Iraq, and Indonesia? Perhaps because:

  • They’re not the 101st Airborne Division
  • They would be “stoned” to death, which is somewhat related to not being an American infantryman, but mostly due to the fact that air conditioned meeting rooms on college campuses with brown bag lunches provided gratis is preferable to getting slammed in the face with boulders until you die.  Why actually engage in a real cultural battle when you can convince yourself the one that was won long ago is still going on?

The next time your liberal college professor tries to tell you that the United States doesn’t have any more or less moral clout than a nation that stones women, ask them if they think Iran isn’t really stoning women to death, but training them for international dodgeball competitions using Patches O’Houlihan inspired training techniques—only instead of saying “if you can dodge a wrench, you can dodge a ball,” they say, “if you can dodge a stone…”

If they say “no”, then bust out with your own rendition of Team America’s classic America, F**k Yeah! Even with all its flaws, America is the greatest country in the world, in large part because of our acknowledgement and protection of God given rights. Period.

Iran isn't killing women, it's secretly training them to be international dodgeball stars...