Are You a Feminarcissist?
Barometer of American Values
Paris Hilton isn’t the problem; she’s just a barometer of American values. A highschool dropout with a GED and lots of plastic surgery, she is nothing more than the creation of a shallow, aimless society in search of itself: the real problem. America’s endless obsession with this professional attention-whore is more evidence (remember Britney, Lindsay, Rosie, and Anna Nicole?) that its priorities are screwed up.
People who seriously care whether Paris should have gone to jail, how she might be surviving in jail, what Aunt Kyle thinks, what sister Nicky thinks, or what Rick and Kathy are planning for their daughter’s getting-out-of-jail party in Las Vegas should be examining the meaning of their own lives — if that’s possible.
Narcissism is an epidemic in America, and Hilton is the most-visible example of it: she spends all her time admiring and kissing her reflection, while Americans hold up the mirror. Her immature behavior, which, at one time was considered shameful, brings her fame. Americans, however, just won’t break Paris’s mirror. If they would ignore Paris, she would disappear. But, they won’t … so she won’t.
In the scheme of things, Paris Hilton’s life is irrelevant. She is nothing and contributes nothing. Worse, Americans’ focus on Paris prevents them from seeing a real and harmful form of self-absorption: feminism. Feminism began with the valid goal of bringing equality to women. Alas, over the years, it has morphed into a pathos of blind conceit and misandry. Modern feminists have almost total disregard for the consequences of their actions. They are feminarcissists.
Moms Know Best
The other morning, I was reading through my local newspaper, the San Jose Mercury News. The first snippet in the Dear Abby column caught my eye: “Woman seeking a child should rethink her motives.” A 27-year-old woman declared to Abby that, if she doesn’t have a very strong relationship in place by the time she reaches 30, she plans to make a trip to the sperm bank in pursuit of single motherhood. She sought Abby’s opinion about the selfishness of her quest. Abby opined that a child deserves two parents. In my opinion, any woman who even ponders life as an unwed mother is selfish.
Feminarcissism abounds. On May 31st, ABCNews.com reported an unusual custody fight, over frozen embryos, now headed to the Texas Supreme Court. It seems that Augusta and Randy Roman, now divorced, are embroiled in a battle over their future unborn children. When these former lovebirds couldn’t conceive naturally, they harvested 13 of her eggs, fertilized six, and froze three. They both signed a consent form stipulating that, in the event of divorce, the fertilized eggs would be destroyed.
Of course, the former Mrs. Roman changed her mind, went back to female-ly court, and won custody of the eggs. A true feminarcissist, she wants what she wants, when she wants it — and to hell with everyone else. She cares not about the father or the child. It’s all about her, and — as expected — the misandrist female-ly court agreed. Mr. Roman countersued. Now, a bunch of state jurists will redecide what these two already had decided. How does this make you feel about prenups?
The week before the embryo story emerged, I was within seconds of appearing on Fox News Channel’s Your World with Neil Cavuto for my weekly jousting match with Lis Wiehl, when an outbreak of fighting in Tripoli, Lebanon unexpectedly preempted our segment. We were going to debate the selfishness of Frieda Birnbaum, the 60-year-old psychologist from New Jersey, who underwent invitro fertilization in South Africa and then delivered twin boys — making her the oldest American woman to give birth. It isn’t even clear that she used her own egg.
Six years ago, Dr. Birnbaum gave birth to a son using the same science experiment. Her main reason for doing this: to show women in their 50s that it can be done! Is this a reason to become a mother? Of course not. Becoming pregnant isn’t meant to be a test of physical achievement, like winning a marathon. It’s supposed to be about building a loving, integral family. But, moms know best.
Should a psychologist be wiser about healthy motives and behaviors than the general public? One would think. In my opinion, this doctor is sicker than her patients. Her 33-year-old son and 29-year-old daughter are on the record as unhappy about their mother’s late-life birthing. And, what of Mr. Birnbaum, her husband of 38 years? His opinion isn’t clear. I’m betting he had little say in the matter.
When I announced my imminent appearance on Fox News to debate Frieda Birnbaum’s delivery of twins, a good friend of mine sent me the following letter, in horror:
My parents were in their 40s when I was born. I was thankful to “be there” for them as they got older, but my dad had health problems that kept him from playing sports with me (a stroke and heart attacks). He passed away when I was 28. It was tough watching them age every time I came home from a college break. But, if they were 15 years older [like Frieda Birnbaum and her husband], it should probably be against the law.
