|
Movie Review: 'The Hours'
by Alex Linder
3 November 2003
Has womanhood a point? a mission? a reason? How ought a woman spend her life? Is there a best way? good way? normal way? Does it vary by individual? Do general rules apply?
In raising these questions, 'The Hours' tracks three women in different circumstances and different periods of history: the early decades in England, the fifties in America, and modern-day New York City. The movie succeeds in pointing out that women's lives are intertwined with others. Beyond that, I didn't get much. My thought is women don't make much sense alone, because of the physiology of their brains. They best serve the world as child-producers, men-actuators, and emotional scanners. I see little evidence that women are greatly obsessed, the way some men are, with greater meaning. They are myopic, not far-seeing. What's close to them means everything, what's distant means little.
The vast majority of women is not built for intellectual or theoretical work, but for raising families, preparing food and forming an emotional circulatory system. Women do these things well. Few of them want much else -- unless they are told they should. Many women fare best under external control. Many women are aware of this fact, and if times weren't Semiticized would admit it freely. The sentiment does show up when men and women are polled as to whether they'd rather have a male or female boss.
There is the unusual woman, the genius. In this movie, the genius Woolf ends up stuffing rocks in her pockets and practicing the extended underwater crawl. But not all women of great ability are crazy. Camille Paglia and Florence King are the two modern female writers I've learned the most from. They're both odd birds, independent and capable and funny. It must mean something that they seem and sex more like men than women.
The other two women here get by non-traditionally, as you'd expect. One nearly commits suicide, pregnant with her second child, but instead opts to give birth before abandoning her conventional family. I saw no reason for her unhappiness. To the extent there's any reason given, it seems to be the standard "Pleasantville" meme -- i.e., suburban life is horror, and the fifties were a time of dark oppression.
The final woman has a stable lesbian relationship, a healthy, attractive teen-aged daughter, and a long friendship with a prize-winning poet with AIDS. This colossus offs himself on the day of the party Ms Streep has carefully planned to celebrate his Carruthers, or whatever the hell they call it. His dying request is that she live for herself, she's done enough for him.
As modern times have shown, women can live alone, and I suspect they get along better that way than men do. I suspect it is actually true that, at the margin, men need women more than women need men. Certainly for normal people of both sexes marriage is the best way to go. I wonder if these female singles are better off than their chore-laden sisters of yore.
There's little remaining to be said about traditional women vs. moderns. Independence and money bring self-confidence. So does exposure to a wider sphere of life. Battling in the business world also brings hardness and selfishness. It tends to kill femininity, or replace its soft unbought graces with hard material calculation, in the way a yenta reckons what hook-nosed he and hook-nosed she bring to the tabele. T&A and the soft stuff become tools and levers and deal sweeteners. Just factors to be reckoned with, like any other.
Which way is better? Something is gained, but something is also lost. What we're seeing is the natural swing of the pendulum: from tight control to license, then back toward the middle. Or, in Hegelian terms, thesis, antithesis, synthesis.
For the female has more in her than the traditional role encompasses. She was not forced into that role, as feminists say, but limited to it until male reason could liberate the race from full-time concern over food and shelter. No matter that today the girl is shmueled to flip the finger at "patriarchy," the fact remains that patriarchy liberated women, not Playboy-employee Gloria Steinem. Today, even a woman homeschooling a bunch of kids needs something more than family life alone can provide. And so the traditional occupations remain, but do not suffice. A female version of "how you gonna keep 'em on the farm now that they've seen Paree?" obtains. Today we see that women certainly can run businesses. Just as increasing numbers can realize that running businesses isn't all itz cracked up to be, necessarily. There's also the nagging, if obscured by blather about ceilings, fact that women really aren't as good as men at business. They perform ok in male-established systems, but the creativity at the heart of capitalism remains male. But if women make decent second-rate men, then men don't make any kind of women at all. That's a clue to the thinking female. It is not better to be a man than a woman, no matter what brainwashed feminists tell you.
