Welcome to Hotel Satire, where a Bush is back in the White House, at last.
Surely he will avert the crisis that has been brewing for the last EIGHT
years—a feminist takevoer of the White House, not to mention that crucial
ideological area, the place were people learn their values and roles: TV
commercials.
People, and you gals, you may have noticed that Hotel Satire has been missing
from these pages for at least a year. Why? First, because our hubbies told
us firmly that writing this Hotel Satire column about how gals should be
subservient, decorative appendages was making us uppity (i.e., not subservient
enough). Second, because we gals felt so defeated, lost, filled with self-doubt
about our analysis of the dangers of feminism that we could hardly put
pen to paper. We felt isolated and alone, as if Hotel Satire was the only
place where gals could freely become what they’ve been trained to be: subsumed
within the male orbit—be it father, husband, minister, diety, or pet puppy.
Yes. It’s true. With those Godless commie, feminist, lesbian Clintons in
the White House, we felt that all hope for a return to the days when men
were Gods, and gals were their handmaidens, was lost.
But hope has returned with the election of George II and his lovely wife,
Linda-Laura-Lara- whatever, who clearly understands that she is not a person
but Mrs. Him. As if that wasn’t enough to get us writing again about how
feminism is bad because it’s upsetting to men, imagine our surprise and
delight to receive, out of the blue, the January 2001 issue of a 24-page
newspaper called The Massachusetts News. It was addressed to “Resident”
and the first headline, “Feminists Really Are Trying to Destroy Families
in Massachusetts,” was a revelation and also a confirmation of all we’d
been saying in this column for 13-plus years. The article reflected our
self-doubts, at first— “We have been naïve at Massachusetts News. We know
that the elimination of ‘marriage’ and families as institutions has always
been the main objective of feminists and others. But it always seemed to
be just theory. However, as we’ve looked for the last two years at some
of the aberrations in our state, we’ve finally begun to understand that
these things are happening because feminists are undermining our society
on purpose [their emphasis]. They really do want to destroy marriage and
the family. When they said, ‘Any real change in the status of women would
be a fundamental assault on marriage and the family,’ they meant it. They
want a socialist state like Sweden or Cuba.”
Gals, were you aware that Sweden and Cuba had similar forms of government
and were run by feminists? This is frightening news.
We called our friends in the area and discovered that they, too, had received
a free copy of The Massachusetts News and each gal had a favorite article.
For instance, Pookie preferred the article “Why Did Harvard Reject Blockbuster
Book About the Benefits of Marriage?” This article details a breakthrough
book by Linda Waite and Maggie Gallagher and how “Harvard backed away from
the book under strange, secret circumstances and refused to publish it
at the last moment.” Clearly, the strange and secret circumstances were
protests from Feminazis who have taken over Harvard and are pushing for
“domestic partnership” (read: lesbian) benefits.
The book is called The Case for Marriage. It alerts us to the fact that
“for the first time in human history, marriage as an ideal is under a sustained
and surprisingly succesful attack. Sometimes the attack is direct and ideological,
mabe by ‘experts’ who believe a lifelong vow of fidelity is unrealistic
or oppressive, especially to women.” (What nonsense.) Marriage, say the
authors, has been demoted to just another lifestyle choice rather than
“a uniquely honored relationship.” (That’s so beautiful.) It explains why
married people are happier, healthier, and better off financially”—not
to mention having better sex. Pookie says the authors dare to reveal why
the marriage license (which femlesbos call “ a piece of paper”) and the
act of saying a few words in front of a cleric or official has the power
to transform and save lives. (The books claims that, in the U.S., getting
a wife increases a man’s salary by about as much as a college education.)
So marriage has to do with “permanence, mutual commitment, and trust”—and
cash. These allow partners to specialize according to their individual
talents, to share resources, and to have someone to depend on for love
and support, in case of illness and disaster. Essential to this are tax
incentives and laws that discourage easy divorce, that encourage a culture
of monogamy. The marriage license also encourages the actors to “play their
roles fully, and in doing so, molds men and women into husbands and wives.
(Massachusetts News doesn’t tell us rules of behavior for the
hubness/wifedom
roles, beyond monogamy, but hopefully future editions will elaborate.)
At Hotel Satire, we turn to the Bible for a guide to proper wifery. What
was good enough for a century where gals were chattel is good enough for
us. Certainly, under Bush, divorce must be out, for gals. Gals Mrs.Hims
for life, and George II and that nice Mr. Ashcroft must decree it right
away. Men can, of course, ditch gals willy nilly, if gals fail to perform
their proper role.
Clearly, control over her own body, under Bush, should be out. Once she
becomes Mrs. His, her role is to bear his offspring, therefore his role
is to be in charge of his offspring via her reproductive organs. We don’t
want gals getting the idea they can become lesbos and use men for sperm
banks. That would be inhuman, tantamount to slavery.
Also, Bush needs to decree that there can be no separate careers for gals,
as that would interfere with her role as Mrs. Himmage, which is important
(to him) and keeps her busy trying to figure out how happily abject she
can be.
