Feminists reject the inherent beauty of womanhood, they deride pretty women as 'bimbos' while dismissing any wisdom that may emanate from these females simply because they happen to be nice to look at. The feminist claims to be a champion of women while they strive to cheapen women everywhere by encouraging promiscuity and devaluing the ideals of romantic, lasting love and the sanctity of marriage. They loathe the idea that women may actually WANT to be mothers, and they have a special vitriol filled place in their hard blackened hearts for stay at home moms. They have no respect for the traditional concept of family and as a result we've got legions of delusional people who praise abortion while minimizing the damage it does both to the never to be born baby and the would have been mother, we also now have generations of fatherless children who grow up to be bitter, broken people.They hate feminine women and masculine men, the only kind of man who is remotely acceptable to these people is the effete mewling acquiescent self hating beta male. Feminism is at fault for the epidemic of men in our society who would never think it his responsibility to hold a job and provide for his family or hold the role of father in the esteemed position that it deserves.
Nothing has been more damaging to young girls and women both here and around the world than feminism. As Pamela Geller correctly states in her recent American Thinker article, "Femi-not",
Feminism is a phony movement rooted in Marxist-Leninist ideology.Here's some more, from the same Geller piece linked above:
If feminists truly cared about the well being of females, they would speak out against the worst and most brutal source of oppression of women and girls which is islamic shariah law. The feminists' enslavement to leftism forbids that they acknowledge that fact, because it would not be "politically correct" to do so.
Feminists' mission by objective is not empowerment, but just the opposite: slavery. They want government-funded independence. Oxymoronic.
To say that feminism was one of the worst things to happen to women is being kind. I blame the left for the feminization of men. A woman recently wrote me that the world of male chivalry and respect for women is "gone forever," and said, "It is most upsetting as the mother of sons, you can't beat what's going on, and it's hard to watch your girl having to deal with these dudes today. The other girls have happily and nonchalantly declared themselves sex slaves. We have destroyed our young men!"
The demon seeds of the women's "liberation" movement are everywhere -- from the epidemic of single motherhood, the breakdown of the American family, the street vernacular of "bitches and hos," the emasculation of men to and the bone-crushing responsibility of being mother, father, breadwinner, chief cook, and bottle-washer. Having it all, indeed.
Caroline Glick has a great article, "The feminine deception", which explores this in great detail. Here's an excerpt:
read the whole thingSince the height of the feminist movement in the late 1960s, non-leftist women in the West and Israel have been hard-pressed to answer the question of whether or not we are feminists. Non-leftist women are opposed to the oppression of women. Certainly, we are no less opposed to the oppression of women than leftist women are.
But at its most basic level, the feminist label has never been solely or even predominantly about preventing and ending oppression or discrimination of women. It has been about advancing the Left's social and political agenda against Western societies. It has been about castigating societies where women enjoy legal rights and protections as "structurally" discriminatory against women in order to weaken the legal, moral and social foundations of those societies.
That is, rather than being about advancing the cause of women, to a large extent, the feminist movement has used the language of women's rights to advance a social and political agenda that has nothing to do with women. So to a large degree, the feminist movement itself is a deception.The deception at the heart of the feminist movement is nowhere more apparent than in the silence with which self-professed feminists and feminist movements ignore the inhumane treatment of women who live under Islamic law. If feminism weren't a hollow term, then prominent feminists would be the leaders of the anti-jihad movement.
Liberal men also falsely claim to care about women's issues, when the simple fact of the matter is that the leftist male has been instrumental in the destruction of the well being of women everywhere. Robin of Berkeley has an excellent article, "The Left's Sexual Terrorism", which clearly illustrates this truth. I highly recommend that you read the whole thing; here are some excerpts:
...The radicals are experts at controlling women. They've been dominating their own women for decades. To say that the Left is a safe harbor for women is to misunderstand their roots.
The women's movement arose partly because women were locked out of positions of authority in the antiwar and civil rights movements. Even more disturbingly, women were brainwashed to believe that their main duty was sexual. As civil rights activist Stokely Carmichael infamously phrased it, "The role of women in the movement is prone."
