You Don’t Own Me

I suspect that a fair number of my readers, or at least, those who are somewhat cognizant of pop culture, might have seen this trailer for Suicide Squad:

The first half of the trailer features a song, originally by Leslie Gore, titled “You Don’t Own Me.” I wasn’t familiar with it before this trailer, but wish I had been. It is a rather impressive piece in that it encapsulates so much of contemporary female thinking and behavior. Here are the full lyrics:

You don’t own me
I’m not just one of your many toys
You don’t own me
Don’t say I can’t go with other boys

And don’t tell me what to do
Don’t tell me what to say
And please, when I go out with you
Don’t put me on display ’cause

You don’t own me
Don’t try to change me in any way
You don’t own me
Don’t tie me down ’cause I’d never stay

I don’t tell you what to say
I don’t tell you what to do
So just let me be myself
That’s all I ask of you

I’m young and I love to be young
I’m free and I love to be free
To live my life the way I want
To say and do whatever I please

And don’t tell me what to do
Oh, don’t tell me what to say
And please, when I go out with you
Don’t put me on display

I don’t tell you what to say
Oh, don’t tell you what to do
So just let me be myself
That’s all I ask of you

I’m young and I love to be young
I’m free and I love to be free
To live

Perhaps it is just me, but this song touches on a huge number of RP subjects. Heck, it almost seems like a parody of some of the stuff Rollo has covered over the years. Here are just a few subjects covered:

  1. “Open” Relationships
  2. Men shouldn’t try and change women
  3. Young women need to be free to “find themselves”
  4. Commitment is on a woman’s terms only

and so on and so forth.

Keep in mind this song dates back to 1964. That is right, over 50 years ago. What we are seeing now in women is nothing new. The difference is the environment- it is far more hospitable to this type of behavior than it was in the past. But the desire was already there; it was always there.

Oh, and is it just me, or does this whole song seem like a fitness test writ large?

Advertisements

27 Comments

Filed under Blue Pill, Hypergamy, Red Pill, Women

27 responses to “You Don’t Own Me

  1. The placement of the song seems rather (hopefully by intent) ironic to me, given the characters involved. Joker looks too much like an escaped guitarist from Marilyn Manson, though.

    Not that I disagree with your points.

    Keep in mind this song dates back to 1964. That is right, over 50 years ago.

    That’s roughly when this stuff started appearing in comics on a regular basis.

    Well, at least it’s not female supremacy…

  2. @ NSR

    Oh, I am sure that song placement was no accident. It actually is a good match up with Harley Quinn, given her relationship with Mr. J.

    Although the development of the Harl over time itself is fascinating, in that it seems to me to demonstrate a feminist takeover of the character.

  3. I never really kept up with Harley.. I didn’t watch much of the Batman cartoon (to the shock and horror of my wife) and never read the comics she was in.

    Here’s a feminist comic bonus for ya –

    Notice Wonder Woman figures prominently on that page. You know, the superheroine from Paradise island, which was women only. Segregated, indeed. Even funnier is the guy who wrote that comic was also writing a WW strip at the same time, where he was no stranger to setting scenes on Paradise Island with the Amazons discussing the madness of Man’s World.

  4. Hearing this song was exactly what prompted me to write way back when:

    https://traditionalchristianity.wordpress.com/2013/07/01/the-priveleges-of-ownership/

    One quibble with the post. Women are NOT into open relationships. They want the freedom to be able to move on to another when one isn’t working anymore, but open relationships are not at all appealing to most women.

  5. Novaseeker

    I think it’s true that most women prefer serial monogamy to open relationships, although the number who are interested in the latter is rising somewhat, as are all kinds of sexual deviancy, really.

  6. Michael Kozaki

    Elspeth, They want the freedom to be able to move on to another when one isn’t working anymore, but open relationships are not at all appealing to most women.

    They demand much more than that! E.g., the ability to move on to the next higher male, especially if their man has been vanquished, socially dominated, or lacks the resources to allow her children to compete (to her mind). This is Darwin ABC.

