What About Moderate Feminists?

What exactly is a moderate feminist? Another person has, by way of analogy, alluded to "moderate Nazis," and while the average person who believes that The Daily Show and Oprah actually broadcast news might find that a tad illiberal, there is a kernel of truth to what he is saying.

The truth is, I can envision a member of the Nazi party who simply said, "You know, I love Germany. I am a nationalist and I think we need to get control of immigration. We need to rebuild the infrastructure of this country and this Adolf guy seems to be all over that stuff. I don't agree with everything he says, but he seems the only one who can drag us out of the economic morass we are in, so I voted for him, and joined the party - and the pay is good as a party member; lotsa opportunity! So I do it for my wife and kids."

He has no hatred of Jews; no desire to rule the world; doesn't approve of the use of corruption and violence as political tools - his agreements with the movement are entirely pragmatic.

But doesn't the presence of such a man in the Nazi party lend credence to its less noble goals? While HE sees National Socialism as a decision regarding infrastructure and national greatness, OTHERS see his participation in the movement as an implicit approval of the wider goals of the party. And let's not forget, that whether he agrees with Nazi goals or not, there is strength in numbers, and the party of the concentration camp is made stronger by his mere association with it.

But the real problem, it seems to me, is not that our mythical moderate is lending credence to something he doesn't agree with, but rather that to associate with a lie not believed is simply the calculating act of an evil person, and to believe less of a lie than someone else does not confer any amount of truth upon the original lie. All who believe a lie, even if they do so to varying degrees - nevertheless believe a lie! And all are morally culpable for choosing the lie - though they choose less of it than another - when the truth was apparent.



But if we could draw a line between "radical feminazis" and "moderate feminists," does anyone have any idea where that line would be drawn? Are there certain basic beliefs that a moderate feminist would have? Likely, in my opinion, she wants an expansion of or maintenance of abortion rights. Likely, she is on board with the Domestic Violence bandwagon - and even if she admits that men are often victims rather than perpetrators (an exceedingly moderate stance), she still likely agrees with the feminist definition of DV - including "failing to take another's feelings into account" or "trying to withhold money" or "being controlling" - and of course the idea that a person simply trying to look out for his own interests, balance his budget, or keep his wife from harming herself or leaving him are criminal deeds to be equated with assault and battery is part of the neurotic radicalism that is radical feminism, no?

As an aside, as a former resident of South Carolina, I have followed the Mark Sanford scandal with some interest, having been personally acquainted with him years ago. I notice that his wife kicking him out of the house and refusing to let him see his kids for a period of time while he took time to think through his adultery has not once even been suggested to have been Domestic Violence! Yet I have been in court and seen men have Domestic Violence Protective Orders continued against them for threatening to take the kids away, for threatening to leave, and even for trying to keep a woman from leaving him! Odd, no?

Or perhaps it isn't abortion or domestic violence: maybe it is wage equity that is the issue of "moderate feminists." First, since all reasonable people know that wage equity (at least in America) has already been achieved, focusing on this non-issue is much like focusing on Domestic Violence or Global Warming: throwing governmental money and power at a made-up issue in an attempt to expand governmental power. But that governmental power IS and WILL BE expanded: at the cost of discriminatory policies against men. Do "moderate feminists" find it OK that more highly-qualified men are routinely discriminated against so that less-qualified females can have jobs? Is that best for society? The client? The economy? The men and women involved?

Or maybe it is the family that is the issue? Perhaps the moderate feminist simply despises the male-headed home. She despises evangelical Christianity, the Patriarchy, traditional values - however she characterizes it - and feels that women are equally qualified to hold authority and lead the home. Now, of course, she feels this in direct opposition to the facts, since we all know that the plague of divorce is a female concoction (with 2/3 of all divorces - the vast majority utterly groundless - are initiated by women) and that children are harmed by growing up in a home headed by a woman alone. But of course, it is not the children or society or all the millions wasted on family lawyers or even the fact that eight years down the road she will call somebody like me and say, "You know, I thought I would be happier/married again/whatever if I left my husband, but looking back I see I destroyed the greatest situation I ever had." - no, it is not any of these things: for the stability of society and the good of children and even the truth itself are expendable so that a woman can get what she wants.

