Beautiful Women Need Not Apply

John C Wright has an article up on the value of beauty. He makes several good points, but one in particular stands out.

The Left hates this argument [the argument of beauty], because – since it is not put into words – it cannot be refuted in words. It can only be refuted in images: a urinal, a several cow head, a can of shit, a messy bed. These images are ugly, aggressively ugly, meant to be demeaning, meant to be absurd, harsh, jarring, repugnant and gross.

If there is one reason to reject the culture of feminism, it is because it seeks to deliberately destroy what is most beautiful in humanity: feminine beauty. The push for “strong” female characters who trash talk, the celebration of “body art” (which is actually body disfigurement), butch-bitch haircuts, and the crème de la crème of the anti-beauty movement, fat acceptance is all part of the feminist rebellion against the reality of beauty.

The motivation for such movements is said to be the need to counter men’s sexual exploitation of women and the unrealistic visions of beauty portrayed in magazines and entertainment. Feminism may be right in saying that American decadence has promoted both sexual exploitation and supreme superficiality, but that becomes mere excuse for the fundamental rejection of beauty in and of itself.

And as feminism seeks to purge beauty from women, they have no problem encouraging the same in men. Gay men in feminine fashion and boyish hairstyles parade their attempt to be beautiful men by mimicking feminine beauty in a superficial sense.

It is considered a crime of epic proportions for a man to say he dislikes overweight women with pixie haircuts, foul mouths, and chunks of metal piercing various parts of their face. However, it is a man’s right to say so and it could be said it his duty. Women who defile themselves externally show they are defiled internally. While there may be a legitimate reason such internal defilement (men can be monsters), to seek the abolishment of all beauty by endorsing and encouraging blatantly irresponsible behavior towards the body is fighting a wrong with evil. The result is ugliness.

It is more than external ugliness. A woman with a defiant and foul mouthed attitude, a woman who drives herself through life loudly and proudly, reveals that she has no ability to appreciate the beauty of feminine meekness, a beauty of the heart. So often men marry ugly women and attempt to emulate the feminine beauty of meekness their wives should possess.

Men are motivated to be gentlemen when there are ladies to be found. When a woman discards her beauty for her appetites and her feminist-induced hatred for beauty, she leaves behind the natural femininity that is deserving of a gentleman’s strength and honor. Men no longer have a reason be gentlemen as feminism continually soils and rips apart the feminine beauty that they yearn for.

This makes American sexual dynamics utterly confusing to men. They naturally desire feminine beauty and look for it in women, where nature says it is to be found. What they find is feminism shaming them for searching for that beauty in women and encouraging them to mimic it in themselves, which is unnatural.

The result is men becoming increasingly withdrawn from marriage and relationships for individualistic stoicism and hedonism. Or they adopt some form of feminine beauty to make up for the deficiency in their wives. Or worse, they maintain their masculinity and hammer it into utter passive submission to the demands of masculine women.

Thoughts On The Hobby Lobby Case

I imagine a man who gets up in the morning and begins his day in prayer. With a Bible and a rosary, he prays and sets in his mind clearly what he believes and values. He dresses and goes to work. This man is a small business owner and has several stores in his chain and several employees.

The government issues a mandate that guarantees that a woman will have various contraception medication available to her without cost. Required to carried the financial burden is not the government who produced the mandate, but private employers. Among these contraception medicines is one that induces a miscarriage, or abortion, of a pregnancy that is mere days along.

The man has strong convictions about abortion, based on his religious beliefs concerning family and sex, and does not accept abortion. He has been informed that he must use the fruits of his labor to pay for women to use abortion-inducing medication. His conscience will not allow him to use funds he has worked for to support an action that violates his deepest beliefs.

The secular government says he must support a woman’s access to abortion using his funds in direct violation of his religious convictions. So he goes to the US courts to challenge the mandate. The secular voice says that a woman’s right to abortion-inducing medication is a health and legal issue and no one should deny a woman access to that medication. The religious voice says that abortion is a moral issue and no individual should be forced to violate his conscience.

Modern secular rights are in conflict with historical religious convictions.