    The West used to have a “deal” with women: you get one shot at a man and if you want another before he croaks you will have to cheat (dangerously). It worked like a dream, but that “deal” has been dying slowly since the Reformation and is now fully dead. Men too dumb to grasp this new reality, that they are on their own, deserve what they get.

    The “deal” only remains (weakly) in traditional churches that enforce traditional family rules regarding divorce, family size and excommunication. No church with teeth? Women gonna be women, and will slowly genetically self-select via family size, Darwin-style. For a good modern reference: see Southern California.

  7. Michael Kozaki

    Rollo you are such a sucker for feminist clickbait. They even told you it was clickbait: …it was not altogether clear exactly what he meant.

    Pope Francis, speaking of priestly ordination of women in February 2014, has stated that “with regards to the ordination of women, the church has spoken and says no…That door is closed.”

  8. Novaseeker

    Rollo —

    There were female deacons in the Catholic/Orthodox Church early, but the historical evidence indicates that their ministry was not the equivalent of male deacons, that they did not have a liturgical function, but were focused mostly on assisting at the baptisms of women (handy when baptism was done by immersion), teaching women, and serving charitably in the church community. I suspect that the expectation now, however, would of course be for female deacons to be the equivalent of the male “permanent deacons” that the Catholics have, meaning they would be able to serve at Mass and even preach homilies. I honestly can’t see inaugurating female deacons in the 21st Century’s environment of sex egalitarianism being done in any way that isn’t absolutely equivalent to the male deacons, but of course it’s too early to tell. In any case, the media is already having a field day with this, and I expect that was part of the intention as well.

  9. Their strategy, as outlined by Zippy re: usury, is to make de facto changes while leaving the doctrine officially untouched. It’s happening with divorce as we speak. It’s not hard to imagine a future with deaconess preachers who lead the liturgical prayers and distribute the Eucharist, which was consecrated earlier or elsewhere by a priest.

  10. Michael Kozaki

    Nova…focused mostly on assisting at the baptisms of women, teaching women, and serving charitably.

    Anyone can baptize, teach, & serve today. No deacon needed. Yawn.

    Patrick…lead liturgical prayers & distribute the Eucharist

    Happens every week if a priest is absent. No deacon needed. Yawn.

    …make de facto changes while leaving the doctrine untouched.

    There is no change here. Sinners gonna sin, always have always will. If the doctrine is untouched & available that’s what matters.

  11. “If the doctrine is untouched & available that’s what matters.”

    The point is it’s not available. It’s shoved down the memory hole. That’s why it works.

  12. KP

    Oh, and is it just me, or does this whole song seem like a fitness test writ large?

    Next!

    (No, it’s not just you.)

  13. Watch it without sound. It looks like a film about the government hiring a porn starlet and her prison groupies to kill a rapper.

    [DG: Good one Cane.]

  14. @Patrick

    The point is (the doctine’s) not available. It’s shoved down the memory hole. That’s why it works.

    That is correct. MK is making what he should think of as a Protestant error. The power of the Roman Church isn’t the making of doctrine, but in its interpretation of it. It doesn’t have to repudiate previous doctrine, or make new doctrine. It just has to repudiate MK if he over-stepps his boundary of interpretation. It doesn’t belongs to him, or Patrick, or Zippy, or anyone else outside the Magisterium.

    That’s why Sola Scriptura was a battle cry of Protestants. Magisterial documents are interpretations of Scripture (or more broadly, revelation). This lulls someone like MK into thinking “Ah-ha! If I read and obey the encyclical, then I will understand what has been revealed.” That’s not true. He needs someone to interpret the encyclical for him because in fact, he would be interpreting another layer once removed from Scripture. It is not his right as a Roman Catholic in good standing to teach his family according to encyclicals, but not according to the current interpretation to them.

    That could literally go on until the end of the world.

  15. Looking at what is available about what the Pope actually said, it seems to me that he was actually deflecting the issue. Rather than saying “I support this and will send it to the proper committee to get things moving”, he instead was referring the idea to the committee to die. He just didn’t want to kill it himself. Surprisingly good politics, actually (whether his copying Machiavelli is a good thing or not is another matter entirely…).

