Posted on 09/22/2026 12:44:17 PM PDT by MtnClimber
In the wake of the Lindsay Clancy Verdict and the Sydney Sweeney Pile-On and the Sophie Cunningham Point-ology it is time for a comprehensive and mandatory discussion of the issue of Women in the Public Square.
WARNING to my liberal lady friends: You may not feel “safe” if you read this article. You will certainly experience it as “unwelcome.”
Experts agree that the issue was raised by German sociologist Georg Simmel over a century ago. I first wrote about it 18 years ago. Simmel argued that it was not centuries of oppression that powered the feminist movement, but the new technologies that “made for less labor in the household” for those who could afford them. The unaccustomed leisure provoked unease, even frustration, in middle-class women, and in response they sought activity outside the home. I wrote:
Simmel understood that in the short term the public sphere for women would be defined by the rules “created by men and for men” but that eventually women would transform the public square to suit “a more feminine sensibility.”
And how.
Now, my view is that the “public square” was part of an adaptation by men to dial down their conflicts from war to sports, and from duels at sunrise to a spirited discussion on the floor of the House of Commons. BTW, according to Google, “Swords were outlawed in the House of Commons on October 30, 1313, by King Edward II.”
It took 500 years, but in the 19th century men replaced duels with sports. Today, I say “men have a Culture of Insult.”
Do you see the issue? Women do not have a Culture of Insult. That is why our Southern women say “Bless Her Heart” and Brit women say “God love ’er.” I say that “women have a Culture of Complaint.”
(Excerpt) Read more at americanthinker.com ...
Dear FRiends,
We need your continuing support to keep FR funded. Your donations are our sole source of funding. No sugar daddies, no advertisers, no paid memberships, no commercial sales, no gimmicks, no tax subsidies. No spam, no pop-ups, no ad trackers.
If you enjoy using FR and agree it's a worthwhile endeavor, please consider making a contribution today:
Click here: to donate by Credit Card
Or here: to donate by PayPal
Or by mail to: Free Republic, LLC - PO Box 9771 - Fresno, CA 93794
Thank you very much and God bless you,
Jim
And the holdout juror did not soothe them. The horror.
No thanks. We haven’t stopped talking about them since they started the slaughter brought on by Roe. I can make myself a damn sandwhich. Tyvm.
Halfway through the article the author lost me. Just as well.
However, I've never encountered law-abiding men who make excuses for male criminals solely on the basis of their being of the same sex. Far from it, most men are more likely to throw the book at a male perp than at a female who commits the same crime.
In sharp contrast, there is a great deal of solidarity among seemingly "normal" (or at least non-criminal) women towards members of the same sex who commit crimes, up to and including murder. Their attitude is that a female perp is really just the victim of the sexist "patriarchy". We even have some women on this, a conservative site, with this mindset.
It's very much a mirror image of black vs. white crime. Law-abiding whites are more than happy to see white criminals locked up, and except for a few lunatics, never run to the defense of a white violent criminal simply on the basis of his race. In contrast, seemingly decent, middle class blacks with no criminal record suddenly develop a sense of solidarity towards their criminal co-racialists, simply because they are "brothers" of the same race.
For many people, identity politics trumps criminal justice.
All women are bi-polar. Prove me wrong.
.
Rudyard Kipling got it a hundred years ago: “The colonel’s lady/ and Rosie O’Grady/ are sisters under the skin.”
They are also inculcated with the belief that the system is against them, whitey is an evil plotter bent on causing them grief to no end, etc. ad-nauseam.
So there forms the basis of the solidarity, from there it’s not a stretch to assume that would necessarily predispose many of the subset to believe the accused over the accuser, or to assume something is amiss with policing, criminal justice, social justice, equal footing, etc.
I’m pretty sick of it myself.
Even for the good I get out of the relationship, the rest is so stressful that it’s not even worth it.
I grew up with nothing but women. They’re all toxic. Sister, step sisters, mother, step mother. A girlfriend for 14 years one for 12 years. 2 years of therapy to uncover the serious damage they did to my psyche. I can’t think of a fix, so I’ve stopped playing the game.