To say nothing of the fact that, if a woman truly feels she is competent to head a home (and consequently destroy it), there is a great harvest of manginas out there who would be more than glad to agree to such an arrangement. There is no need for a political movement legislating such - but you see, it is not her own freedom that the feminist desires (for she will gladly exchange "slavery" to her husband for "slavery" to the government!) - it is merely the unadulterated hatred of men and their authority that she despises. It is not her submission to a man (which would never occur) that she hates, it is the willing submission of other women - reminding her of her own neurotic fears of men, and illustrating that they are, in fact, neurotic fears, since women in male-headed homes seem to do quite well.

And every once in a while, the emotions begin to rear their ugly collective head, and these "moderate" feminists forget that the TV camera is on, and even such moderates as congregate in the Church of Oprah forget themselves and let the truth slip, showing the vicious hatred, the neurotic fear, the irrational departure from reality that is the feminist mindset - even among the more "moderate" of their ilk:

"You're trying to get your hunger needs met," Dr. Smith tells Melissa. "What are you hungry for? To be loved? To be cared for? To feel special? These are not things to be ashamed of. You're asking a great question: 'How can I stop this?'"

Dr. Smith says that a lot of young girls are treating their bodies like trash cans. "Trash cans for what? For boys' sperm. For boys' insecurities. The boys come and drop their trash in our bodies. … It keeps going until we decide that we aren't receptacles for garbage. That my body is a temple; it's sacred. … I'm not the place that boys come and drop their sperm, their insecurity so they can pump their muscles up as I shrink down into nothing."

Well, since Oprah Winfrey is the very definition of "feminist lite" or "moderate feminism," given this quote, can you tell me exactly what is the difference between a "moderate feminist" and "radical feminazi?"

Feminism in all of its strains is a neurosis - a mental illness - because it is at its root a departure from reality and a flight into neurotic fears ("all men are abusers/rapists")and neurotic fantasies ("I can do whatever a man can do so lower all the requirements to accommodate me!").

We are happy whenever we find a bipolar patient whose illness is under control. She is always better off than the person committed long-term who cannot even come outdoors and live life. But at the end of the day both are sick. Very sick. Painfully, woefully, and pitifully sick.

And these "moderate feminists," though they may be married, though they may spout platitudes about men being victims of domestic violence, and though they may sing in the choir at church, (and though, like our moderate Nazi above, they may preface every discussion of feminist ideology with the phrase: "Well, now I don't agree with THAT....") are just as surely living a neurosis - a reality constructed only in their mind - as are the more rabid radicals whose rite of passage is the abortion and whose worship service is The Vagina Monologues.

And who, exactly, is prepared to characterize the violent destruction of the human child, engaging in systematized perjury as a means of getting money (or one's way), the use of government force to deny opportunity to others, and the destruction of the family - the very foundation of society and the only truly safe place for women and children to dwell - as a position of moderation?

Calling All Anti-Feminists: Frequent Burger King!

Hardees/Carl's Jr. is to be commended for its series of commercials that help us appropriately objectify chicks over the last few years.

But because of this, we'll be eating at BK tonight!

Let's face it, sexism just tastes better. I mean, I get to have it MY way.

What's Really Behind the Domestic Violence Industry?

Modern feminism is powered by perjury.

Women's shelter's teach it, women propagate it, and the family court system indulges it. Of course, this is the reason why in most states a woman cannot be charged with perjury for anything that she alleges in a complaint to secure a Domestic Violence Protective Order.

Holding women accountable for telling the truth would be bad for two things: it would be "bad for business" for the Feminist False Allegations Industry and it would be bad for the feminist Myth of the Dangerous Beast Named Man.

"Domestic Violence" is a political crime of the nature of "Criticizing the Glorious Proletariat" in a Communist regime. It is vague, contradictory, and unconnected to real violence of any kind. It represents an offense to a viewpoint rather than an actually-definable crime.