    As far as the doctrine/practice bit comes into play, I am not nearly as Polyannaish as Michael. I do not believe that the Church is nearly as protected against “it actually meant this all along” as Michael seems to suggest.

  16. As for early deaconesses, they can be compared to religious women today. The early deacons were originally meant to serve and minister on behalf of the apostles and elders. At first, that meant distributing food and such. Liturgical and evangelical functions were added later, and aren’t something scripture attributes to women.

    Of course, the fight isn’t over ministerial work, it is over liturgical and evangelical service. Ultimately it is over power, and not the “right” to serve. But then again, we all knew that.

  17. “You Don’t Own Me” — this could be the anthem and theme song of the typical feministy Western ‘privileged princess’ during her teens and twenties, when she goes to college, works on her ‘career’, and ‘travels to “find herself” ‘ (i.e., ride the Carousel, drink herself stupid nightly, and look for ‘splinters in the eyes’ of men whom she deems as unattractive and ‘beneath’ her).
    When the ‘privileged princess’ ‘runs into the Wall’ in her late twenties and early thirties and is finally ‘ready to settle down’, she becomes angry and sometimes infuriated when “You Don’t Own Me” is now directed at her by MGTOW (many times, the same men whom she rejected in her youth).

  18. Michael Kozaki

    Cane, That is correct. MK is making what he should think of as a Protestant error. The power of the Roman Church isn’t the making of doctrine, but in its interpretation of it.

    Sorry, but the RCC authoritatively tells you what doctrine is. And excommunicate you as they see fit. I’m making zero mistakes here, and have no issues.

    It doesn’t have to repudiate previous doctrine, or make new doctrine. It just has to repudiate MK if he over-stepps his boundary of interpretation. It doesn’t belongs to him, or Patrick, or Zippy, or anyone else outside the Magisterium.

    I obey my bishop’s interpretation and have zero issues. My bishop points me to the authoritative Catechism. I have no debate, no discussion, no issues at all. The teaching is clear as a bell. For people like yourself, who are looking for trouble and conflict, well, that’s your problem. The bishops don’t get in your bedroom or your life. They just tells you what the Truth is.

    That’s why Sola Scriptura was a battle cry of Protestants. Magisterial documents are interpretations of Scripture (or more broadly, revelation).

    No. SS is a “battle cry” so Prots can be heretical and feel good about it. So they could divide and pretend to be unified like Jesus commanded to be. They just don’t like any authority or Truth but their own. I have no issues.

    This lulls someone like MK into thinking “Ah-ha! If I read and obey the encyclical then I will understand what has been revealed.” That’s not true. He needs someone to interpret the encyclical for him

    I’ve never read anything in the bible, nor the Church, nor any Saint writing that I ever disagreed with. It’s all pretty obvious. Most I can get from basic logic anyway. I’m not “lulled” into anything.

    All you guys attacking people like me, or bishops, or popes, or whomever, really should consider looking to your own moral life and stop worrying about others so much. That’s the bishop’s job. I’ve got enough worries.

    …he would be interpreting another layer once removed from Scripture. It is not his right as a Roman Catholic in good standing to teach his family according to encyclicals, but not according to the current interpretation to them.

    Read above. You are nuts. I’ve no issue. Me, my bishop, and the bishop of Rome (and the last 3 bishops of Rome I’ve lived under) all agree fully on the doctrinal interpretation of the bible and the Church. We’ve no issues. Only divisive people seem to. I’m busy living my moral life and have no issues and am not arguing about it.

  19. Cane:
    I only have to worry about what happens during my lifetime, though, and try to do my part to pass the torch.

    MK:
    Wahoo. But what if those three popes all explicitly disagree with a pope that preceded them or go deliberately silent on an important teaching, like usury or the rights and authority of the husband. Then what that pope taught suddenly has lost it’s authority or is irrelevant? Then why listen to anything JPII taught, since he’s dead and gone like all the popes before him? Or maybe we could just pretend JPII didn’t destroy the rights and authority of the husband, even though he did, in direct disobedience to Pope Pius XI. So there’s a disobedient priest, Karol Wojtyla, who carried his disobedience all the way to Chair of Peter and promoted it from there. So now we have to obey his disobedience? That’s not how morality works.

