Card Carrying Feminists vs. Reality

I just read this posting, which lead me to this one. The latter one is from a very unhappy woman who deeply believes she is a true feminist. She's extremely unhappy because the Canadian 'Best Feminist Blog' award didn't go her way. Here's a sampling (language warning) :

Within hours, sda received a slew of nominations from her tongue-lolling, crotch-scratching fans. Other rightwing female bloggers were nominated, albeit without the attendant frenzy of the admirers that sda commands who rushed the CBA site like so many grotty little boys comparing the length of their posts and the ejaculatory reach of their verbosity. All deleted now by a CBA moderator who had to dip her laptop in bleach after that little display of frothing fannitude for sda.

To this woman I just had to share my thoughts:

A Little Background . . . I'm one of those metrosexual guys who has always believed in and advocated for full equality for women and minorities throughout my life. Within my technology company I've hired people from around the world, including many women. Gender, race, skin colour, sexual preference - none of these things mattered one whit in terms of hiring or promotion. There was zero discrimination. In fact, women often have the more senior management roles and often the highest salaries! In my professional life there has never been a feminist agenda per say, but rather just a glorious meritocracy.

So for me the word "feminist" has always meant "equality for women", which is the original & proper meaning, is it not?

How naive I was to think that everyone still shared this definition. The recent U.S. election revealed a dirty little secret about card carrying feminists, didn't it? The infamous posting of the CBC's Heather Mallick showed a deep-seated HATRED (there's no other suitable word) toward Sarah Palin and women like her. And why? Because she's a strong proponent of the Pro-Life Movement and a Republican. Wow, what a horrible person!!

I actually don't share Palin's beliefs on abortion but do recognize them as being morally consistent. So while I don't agree with the 'no exceptions' views of Pro-Lifers, I do respect them.

It seems crystal clear that you and your like-minded readers have a long road to walk before you will ever understand that "feminism" simply doesn't equate to "pro-Abortion". The fact that you deeply believe that a feminist MUST be vociferously pro-Choice is a mystery I'll leave for Sherlock Holmes to unravel.

Another mystery is why you believe that feminists can ONLY have Radical Left political views? "Socialism is the only path to set us free, sisters" ? ! ?

The 3rd Requirement in the Trilogy for Card Carrying Feminists seems to be a certain degree of antipathy toward men, especially if they're Caucasian. If you think I'm exaggerating then you really need to hire a different polling firm.

So in summary, there are you you and your ilk who believe that Feminism means:

• Pro-Choice (anytime, anywhere)
• Radical Left political views
• A little or a lot of dislike towards men
  

Then there's the rest of us. Thank goodness there's the rest of us!

Until you realize how far off the rails your movement has veered, you will never be able to grasp why women like Sarah Palin, Kate McMillan, Michelle Malkin, Amy Alkon, Laura Ingraham, and Patricia Heaton are the TRUE feminists of the New Millennium.

The "Hate Men" Agenda is Alive & Well in California

One of my regular correspondents has provided me with two preliminary photos from his school, the University of California in Santa Barbara (UCSB). With apologies for the poor photo quality, here is an example of the degrading propaganda that male students (and female students) must endure on a regular basis there:

In case you couldn't read the words, here are two choice quotations:

• "Male privilege is being proud of not raping anyone while failing to take action to change men who do."
  
  
• "Male privilege is getting paid more for the same job."

One cannot read such hateful vitriol without reflecting on Barbara Kay's recent column on the myths of male violence toward women. The whole problem with the Radical Left agenda being practiced at UCSB is that it promotes all women as victims and all men as potential rapists, but guilty regardless. If you think this has no effect on twisting the minds of vulnerables souls then let's not forget this woman in Calgary.

Please read Barbara Kay's column and then look at those photographs again.

---

Further to this, imagine if similar groups launched a campaign against the "sins" of white males. Would it be very difficult to imagine slogans like these:

• "White male privilege is being proud of not ever hanging a black man from a tree but failing to actively ensure that no white men ever do so again."
  
  
• "White male privilege is getting paid more for the same job than minorities. Disclaimer: This comment does not apply to Asian men & women."
  
  
• "White male privilege is feeling comfortable that you can date women of any ethnicity but not feeling guilty about the challenges faced by your minority brothers to date white women."
  
  
• "White male privilege is feeling good to be alive while failing to spend every waking moment atoning for the sins of your fathers, grandfathers, great-grandfathers, and every damn male in your family before that!"
  