Getting back to The Case for Marriage, the authors’ assert that marriage
isn’t a private arrangement but a public institution. They say, marriage
is good because it encourages interdependence rather than independence.
Here, here. Says author Maggie Galla- gher, “…we’ve deeply oversold autonomy
as the source of and the root of human flourishing.” She says we have to
find “some way to give at least some weight to the marriage vow and to
reduce unnecessary divorce (which blossomed with the women’s movement)
as an explicit goal of divorce law. If you are not doing these two things,
you are really privatizing marriage in an important way that makes it difficult
for marriage to do what it is supposed to do.” Whoa, now that makes a lot
of sense, whatever it means.
The authors are also critical of single parenthood. The book offers evidence
that boyfriends commit half of all reported child abuse by non-parents.
Also, they tell us that single women are much more likely (10 times) to
be raped or assaulted. So there.
The article “Harvard Professor Joins Feminist Plan to Alter the ‘Nature’
of Males fascinated Peppy. This article goes on about Dr. William Pollack
who has told millions through appearances on talk shows that boys are in
crisis and need to become more nurturing so that in the future boys will
be able to safely stay in the “doll corner.” The Massachusetts News shows
what bunk this claim is. They recommend Professor Christina Hoff Sommers’s
work that exposes the myths created by feminists about girls and boys,
so that by the time we finish reading we know that girls are as violent,
even possibly more violent, than boys; that boys are not in crisis except
from feminists who keep trying to turn them into women, and that we should
leave boys’ natures alone, except if they wander into the doll corner.
Then we must intervene by cracking them over the head and buying them action
figures loaded with projectiles for killing and maiming.
Bettie was shocked, but not totally surprised to read about how DSS (Division
of Social Services) abuses kids—including causing brain damage in a baby
while in foster care, forcing kids away from their parents, and other acts
of cruelty that would never be committed by married couples, who are busy
being happy by virtue of being married and knowing their roles.
Perkie raved about the article “Boston Magazine Wants Teenagers Encouraged
in Homosexual Sex.” It seems the Lexington and Newton Public Schools are
teaching the homosexual message to school children!!!! The article is about
three homosexual couples living happily in Boston, raising their children!!!?
One pair of homosexuals actually referred to the people bringing a lawsuit
against homosexual teaching as homophobes. Come on. Stop these unnatural,
nonhumans. We’re not being homophobic when we say that, by the way.
The article “Lesbians Pick Children Like Eating at a Salad Bar,” in which
Perkie learned that lesbian couples are buying sperm for $125, shopping
for it as if they were buying produce at Costco, was horrifying. Apparently,
this lesbo sperm shopping goes on all the time!
I loved the article “Some of Us Remember When Women Were Cherished and
Protected.” Writes J. Edward Pawlick: “Those of us who were raised in the
1930s remember when women were cherished and protected by men. Feminists
had not yet created the conflict that rages between the sexes today.
“We watched in disbelief as the feminists in the 1960s convinced women
that men were having sex all the time and women were being cheated.” (Uh,
something doesn’t make sense here, but what?).
J. Edward says this isn’t true. Why? Because his wife was at Wellesley
during the 1950s and there was no hanky panky going on when she visited
fraternities at Dartmouth. (We’re not sure what this has to do with
anywthing,
but no matter.) Also, says Pawlick, the thought of being frightened or
attacked never entered her head. She never imagined anything “like date
rape. These concepts are all new “since women were ‘liberated’ by feminists
in the 1960s,” says Pawlick (Hmm, interesting name, and thank goodness
his wife isn’t speaking for herself but through him, thereby fulfilling
her proper marital role).
While I wonder at Pawlick’s claim that gals were cherished and protected
in the 1930s, the decade of the Great Depression, still I take Pawlick’s
point. We at the Hotel Satire have always knwn that feminists invented
rape, assault, unhappy marriages, homosexuality, child abuse, and premarital
sex as a plot to foment hatred of men, to claim men are the enemy, and
to launch a feminist takeover.
Well, we gals ordered subscriptions to The Massachusetts News right away.
We await our free (with your paid subscription) copy of Freedom Will Conquer
Racism and Sexism: The Civil Rights Act is damaging everyone in America,
especially blacks and women. This book will tell us how feminists seized
control of Massachusetts. This book will explain that racism and sexism
don’t really exist but are words used by liberals to attack those who disagree
with them. The real freedom lovers are those who realize that the Civil
Rights Act was a liberal ploy to win government handouts for poor black
gals.
The book will also elaborate on the following items:
Do you know why the Boston Globe is so liberal? Because the federal and
state government require that they hire feminists as journalists.
Did you know that the faculty at Boston University, a private college,
is mandated by the federal government to hire feminists?
Did you know that Wellesley College is teaching its students and alumnae
false information to convey the feminist message that men are the enemy?
No, we didn’t know any of that. We knew things were bad—rampant feminism
at the Boston Globe and Boston University we always suspected, but please,
not Wellesley, too!?
Farewell for now from Hotel Satire, where a Bush is back in the White House,
The Massachusetts News in our house, and Hotel Satire is back in your house
teaching gals how to be the passive twits they were born to be. Z