  20. Michael Kozaki

    Patrick, I have read all three popes. I believe they agree on non-negotiable doctrine. Sorry if you disagree.

    As for me, I’m worried enough about my own judgement day and moral failures (lots to keep me busy there) to rush to condemn my bishop’s leadership style or parse his words for disagreement. I’m a sheep, not a shepherd. I assume the best in my leaders and interpret their words in this light. I don’t believe in doctrinal compromise at all, and have never had to do this. To me, the teachings are as obvious as they are hard, and I could have written them myself.

    But I thank God my family is not like this thread. We wouldn’t last a week!

  21. I’m sure you’re right that they agree with each other. They don’t agree with Pope Pius XI, though. It’s plain as day: “74. The same false teachers who try to dim the luster of conjugal faith and purity do not scruple to do away with the honorable and trusting obedience which the woman owes to the man. Many of them even go further and assert that such a subjection of one party to the other is unworthy of human dignity, that the rights of husband and wife are equal; wherefore, they boldly proclaim the emancipation of women has been or ought to be effected.”

  22. Anonymous Reader

    Elspeth
    Women are NOT into open relationships. They want the freedom to be able to move on to another when one isn’t working anymore, but open relationships are not at all appealing to most women. in my social circle and age group

    FIFY.
    Because what’s going on with people in their 20’s and 30’s is not quite what you saw when you were that age.

    Yeah, all I have is observation and anecdotes, but I’m seeing Millennial women in their 30’s who get married but keep their own name, who go on Girls Night Outs that put them in interesting company, etc.. Women who were a bit casual about their Friends and Benefits when 25 seem to perhaps keep a bit of that available on the side after they marry at 30.

    It may be a manifestation of the 80/20 rule or perhaps a 99/1 rule – they won’t do anything too overt that might endanger their Beta Bucks, but they do want a little Alpha on the side, an “adventure” or something.

    Maybe that’s not what you mean by “open relationship”, I dunno. But I’m seeing straws in the wind of a cultural acceptance of sex out of marriage, just so long as it is discrete and not too frequent. Like the way French culture used to regard a middle class man’s mistress.

    Frankly I’d like to be wrong about this. The data that rolls out around me, though…

  23. Donal Graeme, thank you for the post. Incidentally, You Don’t Know Me is a featured song of the movie, The First Wives Club. This post relates well to your article about women delaying marriage. I’m one of those women. I’m scared of annulment and divorce, so even if I’m up against the wall, I would much prefer the wall than to be part of the first wives club.

    Elspeth, thank you for the link. I can’t comment on your blog post so will comment here. I’m probably weird, but I prefer not to own, although I own land because I had to buy it to help someone. My brother who is a doctor rents his house, although he can buy it outright. Well, both of us are unmarried, so maybe that explains why we do not want to own anything. We just want to be stewards, but not owners.

  24. Novaseeker

    Maybe that’s not what you mean by “open relationship”, I dunno. But I’m seeing straws in the wind of a cultural acceptance of sex out of marriage, just so long as it is discrete and not too frequent. Like the way French culture used to regard a middle class man’s mistress.

    It’s also coming through cultural programming, but slowly.

    The French still do tolerate adultery, as long as it is discreet/hidden, and doesn’t embarrass the spouse (i.e., hidden not just from the spouse but from others who have contact with the spouse, etc.). That’s on both sides, too, men and women alike. It isn’t tolerated, however, to leave one’s spouse for the mistress/paramour — of course, it happens, but it isn’t lauded socially.

  25. As it happens Joyce, this is a point in history where it is probably best to rent and not own. So no objections form me on that score.

    But I’m sure you recognized the point of the post I linked to, and how there was a time when ownership was viewed as a positive good and a serious trust. That included the permanence of familial ties, anchored by marriage.

  26. Pingback: Feminism Is Comical | Donal Graeme

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s