When SDS member Marilyn Webb dared to stand up at the National Mobilization Committee to advocate for women's rights, she was laughed off the stage with catcalls and cackles of "Take it off" and "Take her off the stage and f**k her." After her appearance, her life was threatened.
I honestly cringe every single time an otherwise sensible woman who is genuinely concerned for the welfare of women and girls describes herself as a "feminist" because feminism is truly anathema to any true regard for the female condition. For this reason, I suggest a new word to describe women who actually DO care about women's issues and are not afraid to embrace the virtues and power that come with womanhood: femininican - a combination of feminine and "I can", because feminism is all about "I can'ts" with their restrictive adherence to cultural marxism, perpetual insistence on victim status, and placing limitations on what girls and women may aspire to.My personal theory: Many women in the movement never recovered because they had their souls crushed. Radical women sold their bodies, and their souls, for the revolution.
Hippie chicks said yes to antiwar men who said no. Then there were the communist white girls who slept with black boys to entice them into Marxism. (Was Obama's mother encouraged to be one of them?)
The more extreme sects forced their women to do all sorts of heinous acts, both sexual and violent. When Charles Manson ordered his women to have sex with various men for free rent and other favors, the women obeyed. The Weather Underground leaders required members to have anonymous sex in order to destroy their humanity.
Bill Ayer's girlfriend, Weather Underground member Diana Oughton, transformed from an ebullient young woman to an emaciated zombie. She was killed when a nail bomb she was building exploded, demolishing a Greenwich Village townhouse.
Today's Leftists no longer walk the streets of Oakland in military garb, and they don't blow up ROTC buildings. Now they hold the highest positions in the land. But underneath their three-piece suits, they still resemble the radicals of old.
Like their forefathers, they not only fail to protect women, but they put women in harm's way. Case in point: the Left's support for radical Islam, a culture tantamount to slavery for women. And a new generation of leftist women participate in their own destruction.
Why wouldn't the Left align themselves with an ideology which shrouds women in a burqa and requires their total subservience to men? Isn't absolute obedience the Left's endgame?
The Left has no qualms about using guerrilla tactics that would be anathema to any moral person. They "Alinsky" opponents through marginalizing, ridiculing, and dehumanizing. But for women, the Left's arsenal sinks deeper and darker.
The radicals -- both men and women -- utilize a form of domestic terrorism which could have been designed by Lucifer, the fallen angel whom Alinsky idolized.
Their weapon? Sexual terrorism.
As a femininican I proudly proclaim that:
- I CAN embrace the biological gifts that I am endowed with, I CAN be beautiful and alluring, I CAN respect my body and embrace the possibility of motherhood within a loving and committed relationship to a respectful and honorable man.
- I CAN stand up and speak out against the oppression of my sisters around the world without fear of being 'politically incorrect' because I CAN recognize that abuse is always wrong regardless of who is perpetrating that abuse and that nobody who engages in abusive behavior should ever be spared from criticism or exempt from being brought to justice.
- I CAN raise my son to grow up to be honorable MAN and a responsible husband and father. My son will learn by watching his own father and by seeing how his own father is loved and respected by me.
- I CAN raise my daughter to value herself for the treasure that she is and to choose a mate wisely when she is older because she will have learned from her parents what it means to be in a traditional committed relationship where both man and woman respect each other and the unique gifts each has to offer the other.I CAN lead by example so that my daughter will understand through her witness the joy that comes with being a devoted wife and mother.
- I CAN aspire to achieve great things in my life for I am powerful by design and do not need to be 'empowered' by any false ideology which actually enslaves.
- I CAN respect and admire MEN who represent the traditional ideals of masculinity; men who are brave, strong, responsible and honorable, men who admire and respect feminine women and are unafraid of truly loving them.
33 comments:
Thumbs and big toes up, Zilla ! The best post I`ve read on the subject, bar none !