People are alternately amazed, incensed, and incredulous when they learn that it is considered "domestic violence" to fail to take a woman's feelings into account, or withhold money from her, or make her feel that relationship problems are her fault.

Because, of course, rational people realize that quite often, an individual's feelings can't really define a course of action. Much more important issues such as morality, necessity, and opportunity sometimes dictate one's decisions, and our feelings - if we are mature adults (and this is the crux of the problem for spoiled feminists) - simply have to follow behind. What is claimed in court as "withholding money" can actually be a version of "what we can afford right now," and its opposite would sound like, Sure honey, feel free to bankrupt us! And to imply that making a woman feel that relationship problems are her fault is somehow a crime, is of course to deny that relationship problems can ever be a woman's fault - an irrational leap possible only for the same illogic that gives birth to modern feminism.

But too, the goal of the Feminist False Allegations Industry, whether domestic violence or "date rape" or sexual harassment or any of an endless number of manufactured offenses is concerned, is ultimately political. That is why, in family court, no matter what a man's testimony is, he simply can't win. If he works hard, he is neglectful of her needs and distant. If he spends time at home, he has failed to earn enough to provide a decent living for his wife.

The brazen, naked politics of the Domestic Violence Industry is made quite plain in the below quote:

"As a feminist sociology professor and a researcher with specializations in family studies and criminology in general and domestic abuse specifically, expert witness work on behalf of battered women has evolved naturally from my research, teaching and community work related to families, crime, and domestic abuse. I was able to read, teach, and research about domestic abuse – the politically motivated terrorism of women and children held hostage by batterers in our patriarchal social order – for only so long before I was compelled to act. I consider my expert witness work on battering and its effects as a form of feminist activism that follows naturally from the expertise I have gained as a researcher, teacher, and author of domestic violence. It is creative applied sociology."

These words were spoken by Ann Goetting, a professor of sociology at Western Kentucky University.

"Creative Applied Sociology," methinks, was once called "junk science."

Trudy Schuett on Women's Shelters

Women's shelters "often make the divorce process seem simple, even desirable. They don’t tell prospective clients that divorce can be emotionally and financially devastating, and in the cases where there are children, drag on for years of acrimony with effects extending outward to other family members and friends. We’ve seen cases where fictional abuse, contrived for the purposes of leverage in court, became a reality. Relatively minor cases of abuse, which might have been addressed had other ways been available, have become violent and out of control.

Divorce is seldom any kind of solution to the problem. Still, it is the only one offered.

Other dubious “services” provided by shelters include a barrage of feminist propaganda...."

See Trudy Schuett's three-part series on so-called "Domestic Violence Shelters."

The Real Child Abusers

"HHS studies report that 'children in mother-only households were three times more likely to be fatally abused [murdered] than children in father-only households. Females were 78% of the perpetrators of fatal child abuse [murder] and 81% of natural parents who seriously abuse their children.'”

F. Roger Devlin, "Rotating Polyandry - and its Enforcers," in The Occidental Quarterly.

Oprah.com: Hatred of Men, Mainstreamed!

It is often asserted that feminism is not about the hatred of men, but rather it is about improving the self-esteem and empowering women.

There is probably no type of feminism that is more "feminism-lite" than the daily stream of nonsense that flows from the Oprah Winfrey show. Oprah is, of course, the very definition of the mainstream.

How revealing, then, that such a vile exchange as the following would occur on her show, thereby demonstrating that feminism is, in fact, about an irrational, illogical, and neurotic rage directed at men by women barely in possession of their senses.

The following discussion, from an abstract of an episode of Oprah's talk show, is taken word for word from Oprah.com. In it, some feminist Ph.D. equates sperm with trash.

"You're trying to get your hunger needs met," Dr. Smith tells Melissa. "What are you hungry for? To be loved? To be cared for? To feel special? These are not things to be ashamed of. You're asking a great question: 'How can I stop this?'"

Dr. Smith says that a lot of young girls are treating their bodies like trash cans. "Trash cans for what? For boys' sperm. For boys' insecurities. The boys come and drop their trash in our bodies. … It keeps going until we decide that we aren't receptacles for garbage. That my body is a temple; it's sacred. … I'm not the place that boys come and drop their sperm, their insecurity so they can pump their muscles up as I shrink down into nothing."