The modern role for women has inherent problems. Women postpone marriage to go to college, and then to grad school. After a few years of work and "fun," they find themselves in a dilemma. Either they keep working full steam and enjoy the financial payoff in their mid-late thirties. Or they get married and forego the payoff in order to raise a family. Something almost always has to give. There are all kinds of 32-year-old women out there looking for their male equivalent earning $50-100k a year, and he simply isn't there in numbers large enough to satisfy the demand. Objectively, the male she seeks has no particular reason not to prefer a younger, less accomplished female, once he's ready to marry. The woman who buys the jew-media line that her first duty is to herself, her education, her career, must face the dilemma that the education required to draw top dollar comes at the opportunity cost of her prime child-bearing years. Most women barely consider this. There's always a good reason to worry about it later. I don't know how these women really feel about their choices, as their thirties deepen, but I think Fred Reed's comment telling, that there are not a lot of 40+ single women who aren't on some kind of mood elevator. A cat and a Happodil are no substitute for a family.
Taking the eagle's view, the pertinent biological fact is that women do what they're told because they're built to go along. No matter who's telling, they're going to tend do what they're told. No matter how many girl-power commercials and "Kim Possible" cartoons jews run, women will continue to cry and gossip and babble like they always have. If they're told dad is bad and mom is rad, and they must all play soccer and become lawyers, well, increasing percentages of them will herd that way. Only concentrated pain will raise questions in their mind. Even after consideration, most of them will miss the systemic problem, merely suffer the difficulty of their own situation. Men always make the system. Women have to deal with whatever the ruling men come up with, whether good or bad. The type of women a society features is a function of what is allowed and encouraged by the top. Today the top is composed of jews, and readers well know what comes out of their amplifiers and moves across their airwaves.
Let's take two radically different imaginary women, to show the scope of female potential. One is an old woman, living on a farm. She's 90. The second is 30. The old woman has been married to the same man for over 60 years. Had six kids, all grew up successfully, had their own families and children. She grew up on a farm, has a high school education. Her husband husband was a laborer, and part-time farmer. Her whole life she's never lived more than ten miles from where she was born. Her thrift has left her comfortable. Now the 30-year-old. She's lived several places over her three decades. She has an MBA. Has worked in a male-dominated field, and succeeded. She's started her own business from scratch. She has a single child, and is divorced. She lives in an expensive townhouse. She takes Wellbutrin. She puts singles ads on the Internet.
Now let's look at the mentalities of these women. The first is far likelier to be narrow minded, morally absolute, down to earth, against alcohol, think women shouldn't work. She is likely to know how to cook, bake, and can. She sees sex as a private matter not to be discussed. She is not interested in politics. The second is far likelier to drink, be liberal, be morally relativist. She is more educated, extroverted, confident, broader-minded, and higher-earning. She cares for clothes and culture, or would if she had more time. She is more forward, more willing to dicuss sex, and more willing to fuck.
This, in rough terms, is the transformation American women have undergone.
One can write all one pleases about the proper type of woman, but short of controlling the government there is little that can be done to effect a sea change. When the laws are written to favor women in school and on the job and in the courts, they're going to end up like the second type, the abler ones at least. The first type is hardly even an option when no-fault divorce puts every marriage a whim away from destruction, and socialist taxes make relying on the male increasingly difficult. The media certainly don't help. They showcase a carefree, monied existence that doesn't fit the reality of the vast majority of single women. Woman two is only well off, or seems well off, because she is self-employed. If she were a mere employee, in almost every way she would be worse off than woman number one. The new way frees up the elite women, but makes it harder for the average woman. Another effect is that by presenting the best women with a palette of options, family-making and breeding become less attractive than partying and making money -- a dysgenic trend that is very real, and only beginning to be felt. Our new jew society tends to separate into a rich elite with many options and a mass of overtaxed herd people with few. But that class separation is a story for another day.
Changing sex duties isn't the real story. Sex duties are just one front in a broader movement toward ultimate free agency. Within a range of government-approved activities, people are arranging their lives as never before. They are free to do anything they want. Except combine with fellow Whites to build sovereign White community. Women aren't allowed any more leeway than men in that regard. They must take that freedom.
Short of decapitating and replacing ZOG, the question is one of persuading women certain ways of living are preferable to others. This can be done objectively, through written articles, but is best done by living the way one claims is superior, and finding the woman attracted to it. And going from there. There is no telling how far whites can go when they take Whiteworld off the page and into the country. I suspect they can do much better than the women in "Hours," no matter how happy and stable their lesbian utopia is supposed to be. The best way for the average White woman to spend her hours is with a good White man and healthy White children. There will be plenty of rooms of her own along the way -- once the foundation is built.
ALEX LINDER
|