
Some years ago — about thirty, because I was pregnant with younger son — some woman wrote a “sequel” to Daphne du Maurier’s Rebecca. I grabbed it off the sale bin at Barnes and Noble, then figured out why it was on discount. And it didn’t seem to do very well.
For those who don’t know the book, I’m going to leave most of the set up and motivation alone — at some point I’m going to write a crossover with Pride & Prejudice, and you can read it then. It won’t be the same, but still closer in spirit than this “sequel.” Anyway, on one point — if you don’t want spoilers skip two paragraphs: the man main character killed his former wife for what, if you read the book seems like good and sufficient reason. (Counting that she baited him into killing her, on purpose, at a point of extreme weakness and threatened to destroy his entire life and public image.) You can have moral qualms over his killing her and still understand. In any fair court of law it would count, at most as manslaughter particularly when you discover the murder occurred at the end, when you know the character who is not vicious or scheming. (Though at times he’s thick as two planks put together, in the way of introverted people.)
The author of the “sequel” decided that the fact he had killed his first wife, who was a thoroughly despicable character, meant his second wife couldn’t trust him, because he was going to kill her sooner or later; that he was a wife abuser; and that she should have the most soppy, “sisterhood” solidarity with the dead woman she never met and has reason — not just her husband’s testimony — to think was a rotter, while being “scared” of the man she loves and who never even raised his voice to her.
The bizarre — lack of — though process annoyed me so much that I think I threw the book in the trash. Look, there are ways to sell that ending to the story, but to do it you should give indications the husband is a psychopath — which negates the setup in the original book, but obviously they didn’t care — and that the dead woman was secretly a saint. But this actually wasn’t at all about the characters or the actual story. it was all in the author’s head, and for her it was self evident.
I ran into this yesterday night late — during a minor episode of insomnia — reading a mystery. I’m not going to name it because I like both the author and the series. But this one — an older one, I don’t remember reading — made me see red. It was exactly the same category error as in the “sequel” to Rebecca. And it is important to know the author is female.
In the mystery, the murdered woman has been revealed as more and more despicable, and in the end it is revealed that the man who killed her did so in service of his country, and in an act that saved millions.
And yet, the woman he loves above everything doesn’t want to ever see him, because he killed a woman. And the author obviously low key sympathizes with her and has the main investigator arrange a way so that the “murderer” — who is beyond the reach of the law because he did it in the service of his country and to prevent deaths — killed. Because, even though he’s an obviously decent soul and a young and sensitive man, he murdered a woman, so he must die.
I feel the need to pause here and point out that no, thank you so much, I do not in fact approve of murder. However we all know — all of us who aren’t crazy — there are murders that are justified to defend yourself or those who depend on you. Either because they are part of your family or because you are in a position to defend your country.
However, a thought experiment: say the victims in these particular books were men. Still venal, evil, and one threatening to destroy a good man whom he’s been torturing for years; the other one plotting something that will kill a vast number of inhabitants of a country. He’s plotting with the enemies of the country and also plotting to kill his spouse — who is also a secret agent, but on the side of the country that doesn’t want to be murdered — and he’s generally of low moral character. These men get killed: one by the man he’s been tormenting and whom he promises to destroy (and if following the book, whom he’s intentionally baiting to kill him as his final act of evil); the other by a young man in the service of his country.
Would anyone in their right mind assume the men who did the killings are vicious murderers or deserve to die? No? Yeah, thought so. And for the record, I don’t think the writers of these books would either.
So what is causing them to make these bizarre errors of character and plot?
Well, you see, the writers are women — both of whom consider themselves feminist — and the characters who deservedly get murdered are also women.
And, apparently, killing a woman no matter how deserved, is the forbidden thing. Anyone who kills a woman, no matter which woman, is ipso facto horrible and will murder all women given a chance. And particularly women characters will identify with the victim, even if there’s no resemblance whatsoever.
WTF, out?
Oh, I know the — lack of — thought behind this. It’s something like “Sisterhood of Women” and “If a man killed a woman, he killed all of us.”
It is in fact not only complete stupidity and moral absurdity, but also — very importantly — a betrayal of what they CLAIM to believe. Because feminists claim to believe that men and women are exactly alike and can fulfill the same roles in the exact same way. And yet when a woman does things that would get a man killed justifiably, we’re supposed to be horrified if she’s killed and to wish revenge for her death and destroy those who killed her.