Women have no idea all they`re giving up when they don the robe of feminism ! The very liberal feminist mother of one of my best buddies surprised me when she told me, "Women have ALL the power they could ever need already built in - if they only knew how to use it !"
Two questions:
Where were you just before I found "Gee, I sure THOUGHT she was Ms Right!" ? and the one I like to ask already married women who appear to be "The Complete Package" - "Do you have a sister ?"
Well done, keep it up, you`ll go far !
Amazing post! I too fell into the "feminine" baloney many years ago with the idea that like Jane Fonda said could "Have it all!" when what they truly meant was that I could DO it all....the cooking, cleaning; be the mom, wife and YES the breadwinner too! This fallacy of the idea that somehow women need to be saved by anyone is just horse manure. Women are some of the strongest creatures God ever made. And He did this on purpose. We NEED to be strong to do all the things we have to do. To have someone tell me that I need help is just ludicrous! I am not in need of anyone telling me anything. I know exactly who I am; I'm the glue that holds my family together; I'm the fixer of problems, the listener, the lover, mother and helper to my husband and family. No Jane Fonda or Gloria Steinem needs to tell me anything....or to handicap my sex by labeling me as anything at all. As for my role as a mother and wife; I'm extremely proud of those titles; and I dare anyone that has ever promoted abortion to look me straight in the eye and tell me why I would ever have wanted to abort my absolutely perfect kids.....the kids God gave me. Shame on all that think that they can tell women how we should feel and how we should act and yes; how we should be!
Now, as a woman who spent many years in the 1970s working to help women obtain the rights that we should have had all along, I feel I must comment on this post. First, feminisim did not begin as "a phony movement rooted in Marxist-Leninist ideology."
I remember when married women could not have a credit card in their own name. I remember when it was legal to not hire a woman just because you didn't like women. I remember when girls' sports were considered unworthy of respect. I remember when people said things casually in conversation such as, "Well, women can never equal men in brain power," or "Wome are unsuited to play classical music on the professional level," or "Real girls don't want to study science," and many more patently ridiculous statements.
It took years of effort to open the doors for women. It saddens me to see young women blowing off the effort and, yes, sacrifice it took to give them opportunities that we elders never had.
Now, to continue. I left NOW in the early 1980s because I saw that organization had drifted from what interested me. Instead of talking with women in hopes of persuading them that being hit was not a part of marriage, that they weren't bad women if they wanted a part-time job while their kids were in school, etc., I saw that if NOW discovered a woman standing over a dead man and in her hand was a smoking pistol, somehow it was his fault. I did not want to be a part of something the replaced one set of prejudices with another -- I did not and do not hate men.
I guess this shift is what you are complaining of -- my point is that just as I deeply respect the abolitionists who also worked for women's votes as well as the end to slavery and the suffragists who worked for an additional fifty years after "the Negro [man's] hour" to receive suffrage, I also respect the work of the feminists in the 1960s who gave time and effort to give women wider choices.
You don't have to respect me for the time I gave in the 1970s, but please, don't disparage me. Women would not have the choices that we now enjoy if it were not for the work of those who came before.
I find it sad that women who choose a traditional role and those who do untraditional activities are defacto enemies. No one ever wanted that. As for those who call themselves "feminists" today -- they have moved into a political ideology that I can't follow for many reasons.
But please, don't deride and reject all things feminist. There will come a time when we may need "strong-minded women" to rise again and take on the forces of real oppression. Don't hamper that effort - well, I guess I'm just saying it one more time -- you may not care for those who call themselves feminists today, but don't reject the long history of American women working to improve conditions for their daughters and grand-daughters and beyond.
Very good! It's good to read the opposite side of "feminism" ... Feminism should mean all things feminine, in my opinion.. and not a term at war with being feminine.
That's why we need a new word, Femininican!
check out Third Wave Feminists...different from first and second generation.
"Third-wave feminism's central issues are that of race, social class and sexuality. However, they are also concerns of workplace issues such as the glass ceiling, sexual harassment, unfair maternity leave policies,[20] motherhood—support for single mothers by means of welfare and child care and respect for working mothers and mothers who decide to leave their careers to raise their children full-time.
