Thursday, July 23, 2009

Feminism and Socialism

Kathleen Parker simultaneously answers the question as to why feminism's pink is so red and does a fine job of confronting the elephant in the room....

When you start talking about family values as a defense against totalitarianism, you risk being dismissed as reactionary.... As it happens, the brand of feminism that insisted equality could be achieved only by women evacuating the home and outsourcing child care found common cause with Communist ideology. Breaking up the family was not incidental but central to [Communism's] ideology and was one of the main ideas upon which Lenin insisted most strongly. Karl Marx and Frederich Engels were unsubtle, if also incoherent, when they wrote, "Abolition of the family!" as a central plank in the Communist Manifesto.

Between weak families, absent fathers, a culture that sexualizes the innocent, and government bureaucracies that are designed to grow themselves, one doesn't have to be paranoid to envision a time when freedom as we have known it will be compromised beyond recognition....

As long as [men] are alienated from their children and treated as criminals by the family courts, as long as they are disrespected by a culture that no longer values masculinity tied to honor, and as long as [children] are bereft of strong fathers and our young men and women wage sexual war, then we risk cultural suicide.

More on Women in Combat

Kathleen Parker, syndicated columnist, mother, stepmother, H. L. Mencken Award winner, realist, and genuine woman, writes in her book Save The Males:

What has been presented as a matter of women's rights... distorts the purpose of the military. What we are sacrificing in the push to satisfy [feminist] goals of absolute equality is the reality of what it takes to prevail against real enemies in war and to save real lives. We have allowed ourselves to enter a pretend world where what is false is true - and we have turned a blind eye to the consequences in the name of equality.

The fundamental falsehood that increasingly drives military policy and begs urgent correction is that women and men are interchangeable and equally qualified in all areas of military service. We know this isn't true as a matter of observation and common sense, but it has become easier to pretend otherwise - or simply to avert our gaze from the hippopotamus in the powder room. To suggest that women don't belong in combat these days is to risk being labeled a misogynist throwback and invite assault from the PC police. But there are objective reasons to keep women off the front lines and the sexes apart in basic training and other areas. The first reason is physical, and the rest have to do with male traits and behavioral differences that are rooted in our genetic makeup....

Through some slight of mind, women dying [in the current wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, who are not in combat positions, but are in danger due to the lack of clear boundaries between combatants and non-combatants in these anti-terror wars,] has been construed as evidence of women's qualifications for combat. The thinking seems to be that if they're already in combat situations - [i.e.,] if they are already dying and being wounded - any argument against their being included in ground troops is so much rhetoric. By that logic, children may as well be allowed to play in the streets, since so many of them are getting hit by cars anyway....

...[P]utting women in and near combat requires a denial of sex differences that could put both men and women at greater risk. Women are at greater risk because they have diminished capacity for survival, and men because having to fight alongside fellow comrades who aren't equal to the task increases the likelihood that they themselves will be killed. To insist that men pretend women are their equals, meanwhile, only engenders disrespect and resentment.

See my article on why women should not be in combat positions for objective arguments on the issue, which are far less philosophically cogent than Parker's statement here.

Feminism: A Philosophy of the Mindless

"There is an ideological commitment to the notion that any differences occurring between males and females represent a failure of society to create equal and perfect opportunities for everyone so that the sexes will end up the same. This is a mindless concept."

Lionel Tiger, Charles Darwin Professor of Anthropology, Rutgers University

Wednesday, July 22, 2009

Book Review: The Politically Incorrect Joke Book

It used to be that a lot of foolishness was avoided because people knew that if you believed in a flat earth or went around spouting nonsense, others would make fun of you.

At some point, it became inappropriate to mock those whose beliefs are foolish and wrong, and that, of course, contributed to the spread of beliefs that were both foolish and wrong.

Never has this been more obvious than in the West's adoption of so-called "Political Correctness." Political Correctness is, of course, the idea that certain things are not allowed to be expressed publicly - not because they are wrong, because they are manifestly NOT wrong - but because the expression of certain truths might "create a hostile environment" or "hurt someone's feelings."

So foolishness is now the reigning philosophy across the West, as evidenced by the fact that we now live in a world in which a personage as vacuous and empty as Oprah Winfrey can be the most powerful single influence in the United States.

Enter The Politically Incorrect Joke Book. At roughly 120 pages it is jam-packed with a humor that is both sophisticated and properly base. I say properly base because the ideas that it mocks are not worthy of anything other than sheer mockery and utter derision.

And everybody who deserves it gets it - from the feminists who simultaneously say that women are capable of doing anything men can do (and then lobby legislators to have standards lowered so they can do what men are already doing) to the lawyers who are responsible for the spread of and institutionalization of political correctness (Q: What do you call a dishonest lawyer? A: "Your Honor.").

This book has it all, from riddles, jokes, definitions, aphorisms, light-bulb jokes, and the chapters on Pollack jokes and the Police are beyond priceless.

And the jokes about feminists... Oh, my. Both side-splitting and full of insight.

Q: How many feminist presidential candidates does it take to change a light bulb?

A: It's going to be dark for the next four years, isn't it?

This book is NOT for the faint of heart, and it is decidedly a work for ADULTS. If you are easily offended, you will be offended on every single page. And if you are a limp-wristed, pantywaisted, bedwetting liberal, you will think that this book was offered by the Antichrist himself.

But then, I think that was the point of the endeavor.

Most valuable, in my opinion, is the introduction, which is decidedly NOT funny, but is rather a very intellectual defense of the need to mock political correctness. The thinker in the author is here on display, and the effect of the intellectual jousting of the introduction coupled with the (sometimes juvenile) rough-and-tumble of the humor itself makes this an awe-inspiring offering.

I can honestly say that The Politically Incorrect Joke Book has something for everyone. It would be appreciated both by William F. Buckley and conversely, by Beavis and Butthead.

What more could you ask for?


Reviews of The Politically Incorrect Joke Book:

"Funnier than a screen door on a submarine" - Dave Cannon.

"Outrageous humor with a flair for the intellectual" - Bud J.

"The closest thing to the Comedy Zone in paperback" - Anne C.

Tuesday, July 21, 2009

Palin Endorsed by NOW President

Well, it was bad enough when she was chosen with so little experience to be a VP candidate, putting someone with the executive experience of a local mayor in the path to become the President of the USA (let's not be ungenerous - that still is exponentially more experience than Barack Obama has!). I held my tongue and at least thought, "She has the right sort of beliefs."

But does she? During the campaign she self-identified herself as a feminist. And she gives a position of honor to a radical feminist who endorses her personally?

A quitter with no experience who simultaneously claims to represent "family values" and "feminism" who seems pleased to accept the endorsement of the singular most radically destructive organization in the country?

Palin won't get my vote in 2012, or at any other time.