For a 60-year-old woman to give birth defies the very essence of both parenting and childhood. To be a 10-year-old child with 70-year-old parents is so ridiculous. Does this woman think she is raising caregivers? Her sons never will be normal, nor will their relationships, nor will their offspring. The ramifications are horrible.
This is the heartfelt perspective of a child born to older parents — a perspective that feminarcissists wouldn’t understand. By the same token, a woman implanting a frozen embryo in her uterus, against the father’s wishes, will produce an equally devastating affect on her offspring.
Because of the 50% divorce rate (women bring 70% of divorce actions) and the escalating out-of-wedlock birthrate (30% for whites, 70% for blacks), most children in America are raised by mothers. The female-ly courts encourage it, and the feminarcissists applaud it. But, such selfishness causes children and their fathers to suffer, and the fabric of society to weaken.
A home without two actively involved parents is not a healthy alternative lifestyle, despite what the feminarcissists espouse. It takes years to discover the damage done to the children whose mothers reproduced like human Xerox machines. Self-absorption is as self-absorption does.
The NoNonsense Bottom Line
If you want to live a selfish life like Paris Hilton, I don’t care. But, if you choose to extend that feminarcissism into motherhood — like Frieda Birnbaum, Augusta Roman, and the 27-year-old who wrote to Dear Abby — I care a lot. Your obsession with yourself, and our legal system’s pathetic indulgence of your attitude, now affects my society … and me.
In this era of shallow existence, some women — especially young women — literally don’t have the reference points to evaluate their own beliefs or actions. Accordingly, if you are contemplating motherhood and cannot logically forsee the long-term consequences to all parties involved, here’s a three-condition feminarcissism test that will make it clear.
Never become a mother unless:
- Both you and your man are READY to become parents
- Both you and your man are WILLING to become parents
- Both you and your man are ABLE to become parents.
If you cannot meet all three conditions above, and you still choose to deliver a child, you are a feminarcissist. But, you are not a mother.
About the Author
Marc H. Rudov is an internationally recognized author of 55+ articles and the books Under the Clitoral Hood: How to Crank Her Engine Without Cash, Booze, or Jumper Cables™ (ISBN 9780974501727), and The Man’s No-Nonsense Guide to Women: How to Succeed in Romance on Planet Earth™ (ISBN 0974501719).
Rudov’s books, articles, blog, and podcasts are available at TheNoNonsenseMan.com.
Copyright © 2007 by Marc H. Rudov. All rights reserved.
| More from Marc H. Rudov
Stumble It!
June 13th, 2007 at 11:00 pm
Good piece.
Paris is a child…and those two nutcases (Wife AND husband) wanting to have a kid at sixty ARE selfish…really.
But…in our empty society, many girls want to have babies because they want to be loved. Some of them think they will never have a boyfreind, no one will ever love them, and so they want a child to fill that void.
They lack the self confidence ( and THAT is due to being raised without fathers) and don’t think that someone will marry them. At least in MY day..that’s what many of the girls I knew who had kids (from a sperm bank or whatever) without a man were doing. The feminist movement made them beleive that they COULD do this. But these girls were more to be pitied, I thought.
The “women’s movement” lied to them. That they could raise the kids wo men and no damage would be done to the child.
What BS. ANd it goes on everyday.
It’s crazy I know…but I have to say, the woman I knew who had kids (usually the men did NOT want the kid)…..wanted just someone to love and nurture. I’d hardly call them narcissist. Many of them just felt…..hopeless.
Your last three comments were excellent.
June 14th, 2007 at 1:30 am
The desire to love and nurture is very strong. In women it is applauded; all sorts of behaviours are considered as ‘nurturing’. A woman can murder her children and still be called ‘nurturing’. The word has lost meaning.
In men, nurturing is made dark, oppressive, sometimes even dirty. Patriarchal, paedophile bastards that all men are, when they are not being simple rapists. But in either case, men or women, the needs of the child are all too often overlooked, devalued.
But Marc, that is a powerful piece. This, particularly (selected from a number of points I can agree with) is really apposite: – “In this era of shallow existence, some women — especially young women — literally don’t have the reference points to evaluate their own beliefs or actions.”
Not only they don’t have values but they are actively dissuaded from even considering evaluation. ‘Value’ is a word demoralised by marxist-feminist ideology. Value’s touchstone today is ‘what you want’. Everything is ‘relative’, along with truth being dismembered & dissembled into ‘my truth’ and ‘your truth’, even ‘there is no such thing as truth’. So much for the vaunted ‘communication’ skill of women, translated into our feminised society.
June 14th, 2007 at 4:12 am
Great, poignant, timely, insightful article Marc. It’s a bit of sanity in an otherwise “feminarcissist” culture, certainly including government, especially “female-ly” courts.