Third-wave feminists want women to be seen as intelligent, political beings with intelligent, political minds; some claim that there is a lack of diverse, positive female representatives in pop culture. They also bring attention to alleged unhealthy standards for women in media; the glamorization of eating disorders; the portrayal of women as sexualized objects catering solely to the man's needs, and anti-intellectualism."
I don't know if its about aligning with the Left, just issues that are humanistic (sociology, psychology, etc.)
Wikipedia
Bravo, Zilla! I learned a great deal from this post.
So, to be a modern feminist, a woman needs to first be ugly, and then be a nasty, sexless bitch with a chip on her shoulder, body odor and a disdain for men. I’m suspecting that this is a chicken-and-egg problem. Guys don’t usually stay around this type of woman very long, so maybe at its heart, feminism provides cover for women who are basically skanks. That means that they were skanks before they thought of joining the feminist movement and feminism sprang from skankiness.
However, there is also the possibility that women decided to become feminists first and were then required to adopt skanky behavior. That sounds somewhat self-defeating to me, since it would mean that they chose to be unhappy femi-nazis.
OK, I admit that I’ve interpreted what you said VERY loosely and that I’m cracking wise, but the points that you made were valid: I’m concluding that today’s feminist is a sick, destructive person.
I’m beginning to see why the feminist movement is faltering.
I have not heard the term "femisogyny" - yet it is exact in what it describes.
I never considered myself part of the feminist movement and it behooves me when women degrade either men and women to prove some sort of false liberality.
I once wrote an article regarding women respecting themselves and others, being honest and modest - less is more, but sadly these days it seems to fall on deaf ears. Good write up.
I have book marked you for future visits. Thanks for visiting me and taking the time to comment.
Anoy:
I am not sure that women would still be living in a world where credit cards were not allowed to women simply based on what you worked for in the 70's. The world has changed so much since then simply by virtue of women not getting married until later and many more women are in the workforce. These things would have come in time anyway.
It may not have been your philosphy, but to say that the philosphy to allow women to be more promiscious wasn't a big part of "feminism" simply doesn't match the facts. There has been an effort to make women believe that sexual freedom equates to freedom.
One needs to look no further than the kids who are paying the price for that feminism. Kids who are born to single mothers are much more likely to live in poverty and to repeat the cycle when they get older.
The sexual revolution did no favors to women or children. Like it or not, this was a large part of the rise of feminism.
@ Just a conservative girl
"I am not sure that women would still be living in a world where credit cards were not allowed to women simply based on what you worked for in the 70's. The world has changed so much since then simply by virtue of women not getting married until later and many more women are in the workforce. These things would have come in time anyway."
That's a pretty bold statement that is made without any sort of evidence. How do you account for the great amount of changes in regards to women's roles in business and gender roles in general from the 1950s to the 1980s? Why do you believe that many more women entered into careers despite the shortage of jobs during the '70s recession?
If this all would have simply happened anyway, as you claim, why did it happen specifically during the 1960/70s and not any other historical time period?
What are these specific social and economic factors that drive things in a way that the move toward women's equality just "would have come in time anyway,"-- defying the logic that a women's social movement brought about this specific social change (except for all things bad it seems-- single motherhood, the perceived emasculation of men, etc.)?
"One needs to look no further than the kids who are paying the price for that feminism. Kids who are born to single mothers are much more likely to live in poverty and to repeat the cycle when they get older."
Exactly how is feminism to blame for the majority of single mothers? Single mothers are a major problem within the American Black community. Is it because of the high degree of feminism within that community? Or is it because of something else... like a social welfare systems that allows "single mother" to be considered an occupation and encourages further unemployment?
Just a conservative girl,
I was hoping a strong, intelligent young lady would bring some clarity to the conversation !
Zilla, excellent piece. Also, to the Anons, I'm a bit curious why any woman proud of where she's been and who she now is would post as Anonymous?