Look, I completely understand the taboo on men hurting women. I think it’s the beginning of civilization. If there isn’t something moral, something in the head, preventing men from utterly obliterating women, what you have is barbarism, because no woman can physically defend herself from 99% of the men.
However, even in that there are begs. Even though a man isn’t supposed to hurt a woman, the self defense exception remains, as does protecting a lot of defenseless people when it’s your job to protect them. And I find it bizarre and illuminating that so called “feminists” who advocate for a level of equality that is frankly absurd and against biology in the end default to “Oh, no. you’re a man who hurt a woman. You should be destroyed.”
Illuminating?
Oh, yeah. Because, you know, I suspect some amount of this is the purest instinct. Women have trained, from the dawn of time, to avoid men who might hurt them. This means btw that outsized, powerful men are often on the receiving end of unwarranted female anger.
But mostly, mostly? It’s the Marxist rats in head. It starts with the idea that women everywhere in every culture are a disadvantaged “class.”
Now it is true that women throughout history and most of the world are indeed disadvantaged. Because women not being disadvantage requires a high level of culture and civilization.
However no woman in the West (unless a recent immigrant or being abused by recent, unassimilated immigrants. Sorry but it’s true) is at a disadvantage FOR BEING A WOMAN. Now, of course, there are women in horrible situations, but that’s personal stuff, not civilization. Our society has bent itself into pretzels trying to equalize things and has gone far too far to try to make women and men “equal.”
But in Marxist thought, women are a disadvantaged class, and the fact they’re disadvantaged means any member who doesn’t side with other women is a traitor siding with the “oppressor.” Even if the oppressor isn’t but is only identified as “oppressor class” because he has a penis.
Which is the utter insanity of “classes” bunched together on a single physical characteristic. Women can be completely different, but they all have a vagina, and therefore they are all, ultimately the same thing. Widgets in a group with “WOMEN” stamped on them. And the fact they have a vagina is supposed to override every other consideration, of worth, of individual character, even of simple human affinity.
To understand how stark raving mad this is, take two of my friends: I have a lot in common with M. C. A. Hogarth, in that we come from relatively similar cultures, we’re both mothers, we’re both writers. And neither of us is 100% in control of our writing and sometimes write books that make people headtilt at us. I also have a lot in common with Dave Freer, who has been a writing friend and companion for years. We have both have been ground down by the gears of trad pub, our kids are at similar life stages. And for two people born half a world apart with different cultures, we have a lot of the same principles and animating will.
Do I immediately love Maggie because she also has a vagina? EW. No. Like I am interested in my friends’ private parts!
Now take Dave Freer, my friend, my brother in ink, who sometimes kept me anchored in reality through our morning talks, (well, morning for him, evening for me. He lives in strange time zones) during the dark years. Say that I’m required to pick between him and say, AOC. WHO DO YOU THINK I OWE FRIENDSHIP, LOYALTY and PROTECTION TO?
“But Sarah, she has a vagina.” Yeah. Probably. Though EW I certainly don’t want to see it.
“If you don’t stand with her, you’re a gender traitor, a traitor to all womanhood.”
Yeah, yeah — lifts middle finger aloft — this for being a traitor to something I never swore allegiance to, to something that says nothing about the intelligence, knowledge, or moral character of the individual. Therefore I can’t betray it. Yes, I am female, but that cannot and does not mean I will love every female and despise every male.
I like, love and extend loyalty and friendship to individuals, not sex organs.
And I bet the authors mentioned above do the same. It’s just that when it comes to writing, the rats get in their heads and tell them that no no no they must side with the victim class!
Marxism is such a tiresome anti-reality brain short circuit! It’s not just wrong, evil and frankly completely divorced from reality, it’s also predictable and boring.
It’s time no one paid any attention to it, except to wave a middle finger at it when it demands attention.





















































































































































































































































