Radical Leftist Exposed

I thought I had heard some crazy things before but this surely takes the gold medal prize. Scroll down and listen to the audio recording. So much incredible anger in that woman! You can visit her website here.

The Twisted Mental Juxtapositions of the Radical Left

If you'd like to see a textbook example of how a Radical Leftist can twist any circumstances to suit their own narcissistic world view, then read this little ditty by Susan Cole. Here are some choice bits:

Last Tuesday, just seconds before going on air to do a news opinion spot, I was handed a poppy to wear so I could mark Remembrance Day. On instinct, I declined.

Speaking as a Jewish woman, I'm grateful that Hitler was defeated in World War II. But there's something about Remembrance Day ceremonies that disturb me. They seem to be only about one thing – celebrating the soldiers ... and the young men who made the so-called ultimate sacrifice had no control over whether they would go and where they would do battle.

Let's be clear about something. Ms. Cole is the descendant of the Jewish people who were methodically exterminated by Hitler's nightmare. The soldiers she's referring to were young Canadian men who risked everything - and often lost everything (what she despicably calls the "so-called" ultimate sacrifice) - in order to stop Hitler from killing ALL of her ancestors. Yet she can't get herself to show even an ounce of gratitude.

To put this in a modern context, imagine Ms. Cole and her family trapped in a high-rise building that's on fire. Firemen would come from several firehouses to reach them. While everyone else is running out of the building, these brave firemen would be running into it. Imagine these men getting the Coles safely out of the building but in the process a few firemen die.

Upon the 1-year anniversary of the fire, Susan Cole would be invited to speak at the commemoration. But rather than thanking those who saved her life and those of her family, instead she would glare into the eyes of the surviving firemen and the families of the deceased and lecture them on sexual discrimination in their profession and pay equity issues.

This is what goes on in the mind of today's Radical Leftist.

---

It wasn't too long ago that Cole was embarrassing herself on another front.

Is Sarah Palin an Anti-Feminist?

Earlier today I was referred to this editorial from Ann Althouse's popular blog. To it I added this comment:

If I happen to not hate Sarah Palin does that make me a “troll” by your way of thinking? Put another way, all of you are of course free to think any way you wish (as am I), but thinking the way you do, are you open to actually listening to others who happen to have another point of view?

Here are two interesting articles that I found most enlightening:
http://www.salon.com/opinion/paglia/2008/09/10/palin/index.html
http://www.aei.org/publications/filter.all,pubID.28410/pub_detail.asp

Compare those with these:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/eve-ensler/drill-drill-drill_b_124829.html
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2008/09/05/f-vp-mallick.html

If you still choose to label me as a troll, simply because I very politely and respectfully chose to post this then that’s your prerogative. It would be sad though.

Someone with the moniker of "JPlum" responded with this:

Robert, we have listened to other points of view, and disagreed with them. Reality, in fact, disagrees with Paglia’s opinion that Palin is a feminist. You see, feminists advocate for the rights of women. Palin advocates taking away the rights of women. Therefore, she is not a feminist. How many times do we have to say this? Opposing policies and funding that would help women is the antithesis of feminism. Palin opposes policies and funding that would help women. Therefor she is the antithesis of feminism.

I could say that you, Robert, are a turnip. Does that make you a turnip? Do you possess many-or any-of the qualities that make up a turnip? No? Then, I could call you a turnip ‘til the polar bears come home* and it wouldn’t actually turn you into a turnip.

*Ssince Sarah Palin wants to take polar bears off the endangered species list, we could be waiting a while for them to come home

To that I responded with this, which I felt I should repost here:

Thank you for your thoughtful response, JPlum. Consider this though: Your political views assert that more government funded programs are the answer to solving problems. Fair enough. But others just as sincerely believe that such programs are unnecessary and, in fact, often have the opposite effect. You have every right to disagree with such people and believe that your way is the better way. But then to go the extra step and conclude that therefore such people don't care about 'X' or want to take away the rights of 'X' is a logical leap of faith that is not warranted.

I'll give you a good case in point. Checking out my blog you would have learned that I'm a Canadian living in Vancouver, BC. We're currently engaged in our own federal election these days.

One of the parties asserts that the best way to provide low-cost childcare is to create government funded childcare programs to which any family (no means test) can take their children to for less than $10 per day. There's only so much money available for this, so once the funds are spent, no more families will be eligible.

Another party doesn't think such a program is equitable because it provides no funding for families who choose for either the mother or the father to stay at home with the children until they enter school. So they've decided to give money directly to all parents, totaling a budget amount that's comparable to what the first party wanted to spent on their program.