I was a lefty feminist Democrat for 26 years. It informed ALL of me throughout my teens and into my 30s. Feminism, which is part and parcel of the Sexual Revolution, is a lot like unionism and the Industrial Revolution. It was a necessity when it came into being and then was co-opted and manipulated BY SOCIALISTS (in both cases) and turned into something dangerous, cancerous, and a threat to our civilization and society. Just as unions have brought whole states and now our republic to their knees, so has feminism wrought INCREDIBLE, permanent damage to men, women, 2 generations of children and our entire society. It did not have to be this way but the pendulum always swings too far. That is human nature - so is the drive for power and control over others. Specifically with feminism, it did some truly great things (my newly-divorced mother was one of the women to receive her first credit card in her own name in the 70s), but it has permanently damaged a lot of cultural institutions (men's athletics via the execrable Title IX), the entire field of psychology, government (via truly lunatic and incompetent women rising to power in the Democrat party) and obscenely expensive and culture-destroying social programs all of which are poster children for The Law of Unintended Consequences.
We will now spend the next 50 years trying to undo all the damage feminism, sexual politics, unions, etc., etc., etc., have wrought.
And I didn't leave feminism. It left me, when the nation's "feminists" defended a serial womanizer and rapist in the Oval Office against claims by many women, while they worked to personally destroy those women.
Feminists are the worst enemy women have ever had, other than Islam.
Anon, do your research. Feminism was started by marxists and much of feminist literature and established platforms are copied directly, verbatim, from the works of Karl Marx.
This is why there is marxist feminism, communist feminism, socialist feminism, eco feminism, post-modern feminism, and multiple racist feminisms, along with many more. ALL are based on the works of marxism.
Feminism is nothing more than another avenue of moral destruction, designed to tear at the fabric of moral, or religious society, destroying the family, and replacing these institutions with the all-powerful state - just as Zilla has shown. Many marxist efforts work to decouple people from rally points (such as family and religion), so that people adrift can then be attached to the "movement", usually for use as cannon fodder.
Peg C., excellent comment.
Curious, isn't it, how the behavior and treatment of women among those who are the most ardent public supporters of feminism resembles the sexual slavery of islam? Why, indeed, are not "feminists" in the forefront of the anti-jihad movement?
I strongly support this exciting new movement of femininicanism and am very excited by its exponentially meteoric rise in numbers and popularity.
Anything that makes you hate yourself is a lie regardless of what name it wears. Feminism, religion, society; all have colluded to enslave women to false ideas about who and what we are. Women are the most powerful creature the world has ever known and were we to fully realize our power and acknowledge the terrible devastation we have wrought on the world with our refusal to lay claim to it, we could correct the world within a single generation.
Single motherhood is a problem in all communities. Yes, it happens more frequently in the black community but other communties are certianly not immune to it. One big difference in the black community is that they tend be younger. Marriage is on the decline and divorce rates are high. Therefore making more single parents.
Everything reacts to the marketplace. The need for the two salary households generated many changes for women as they were out in the workforce and making money. More women are in college now than men. That wasn't something that seemed likely even 30 years ago. Sorry, but I don't think that is soley because of the women's movement of the sixties and seventies. Ecomonic realities had something to do with it as well.
Do you think that there wouldn't have been more parody in womens sports at the college level without title XI once the women outnumbered the men? Of course it would. Marketplace ecomonic principles would have be ignored in order to say that it wouldn't.
The movement in the sixties and the seventies was mostly about sexual freedom. It is not accident that Roe V. Wade allowed abortion during that same time period. Feminism is so more then having multiple sex partners and getting abortions.
The Feminists of the 70's sold women a bill of goods that we could have it all. It never talked about how our children would suffer while we out pursuing it. It didn't talk about the emotional issues that arise from having abortions. It didn't talk about STD's. It didn't talk about how stay at home moms are supposed to feel ashamed even though that is her choice.
It also didn't talk about the women who want and education but believed in a different philosphy and how they are considered to less than. My Gosh, the President of NOW said Sarah Palin may as well be a man. It is all about abortion and liberal philoshpy.