I’ve concluded that the true result of women in charge (including but not limited to being in charge of fatherless families) is a lot of really selfish women, and that men have always looked out for men, women, and children (making civilization possible), while feminism today is all about anything women want in total disregard for men and children, then playing victim when their selfish irresponsibility doesn’t work out, even for themselves.
Now, you have wrapped that all up in a single word, “feminarcissist” or “feminarcissism”. Thank you very much for that, and I hope to see you using the word often in the national media as you debate the feminarcissists and their rampant, worn-out, over-exposed, and self-indulgent feminarcissism.
June 14th, 2007 at 6:57 am
While leftists rail against a judeo christian ethic they claim calls for forced dominion and exploitation of nature, not stewardship, they seldom see that their ideology, from its source, has always been pitting man toe to toe against the core of what can be deemed natural. This is not to insinuate that i am one who says light the torches and storm the castle, however when the question is asked “should whatever could be done be done”, those without any moral compass, and who have relegated actual nature to rhetoric, never can say “some things that could be done should not be done”. I do not favor large state, so the best i can say is that whats lamentable is that our society has sunk so low in its feigned fake consideration that it has resulted in people committing passive acts that end up putting others in a serious situation. like the situation to be true to your family and not let a child of such go to foster care or an institution. basically people like this are deluded that we all can do whatever we please and it will lead to happiness. no, what it generally leads to is everyone miserable as everyone elses attempts to be happy end up ruining their attempts to be happy… without any boundaries, everyone steps on everyone else, and the attempt to find happiness is replaced with a struggle for a bit of peace… this tends to redefine happiness away from joy, and to escapism (the only place they cant step on your toes) in all its forms. this situation is also a form of escapism, by doing this she sets a challenge in front of her that will keep her absorbed, though in this case one of her only clear way to selfish pleasure as joy (the only way to enjoy such a situation and actually grasp it is either to not care that it comes at a high cost to others, or to willfully be ignorant by not examining it).
so its a sad society that produces people, who, when they have this idea, have not the common sense to examine it and make a clear assesment. however, i will contend that she is making a clear assessment, the assesment of someone who is fully secular and who realizes that their life winks out to nothing and so should attempts to experience whatever they want to experience without guilt or caring. its a ponzi scheme of misery where the first to get dump on the rest coming up… and it builds… till like cosmic jenga is changes. however they never examine the worth of collecting experiences if there will be no permanence to them. it would be like recording all the movies you can and never playing them back again and destroying the tape.
it is sad to think that her time preference has been so shortened to the point where the only thing that she can use to connect back to some form of naturalness and real (not contrived feeling) is to do this.
marc is quite right that she is not well, but i think that we can agree that her pathos is deep, but i think we disagree to a bit of the details.
June 14th, 2007 at 9:00 am
I think one point that should be brought up is about the embryos. Now they HAVE been fertilized by the father. So if she gets custody of them and decides to use them, then the father is going to be soaked for good ole’ child support. Though at this point he has NO say in the matter.
June 14th, 2007 at 1:57 pm
“Feminism began with the valid goal of bringing equality to women.” No, it didn’t. Feminism, from its inception in the suffrage movement, has been about “progressivism” (socialism) and the glories of the state. Read Angry Harry for the full scoop. Susan B. Anthony was a progressive, as was former Stalinist Betty Friedan.
Socialism cannot work in societies where the family is still the prime organizing force. Socialism, whatever form it takes, must destroy the family. Hence, modern feminists continue the whitewash of “equality” for women while destroying the family. This benefits socialism, feminism, fascism, communism, progressivism, statism, and leftism in general. Women will never achieve equality with men because they are NOT equal. Feminism has nothing to do with equal treatment under the law, it has always been about equality of outcome, which means liberty, the family, and masculinity have to go.
Get it through your heads. Feminism is, was, and always will be a lie. Paris Hilton’s silly antics are only the latest manifestation.
June 14th, 2007 at 8:59 pm
The systems of our government must also be examined. It is plainly apparent that government itself has become the ‘addict’ as it either cannot or refuses to acknowledge such rampant narcissism. For such a system with its entourage of professional types, including the noble esteemed psychologists who are frequently called and paid by a sad parent, usually the one, not narcissistic, to give thier estimations of the fitness of either parent and not come up with the simple and basic information necessary to define who is a more fit parent, is no less than systematized hiding and a coverup of a progressed state of addititon. Our system trots out the naarcissistic parent to use to hide itslef from you the taxpayer and the preyed upon, e.g. all of us.