A 3rd party may come along and feel that current funding for current health care and education is also strapped and choose to increase the budgets of these existing programs instead of creating a new childcare program. Or perhaps they feel that with a rapidly growing elderly population, more money needs to go to low income seniors instead of to families where both parents are still of working age.

Like you, I would have my own opinion on which party's platform makes the most sense but perhaps unlike you, I would never say that any are "taking away the rights of children or parents". It makes for a great soundbite but only goes to stifle debate.

Here's another example. I frequently visit Chicago. I have a good friend there named Melissa who has been a registered Democrat all of her adult life. We've often discussed the massive ghettos that exist on the Southside of Chicago. She carefully explained to me the history of how they got to the abysmal state they're now in. Back in the 1960's well meaning politicians felt that the poor needed to be provided for. So they built huge apartment complexes which later became known as "The Projects". Apartments were provided at low or even no cost. Over time they deteriorated so badly that now many are being demolished.

Why did this happen? I think it can be summed up in one word: Incentive. More accurately, the lack thereof. If you give someone something for nothing and continue to do it over time, most people take it for granted. This is because you've taken away any incentive for them to try harder, work harder, and strive for more. I'm not a particularly religious person but there's an old parable that is quite apropos: "Give a man a fish and he'll eat for a day (and be back again tomorrow looking for another fish). But teach a man to fish and he'll eat for a lifetime."

I realize that some consider this parable to be a fallacy. I, on the other hand, adamantly believe it is the cornerstone of human psychology.

In case you're interested, I passed on our conversation to a female friend of mine here in Vancouver. She's 46, a single mom, upper-middle class but not wealthy. In times past I've heard her describe herself as a strong feminist, but not a radical one. Her words, not mine. She's no fan of Sarah Palin (or Barack Obama) but is adamant that Palin is just as much a feminist as you or she is.

I can only conclude therefore that what you're really against is Sarah Palin's more libertarian views on the size and breadth of government. In the democracies we both live in you have absolutely every right to oppose her political views. In fact, I sincerely compliment you for exercising your democratic rights. But when you then jump the shark and assert that she is not a feminist, you choose to stray far away from what this woman has actually accomplished in her life and how much inspiration she is giving little girls to aspire to be anything they want to be.

The Roots of Palin Derangement Syndrome

On August 1, 2008, long before Sarah Palin became a national figure, an academic & author named Christina Hoff Sommers authored this lengthy but fascinating essay that documents the history of feminism and how it has evolved (devolved?) into its current state.

She was vilified in despicable ways by the same feminists for the same reasons they attack Palin: both women do not subscribe to the extremely radical left-wing views of the "official" feminist movement.

Her essay is indeed a long one but well worth reading if you want to understand what is fueling PDS. Here are some key parts:

Pick up a women's studies textbook, visit a college women's center, or look at the websites of leading feminist organizations, and you will likely find the same fixation on intimate anatomy combined with left-wing politics and a poisonous antipathy to men. (Campus feminists were among the most vocal and zealous accusers of the young men on the Duke University lacrosse team who were falsely indicted for rape in 2006.)

But modern "women's liberation" has little to do with liberty. It aims not to free women to pursue their own interests and inclinations, but rather to reeducate them to attitudes often profoundly contrary to their natures. In "Professing Feminism: Education and Indoctrination in Women's Studies (2003)", two once-committed women's studies professors, Daphne Patai and Noretta Koertge, describe how the feminist classroom transforms idealistic female students into "relentless grievance collectors."

In 1991, the culture critic and dissident feminist Camille Paglia put the matter even more bluntly. She described women's studies as

a jumble of vulgarians, bunglers, whiners, French faddicts, apparatchiks, dough-faced party-liners, pie-in-the-sky utopians and bullying sanctimonious sermonizers. Reasonable, moderate feminists hang back and keep silent in the face of fascism.

Truth be told, there are also great numbers of contemporary American women who would today readily label themselves as feminists were they aware of a conservative alternative in which liberty, rather than "liberation," is the dominant idea. Today, more than 70 percent of American women reject the label "feminist," largely because the label has been appropriated by those who reject the very idea of a feminine sphere.

In a 1975 exchange in the Saturday Review, the feminist pioneer Betty Friedan and the French philosopher and women's rights advocate Simone de Beauvoir discussed the "problem" of stay-at-home mothers. Friedan told Beauvoir that she believed women should have the choice to stay home to raise their children if that is what they wished to do. Beauvoir candidly disagreed:

No, we don't believe that any woman should have this choice. No woman should be authorized to stay at home to raise her children. Society should be totally different. Women should not have that choice, precisely because if there is such a choice, too many women will make that one.

