Why does this surprise me? Am I really that naïve? I guess I must be. This tweet, following the arrival of Baby Windsor left me gasping in shock. I mean, really?
I’ll give everyone a couple of hours to enjoy this arbitrarily selected baby to gush over before I start reminding you of infant mortality.
What a joyless, miserable three star extra fucking pointy witchy fucking cunt! Who the fuck celebrates the arrival of ANY healthy, happy baby by talking about DEAD BABIES?!?! She’s gone from Delusional Harpy to Hideous Rancor in 140 characters.
We’re gonna need a Jedi to take this one out.
Sadly, Amanda is not the only feminist to express shitty thoughts about the safe arrival of Baby Windsor. I’ve written before about why I love the Royal Family (emphasis on FAMILY), and I think the Duchess in particular raises the ire of feminists for her feminine, wifely, motherly orientation towards the world. The Duchess sends a powerful message to young wanna-be-Princesses.
If you want to capture the heart of the Prince, be beautiful, womanly, supportive, loving, kind, gracious and value your home and husband more than your career or ambitions.
Retrograde? Absolutely. Also 100% true.
I was completely expecting Kate to get crapped all over for her aspirations to breastfeed and personally care for Baby Windsor and to live with her mother and perpetuate that whole “babies thrive with their mommies” pack of lies the patriarchy concocted to enslave women and deny them their rightful place as the head of state.
Oh, wait. Brits do have a woman as their Head of State. For 125 of the last 150 years, they have had a woman as the Head of State.
Never mind, then. Babies still suck.
I honestly did not expect the media to go after the BABY, who cannot possibly have committed any crimes, being less than 24 hours old. And how wrong I was. Baby Windsor has already upset the feminazi media and committed the worst sin imaginable:
Baby Windsor is a boy.
Amanda Platell at the Daily Mail leads the chorus of accusation against wee Baby Windsor for committing the grave crime of being a boy.
Sorry, but I STILL wish she’d had a baby girl: In a world so lacking in role models for girls, how extraordinary a young, modern queen-in-waiting could have been.
Excuse me? A world lacking in female role models? Do you mean role models like the GODDAMN QUEEN HERSELF?
Oh, but the Queen is no proper role model, now is she? Calm, sensible, practical, married, the mother of four children. This is the woman who refused to abandon her city and home during the BLITZ!
Keep calm and carry on.
She was no coward, turning tail and hiding out in the safety of the Scottish Highlands while her people were bombarded nightly in devastating raids that claimed tens of thousands of lives. I’ll never forgive George Bush for cupping his tiny weeny and whimpering in the back of Air Force One when 9-11 happened. George, you fucking coward! The President does not get to hide from danger!
No, the Queen is not a role model because she is first and foremost DEDICATED. She is loyal to the bone. Duty defines her existence. Her own personal happiness is irrelevant. She was born to fulfill a destiny, and by god, she intends to do just that until she draws her last breath. We can’t have young girls thinking that duty and destiny and unwavering loyalty to family and community and home are the most important things they can strive to achieve.
Now Diana, she was a bit more to the feminist’s liking. Divorced, ditzy, preoccupied with her appearance, bulimic, flighty, depressed, anxious, spoiled, pampered, entitled – but she still had that utter devotion to her babies problem.
Close, but no cigar.
What do you think Amanda imagines the modern Queen might have been like? And by Amanda, I mean Platell, not Marcotte. We know what Marcotte thinks of the Royal Baby. Royal Baby makes Marcotte think of dead babies. So charming.
Imagine the glamour and fun she could have brought into a world of dreary austerity — a little girl with Kate’s beauty, the Queen’s poise, the Queen Mother’s elegance and maybe even a dash of Diana’s magic.
Glamor! Fun! Beauty! Poise! Elegance! Magic!
These are the qualities that young women are to aspire to? Okay. And then what?
Where is Duty? Responsibility? Loyalty? Tradition? Honor? Obligation? Sacrifice? Maturity? Commitment?
Oh, those are the dreary virtues MALE monarchs bring to the conversation. Stupid men. Always thinking about the well-being of others. Longing to protect and provide and lead when there are so many garden parties to attend.
Not only are male royals less of a crowd-pleaser than their female counterparts, they can find their role to be trying. Attending garden parties and making small talk are rather emasculating, as Prince Charles has discovered.
The effect of monarchy on masculinity is shown by the fact many royal men wear military uniforms weighed down by medals when they’ve never seen battle.
Despite longing to serve their country in wartime, neither Charles nor William was allowed to do so, and it is unlikely to change for the new heir.
Belinda Luscombe at Time Magazine lends her voice to the dirge bemoaning Baby Windsor’s boyness.
Yes, yes, any baby is a blessing and any healthy baby is wonderful and we’re so lucky to have been around for this historic event and congrats and cigars and yay and all, but dammit, I wanted a Queen. I wanted a royal baby girl.
And count on Jezebel to take a long cool drink from the baby boy haterade.
We’ll admit it: When the announcement came through — it’s a boy! — we were ever-so-slightly deflated. We thought it was going to be a girl, and frankly, the idea of a brand new princess seems more interesting.
Baby girls: much more interesting than baby boys.
Katie Halper can’t resist adding her dulcet tones to the refrain chastising poor Baby Windsor for being a boy.
If anything, having a female baby would have been much more exciting and historic than a male one, thanks to a recent law.
What law is that? Oh, right. The one that says the first born ascends the throne no matter what gender they happen to be. This is something to celebrate, but only if the first born is a girl. Boy first-borns can sit down and shut up, right?
The law, while new, has been de facto in effect for decades. Charles IS the first born. So is William. Sadly, they are both males.
Some part of me likes to whisper in the back of my mind, “you know, JB, maybe you’re being just a little bit harsh here. Maybe there are SOME redeeming qualities to modern feminism. Maybe they just don’t realize how hateful they sound”.
That voice has been permanently silenced today.
I don’t think the two Amandas or Belinda or Dodai or Katie are outliers. They are unashamedly, openly mourning the fact that a beautiful little boy was born, and wishing him out of existence, replaced in their imaginations by a girl.
Someone explain to me again how misandry isn’t a thing. We hear over and over again about the sex selective abortions of baby girls who simply aren’t valued as much as boys (and for a really interesting perspective on that, I encourage you to check out this article at A Voice for Men).
And yet, there seems to be no reaction whatsoever to a chorus of women bemoaning the fact that the new Royal Baby is a boy. How soon will it be until one of them chastises Kate for not aborting him?
I think we can probably count on Amanda Marcotte to be the first hag slurping at that trough. Oh, look! Here she is already, adding a discussion of abortion to her Baby Windsor infant mortality tweet.
Yep, getting confirmation from conservative obsessives that they really do believe abortion is worse than infant mortality
Anyone know a Jedi? I am in serious need of a Jedi Knight. Nothing else can deal with a monster of this magnitude.
Lots of love,