Last week the media made a new darling out of Antifa member Louise Rosealma, the woman who engaged in an altercation with Identity Europa leader Nathan Damigo at a recent rally in Berkeley, California. Meme makers and devotees of Kek went into a dizzying frenzy to figure out who this Mona Lisa of the Left was.
It didn’t take long.
Beneath her dreadlocks, those red scarves, and flair, the Internet discovered her to be a pornographic actress, finding her spread-eagle on a fetish site for hirsute women. But what perhaps, for me, was most disturbing were her pictures before she went to college. She wasn’t in dreadlocks. She didn’t have hairy armpits. She wasn’t displaying her private parts online.
She looked normal. She looked positively whitebread with a delicate beauty that one might find in a Norman Rockwell painting. What turned this picture perfect specimen of feminine Americana into what was seen at Berkeley? What defeminized her and utilized her as a tool against the very patriarchal order that defends women?
Our universities did.
This article is not intended to be a case against women receiving higher education. But, I am the father of a daughter. And while I cannot approve of the actions of this young girl at Berkeley, I look at my own young daughter, and think “What if it were her? What if she were a victim of those institutions that have been subverted?”
Louise doesn’t deserve dreadlocks, fatigues, or even to be on a pornographic website. She deserves what I would think every nineteen year old girl deserves. Young, fertile women merit a husband who will not only provide but protect their honor. She deserves to be surrounded by the joy of children. She needs to be chasing kids out of the camellia bushes with a wooden spoon, not throwing bottles at conservatives or hawking her gash on a smut site.
Where did we go wrong? And how can we make it right?
Let’s first get down to brass tacks.
Regardless of whether or not we think that marriage is something that is civil contract between two parties or a sacrament instituted by some divine entity, we should all agree on one thing: the purpose of marriage is for the propagation of families. The dating game of today simply wasn’t something practiced in the past, and while there might have been courting, there were formal rules.
Right up until the turn of the last century, and for many affluent Southern families, until the end of the Second World War, young ladies were debuted to the bucks of the county in cotillions. Debutantes were presented formally to society through dances as a way of introducing them not only to adulthood, but to display her to eligible bachelors and their families within their own social circle. In the South, girls were presented at ages fifteen to sixteen and usually in the springtime as the highlight of the season (in my own state of Louisiana, right before Lent). She would be presented by her father, and escorted usually by male members of her family, typically cousins. While dancing was involved at these balls, girls were taught other skills to impress men and their families, such as elegance, charm, and wit. Unlike the meat market that feminists want us to think this was, many young ladies looked forward to this kind of thing, seeing it as a rite of passage and entry into adulthood, something which is sorely lacking today for both sexes.
In the 20th century this all changed as the senior prom took the place of cotillion balls. The downfall of the cotillion was exacerbated with the Sexual Revolution of the 1960s as more women took to work or college, and marriage was put off or not even indulged at all.
My argument for going back to the cotillion is that it not only was vehicle to join families, and ipso facto, create children, but it protected women by ensuring that they had a good chance of marrying a decent mate through these familial networks behind the scenes.
Through the new debutante culture marriages could take place in a variety of ways. It could be an old fashioned arranged marriage where the two parties, beau or belle, have no choice in the matter. Or it could be a modified arrangement where man and woman have a select circle to court from, they make the choice together, but they require the blessing of their parents to see the deed done. Regardless of whatever method is used, it would be more positive than the crapshoot that women and men face now by putting off marriage well beyond their best childbearing years.
Rather than forcing women to go to college, collect massive amounts of debt, work, and have to sacrifice childrearing because of the cycle created, a woman who was debuted could be married to a man relatively early. This would also create the incentive for men to get their act together. Stop playing the Playstation 4 and become an earner. The man would be required to provide for her, not only making sure that she wouldn’t have to want for anything as a mother, but giving her the intellectual freedom to pursue interests without having to be bound by work.
One thing is for certain: Moldylocks would have looked better in a cotillion dress than combat fatigues.
Oh, I'm a good old Rebel, now that's just what I am; For this "Fair Land of Freedom" I do not give a damn! I'm glad I fit against it, I only wish we'd won, And I don't want no pardon for anything I done.