Key here is the millions of years of survival. Men have a steady generational pattern of building, defending, supporting and adapting. Women have millions of years of looking good to attract the best man. The best man is the one who performed those tasks.
It’s bullshit. If a modern civilization is going to blossom then things have to change. Men have been choosing to focus on looking good yet just sitting around and playing games all day. I almost envy them.
But now that I’m older my dating pool has changed. And my one wish is not one about money, position or status - these women ARE BORING AS HELL.
No hobbies, no interest, no skills, no talents. No art, no wit and no kouth. They just work and don’t work. That’s it. So egotistical about the fact they have jobs that their over inflated sense of accomplishment means they don’t have to bring anything else to the table.
Work, work, work. There is no muse, only a scheduling system.
And when they get the SAME garbage tattoos that everyone else has they tell everyone that they are artsy, edgy, exciting or unique. But it’s just chest tattoos. A sea of ugly chest tattoos. And the SAME piercings.
I might quibble about the all. There must be at least one who isn’t.
‘blacks with no criminal record suddenly develop a sense of solidarity”
That has not been my experience. Some Blacks are much harder on other Blacks than on Whites for the same crime. But most seem to judge equally. Ans of course, some are much easier on other Blacks.
It is the same way with those who identify White or Christian, or college educated. Some have higher expectations of their own group. Some have lower expectatins of their own group. Most pick and choose which identity is most important.
Most Christians think the identity of being Christian is most important. Of being Christian American is most important.
Men have 25-50 times the testosterone than women do. Its not surprising, but also keep in mind a percentage of those violent crimes are done at the request of women, either because they can’t do it themselves or don’t want to get their own hands dirty.
Women and men arent any different. All the demographics they pick as targets are the same except one, normal healthy men, which women generally don’t target because they know they’ll lose and/or get really hurt doing so. But all other target demos, women go after as well. Weak/injured men, the elderly, the disabled, mentally ill, other women, and children, they all target them as well.
No difference. They go after as many categories as they can be successfully violent against. Society also gives them a mere slap on the wrist for doing the same crimes men do and get jail time or death for. Thats a known bias and it needs to end. Lindsay Clancy just being the latest example, they actually defend her and still say its her ex’s fault when she laready admitted it and her lawyer did too. Why wont they believe a woman when she says she murdered her kids?
You want to see the "public sphere" transformed to "a more feminine sensibility" ?
Go down to your local MLK Parkway, Avenue, or Drive.
WHy stop at bi-, even tri-?
;-)
[runs for cover]
The general philosophical core of Persuasion revolves around the three daughters of baronet William Elliot, Elizabeth, Ann, and Mary, chronologically.
Elizabeth is the Edwardian version of a feminist: stubborn, working-minded, with a very high standard for any man who might consider proposing, and therefore was around 30 and unmarried, which is the early 1800s might as well be a death sentence.
Mary is the opposite: girlish, emotional, self-absorbed, and was so afraid of becoming a spinster that she married someone who wasn't for her, and ended up with a less-than-fulfilling marriage.
Ann is the 'just right' woman: cares about herself but wants to be with a man who loves her whom she loves. It's a long story (it's a novel after all), but eventually Ann is able to connect with a Navy captain who had loved her for years but thought she was unavailable.
In short, there are two approaches made here. One is Aristotelian: Elizabeth is the deficiency of female, Mary the excess of female, Ann is the golden mean. The other is Biblical: Ann is the type of wife material God intended, equivalent to Ruth, or (possibly) Mary the Theotokos, while the other sisters are examples of women in the Bible who are less than successful wife material.
Of course, today's liberal woman scoffs at all of this, and becomes either Jezebel or Gomer.
i.e. "let's all be different...in the same way!"
When I ask people why they feel the need to festoon their bodies with hideous piercings and tattoos, they always say something about "self-expression". I then ask what abstract concepts they are trying to express with tattoos and piercings, and usually get blank stares or some incoherent babble.
It seems that the most inarticulate people, those who can't express themselves coherently in speech or writing, are the ones most preoccupied with "self-expression" these days.
Though to be fair, this is hardly an obsession unique to women - I see lots of repulsive male hipsters with sleeve tattoos, stretched earlobes, etc. Maybe they're thinking about relocating to Papua New Guinea?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.