In Beauvoir, we see how starkly the ideology of liberation has come to oppose actual, practical liberty--even "choice." Her intolerance and condescension toward family-centered women is shared by many in today's feminist establishment and has affected the education of American students. Historian Christine Rosen, in a recent survey of women's studies texts, found that every one disparaged traditional marriage, stay-at-home mothers, and the culture of romance. Perhaps there is a sensible women's studies text out there somewhere, but, for the most part, the sphere of life that has the greatest appeal to most women and is inseparable from traditional ideas of feminine fulfillment is rejected in the name of liberation.

Today's feminist establishment in the United States is dominated by the radical wing of the egalitarian tradition. Not only do its members not cooperate with their conservative sisters, but they also often denigrate and vilify them; indeed they have all but eliminated them from the history of American feminism. Revisionist history is never a pretty sight. But feminist revisionists are destructive in special ways. They seek to obliterate not only feminist history but the femininity that made it a success.

[Young women of the U.S. can] make the movement attractive once again to the silent majority of American women who really do not want to be liberated from their womanhood. And then take on the cause of the women who have yet to find the liberty that Western women have won for themselves and that all women everywhere deserve.

Eve Ensler - The Heather Mallick of the U.S.

If you'd like to see how deeply PDS has infected some, read this hate-filled diatribe by Eve Ensler. Seems to be reminiscent of her fellow deranged Canadian cousin, Heather Mallick.

Let me respond directly to some of the things she wrote:

I don't like raging at women. I am a Feminist and have spent my life trying to build community, help empower women and stop violence against them. It is hard to write about Sarah Palin. This is why the Sarah Palin choice was all the more insidious and cynical. The people who made this choice count on the goodness and solidarity of Feminists.
You claim to not like raging at women but then go on to spew more venom than even a King Cobra snake (or Queen Cobra if you prefer). You allude to the "goodness and solidarity of Feminists" before illustrating that there is no "goodness" in your hate piece whatsoever. The only solidarity that you & your ilk have is how much vile bile you can spew out at Sarah Palin and by extension any Americans who disagree with your narrow world view.


But everything Sarah Palin believes in and practices is antithetical to Feminism which for me is part of one story -- connected to saving the earth, ending racism, empowering women, giving young girls options, opening our minds, deepening tolerance, and ending violence and war.
You really mean "antithetical to Radical Leftist Feminism" but are too disingenuous to admit it. Sarah Palin is very much a feminist. Furthermore, using your own words, let's look at what you're really saying about Palin: She is trying to destroy the earth, in support of racism, disenfranchising women, giving young girls no options, closing the minds of fellow women, encouraging intolerance, and promoting violence and war.

Do you know the meaning of the phrase, "deep irony"? You're charging a woman who is running for vice-president of the United States of America as disenfranchising women and giving young girls no options? Even one of your gal pals, Judith Warner, has realized how incredibly incorrect your assertion is. Do you even realize, Ms. Ensler, that if you said this about a regular person that you'd be found guilty on multiple counts of libel?!? Indeed, "truth" is a defense, but you're not speaking on the side of truth.


I believe that the McCain/Palin ticket is one of the most dangerous choices of my lifetime, and should this country chose those candidates the fall-out may be so great, the destruction so vast in so many areas that America may never recover.
Such insane rhetoric has just guaranteed McCain-Palin more votes. Many more votes!


Sarah Palin does not much believe in thinking. From what I gather she has tried to ban books from the library, has a tendency to dispense with people who think independently.
No Ms. Ensler, YOU do not believe in independent thinking. She did not try to ban books from the library, no matter how many times you wish to repeat this lie. When it comes to asserting that someone else does not believe in thinking, 3 words come to mind: Pot, Kettle, Black.


Sarah believes in guns. She has her own custom Austrian hunting rifle. She has been known to kill 40 caribou at a clip. She has shot hundreds of wolves from the air.
Do you actually understand that your liberal elitist view that no American should be allowed to go hunting only exists amongst a radical minority in America? Your comment about her shooting wolves from the air is a LIE. The Alaskan Aerial Predator program was enacted to cull the wolf population (and bears in some areas) so as to expand the numbers of moose and caribou. Are you a moose-ist and caribou-ist, Ms Ensler? As for Sarah Palin killing "40 caribou at a clip", can we see the proof please?! Or did this vision of her only occur in your dreams? Ancillary question: Do you eat meat?