If I have to buy into that, I will forgo feminism. I am not saying that Steniem & Co. didn't give me more options, they did. What I am saying is that some of the options came from economics realities and the need for the two incomes.
Brilliant piece Zilla keep shouting it girl!
@ Just a conservative girl
72% of Black babies are born to single mothers. This far higher then any other American-recognized race. Hispanics (far too general a group but still...) are at 53%, white 29%, Asian 17%. If 70s feminism was truly the cause of this problem it stands to reason that groups that embraced that form of feminism would have the highest percentages of single parent babies. But they don't. Clearly a different factor is at work.
"Everything reacts to the marketplace. The need for the two salary households generated many changes for women as they were out in the workforce and making money. More women are in college now than men. That wasn't something that seemed likely even 30 years ago. Sorry, but I don't think that is soley because of the women's movement of the sixties and seventies. Ecomonic realities had something to do with it as well."
Certain things may react to the marketplace (certainly not everything), but it definitely is not a one way street in which all of society is defined by economics. The marketplace reacts to social change, adapting itself to changes within society. This is a fundamental law within economics. You describe a system in which the marketplace decrees reality (the advent of modern women's rights). That is far too simplistic.
"Do you think that there wouldn't have been more parody in womens sports at the college level without title XI once the women outnumbered the men? Of course it would. Marketplace ecomonic principles would have be ignored in order to say that it wouldn't."
You espouse marketplace economic principles and then ignore them. What percentage of income from college sports comes from women's sports as opposed to men's? How much comes from football alone? Does is not make economic sense to fund sports which create a profit as opposed to less popular women's sports that often lose money?
More parity (not "parody") in women's sports would not be achieved by simple demographics in college attendance. Demographics does not equal markets. Who is in the stands of most colleges' sporting events? Female students?
You consistently confuse the sexual revolution with the women's movement, going so far as to say "Feminism is so [no?] more then having multiple sex partners and getting abortions." Did you really mean that? It's a ridiculous statement, if you did.
The Women's Movement and feminism did not begin in the 1960s. At some point NOW and various other mainstream feminist groups were completely taken over by Leftist ideologues promoting socialist beliefs. This does not mean that all all historical feminist ideals and beliefs are products of Leftist agendas. It is important to differentiate between feminism, Leftist-corrupted feminism, and the Sexual Revolution (which overlapped with but was not the same thing as feminism).
How many women are in Congress now as opposed to let's say 1955? What are the market forces that allowed for that? Do you believe it's a fluke that Jeanette Rankin was elected during the Women's Suffrage movement?
How many women governors were there before the feminist movement (the answer is 3-- all from 1925-1933) and how many after? What economic principles allowed women to suddenly be elected to positions following 1967? What market factors kept them out from 1934 to 1967? Were there no qualified candidates in that time?
It's silly to disregard the Women's Movement when so much change coincides with that time period and with the movement's goals. This was not simple coincidence and vaguely defined economic forces.
"Powerful by Design"
You should print up some t-shirts with that phrase on them.
I could think of some other qualities which are also by design and I am sure you can too. Those could be added for variety :-)
Personally, I would focus on the things that the veil is supposed to grant to Muslim women (since you mention their plight.) Things like dignity, respect, honor etc. All of these things are included in a woman's makeup by design also. No piece of cloth can give a woman more of these. No absence of a piece of cloth can take them away. It is insulting to women to imply that they cannot be respected for who they are, or be appreciated for their minds unless they shroud themselves first, as if their finer qualities are just not powerful enough to impress on their own without artificial assistance.
(Sorry to rant a little bit, but I saw a woman with her face covered yesterday and it always makes me want to vent :-))
Peggy38,
I saw a pic in the last couple days of a muslim woman, well, her eyes at least...beautiful eyes, with makeup, but not the Tammy Faye treatment ! The story implied that some muslim men find even that too provacative and perhaps even punishable ! (?)
Add to that, the recent story of a husband who couldn`t ID his dead wife, who had bourne him 5 children, until she was covered all but her eyes ! (?)
Go ahead, rant and vent to your heart`s desire !! :-))
I agree with SPG, Peggy38, you make excellent points and I gladly welcome you to rant here any time you like!
Sorry I have been largely out of the very interesting conversation that you all have been having here. I have been reading all comments but usually when I make ready to post, something at home comes up. Such is life with little kids around!
I wrote this because I am sick and tired of hearing from the left that if you are not a pro-abortion liberal that you are somehow anti-woman (even if you are female) while in the mean time the silence from these very same critics who claim to 'care' about women's issues are completely silent about the horrors of shariah or the consequences of the promiscuity that their 'sexual revolution' has ushered in.
They say you can't be a 'feminist' if you value life, honor marriage and choose to stay home to raise your children. To that I say "fine", I don't want to be a feminist if it means despising the very things inherent in my femininity and rejecting traditional family values, so I reject the 'feminist' label and proudly announce that I am a FEMININICAN!
Excellent word coinages be happnin` at the Resistance Ranch there Zilla ! "Femininican" should become a regular part of the Resister`s daily lexicon and perhaps it will find its way into our cultural dictionaries !
Fine job Zilla ! Good Mommy !
@ MJ
You wrote:
"They say you can't be a 'feminist' if you value life, honor marriage and choose to stay home to raise your children. To that I say 'fine', I don't want to be a feminist if it means despising the very things inherent in my femininity and rejecting traditional family values, so I reject the 'feminist' label and proudly announce that I am a FEMININICAN!"
I'm not sure simple rebranding is really the way to go about this. It seems to be essentially running from the issue, isolating yourself with a new title, and allowing the Left to corrupt and re-write the argument and the labels as they will.
Why allow the Left to take control of the title of feminist? Why allow the modern Left to take credit for women's sufferage, for the advancement of women's rights in this country? Why allow the Left to control the argument with labels rather than historical facts?
I think a better strategy is to attack the Left's attempts to corrupt the title, to demonstrate the blatant hypocrisies that arise when forcing together the principles of female self-determination with the massive amounts of conformity required by the Left's political agendas.
I think most women in this country are fed up with the twisting moral acrobatics required to keep feminism in-line with Leftist revolutionary agendas (blanket support for Muslims despite their, at times, atrocious views regarding women for instance).
What's needed is a to illustrate how modern conservatism has grown out and adapted itself according to the feminist moevement (Condaleeza Rice, Sarah Palin [BTW this is onw reason why Palin scares the Left so much and why she must be politically destroyed by them], Michelle Bachman, etc.) and how Leftism simply attempts to usurp credit and exploit the issues for their own political agendas.
Re-labeling and simple blame for the world's ills on a revisionist idea of feminism doesn't accomplish this, nor does it advance your views.
Thanks! Feminists are no champions of women, in fact they are the exact opposite. It saddens me when I see women who should know better call themselves feminists.
Great post, Zilla! I couldn't agree more. Feminism is anathema to everything I believe.
Thanks for reading it, Mike!
Very good Mrs. Zilla. Thanks for leading me to this article.
Sounds also like "Dominican" and Lord knows, to me those nuns are the epitomy of Great Women.
Even better!
________________________________
Verrry interesting blog you have here. I shall give it a further read, and probably give it a writeup and link.
~Fidelbogen~
counterfem.blogspot.com
" I remember when it was legal to not hire a woman just because you didn't like women.".
And this was a bad thing, in your opinion? Why should employers not be able to hire who they like, or not hire who they don't like?
"Exactly how is feminism to blame for the majority of single mothers? "
Feminists have been preaching the destruction of marriage and family, and rubbishing fathers, for years. So I would say that "feminism" is implicated up to its ears.
Than k you! I've just been over to your place looking around & like what I see there, too! I'm adding counterfem to my blogroll. Thank you for stopping by and reading one of the posts here that I am most proud of.
So true my friend.
Bob A.
Post a Comment