Sarah believes in God. That is of course her right, her private right.

But you don't like very much that she believes in God, do you Ms. Ensler? It's pretty scary for you that she does, isn't it?! Quick question: How come Barack Obama's Christian beliefs have never been a source of controversy?


Toward the end of her piece she epouses this great piece of wisdom:

If the Polar Bears don't move you to go and do everything in your power to get Obama elected then consider the chant that filled the hall after Palin spoke at the RNC, "Drill Drill Drill." I think of teeth when I think of drills. I think of rape. I think of destruction. I think of domination. I think of military exercises that force mindless repetition, emptying the brain of analysis, doubt, ambiguity or dissent. I think of pain.
I'm too busy shaking my head to say much. I guess being a former mining engineer makes me a rapist. At least in your tiny, extremely radical left-wing mind.

Wendy Doniger: Dumbest Quote Ever

From the same University of Chicago at which Michelle Obama "works", we get a Heather Mallick like hate piece from one Wendy Doniger, Professor of the History of Religions. Put on a venom proof suit and then read the full thing here.

The most telling proof of how unhinged Sarah Palin has made Ms. Doniger is the first line in this paragraph:

Her greatest hypocrisy is in her pretense that she is a woman. The Republican party's cynical calculation that because she has a womb and makes lots and lots of babies (and drives them to school! wow!) she speaks for the women of America, and will capture their hearts and their votes, has driven thousands of real women to take to their computers in outrage. She does not speak for women; she has no sympathy for the problems of other women, particularly working class women.

Jonah Goldberg had a great retort: "The left’s new position: Being homosexual is genetic. Being a woman is a choice."

George Jonas: The Matriarchy is Aghast (at Sarah Palin)

One of Canada's finest writers, George Jonas, rips apart the hypocrisy of the so-called "woman's movement" in this brilliant editorial.

My favourite lines were these:

• There are two kinds of feminists: Those who want to see the presidency available to women, and those who want to see the presidency available to card-carrying, licensed and agenda-certified female feminists.
• Ardent besiegers of the glass ceiling, who only a day before were set to eviscerate anyone who dared to suggest that women couldn't shift gears between career and family as smoothly as men, flooded the airwaves with crocodile tears of concern about the price Palin's children would have to pay for their mother's ambition.
• It was an amusing spectacle, enabling one to admire feminist gall and hypocrisy in equal measure.

But the comment that had me BURST OUT LAUGHING was this one:

To show herself equal to the task, Alaska's Governor told the Republican convention this week: "You know what's the difference between a hockey mom and a pitbull? Lipstick." Hmm. Cosmetics aside, a canine in the Oval Office might mean a mess on the carpet. Of course, so did an un-housebroken human.

If you don't know who he's referring to, I suggest you take a look at this picture.

VIC + PVS = Pathetic Disaster!

Someone recently directed me to this blog posting. It's a piece by writer, Amy Alkon. She shares her criticism of Radical Feminism and touches upon the proponents of this movement that perpetuate what she calls the "Victim Industrial Complex" (VIC). I had never heard this term before, but like it.

The all encompassing idea of VIC is that a huge swath of society are victims. Let's briefly explore the definition of this word:

vic·tim

noun
1.	an unfortunate person who suffers from some adverse circumstance
2.	a person who is tricked or swindled

Those who buy into the VIC view of the world adamantly maintain that ALL women and ALL children are victims. No harm actually ever has to come to one of these people. They're still regarded as a victim, whether they view themselves that way or not.

For every victim, there has to be an aggressor/perpetrator. If women & children are the victims then guess who the bad guys are? Excuse the obvious pun! But seriously, this does explain a lot about how such a mentality develops. I've met some women who live and breathe this stuff. The chips on their shoulders are so big that they must have severe back problems! About a decade ago I had experienced an unfortunate experience with one such woman and was talking with a psychologist friend of mine about her. He gave me the perfect line to use but I must admit I've not yet used it: "Just because you're a feminist doesn't prevent you from being an asshole!"

Long ago I invented a corollary to VIC called "PVS", which stands for "Permanent Victim Syndrome". I did so when I noticed that certain people I met were constantly feeling sorry for themselves, seemingly unable and/or unwilling to resolve the issues that were burdening them. They found it easier to always blame others or just "life" in general for all their woes. Only after I read The Celestine Prophecy did I learn that victims were on the other side of the same coin as aggressors in that both were using different techniques to the same effect: to manipulate others. This realization was a real wake-up call for me.