The episode, interestingly enough, was titled "Empowering Girls."

Justice by Wise Latina Woman

Sonia Sotomayor boasts that the full-orbed experiences gained by and empathy demonstrated as a result of merely existing as a "Wise Latina Woman" will likely produce better results than those presided over by similarly situated Yale law grads, but ever so unfortunately white guy, judges.

"I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would, more often than not, reach a better conclusion."

Contrary to the Obama administration's assertions, this statement was not merely an unfortunate choice of words on the part of Sotomayor, but rather is a statement which she (proveably) used in at least three public, prepared speeches.

Apparently, "reaching better conclusions" doesn't even remotely resemble what the average guy on the street would consider to be a close approximation of "justice."

Jeffrey Deskovic was falsely accused of rape when he was 17 years old. By now, if you have been reading this blog, you know the drill: he is assumed to be guilty because all men are, of course, rapists, the police violated his fifth amendment rights, he was taken to trial despite hair fiber evidence and DNA evidence that didn't match, prosecutorial misconduct followed, yada yada.

In other words, a typical rape case.

And Deskovic was, of course, convicted (I didn't really have to tell you that part, did I?). Follows a series of appeals. Or attempted appeals, at least. Because in one instance, his appeals lawyer got some bad advice from a court clerk and missed a filing deadline by four days. The prosecutor showed up to argue that the 96 hours in question were somehow prejudicial to the interest of the people of New York.

Funny, isn't it, how DNA and hair fiber evidence that doesn't match isn't detrimental to the people's interests, but a 96-hour filing deadline is? But I digress....

So Deskovic's attorney requested a ruling of "equitable tolling," which would have allowed the appeal to continue based on the fact that the missed deadline was the fault of the court itself and would have recognized the extreme weight of both the proceedings and the evidence. After all, which is more weighty - the possibility of an innocent man spending the remainder of his life in prison, or an arbitrary filing deadline that was, after all, missed on the advice of the court itself.

You guessed it! The court denied the appeal, which forced another appeal into the court of one Sonia Sotomayor. Thank God! Because the empathy and wisdom of Latina women is, of course, well-known.

Undoubtedly, when given a choice between merely procedural matters not the fault of an appellant and the substantive justice due to an innocent man, Sotomayor would utilize her "richness of experience as a Wise Latina Woman" and come up with the proper result, right?

Deskovic writes at Politico.com,

Sotomayor and a colleague upheld the lower court’s ruling, writing that “the alleged reliance of Deskovic’s attorney on verbal misinformation from the court clerk constitutes excusable neglect that does not rise to the level of an extraordinary circumstance. Similarly, we are not persuaded that equitable tolling is appropriate based upon Deskovic’s contentions that the four-day delay did not prejudice respondent, petitioner himself did not create the delay, his situation is unique and his petition has substantive merit.”

A second appeal to her court resulted in the same decision, and the U.S. Supreme Court refused to hear my case. I remained in prison for six more years, with no appeals left....

After six years, Deskovic obtained representation again, that attorney once again investigated the DNA evidence and found a match in a national DNA database. Deskovic, after serving 16 years total (and six years after experiencing the empathy of a Wise Latina Woman) was released. Today, he is an activist for victims of false imprisonment.

Learn the lesson: The much-vaunted "empathy" sought by Barack Obama, and located in Sonia Sotmayor, is not an empathy that focuses on entering into human suffering in order to ensure that proper and moral legal decisions are made resulting in some close approximation of justice. It is rather a politically-correct narrowmindedness which, freed from the constraints of morality, logic, reason, and law will consistently grant to liberal special interests the desired result, no matter the demands of actual justice.

And what desired result is more sacrosanct to the perverted postmodern mind than the feminist claim that there simply are no false convictions of rape? Women don't lie, police don't manufacture evidence, and all men are beastly perverts anyway. On procedural grounds or otherwise, we ought to just lock all the men up anyway (Obama excepted, of course), because if they have not yet raped, they are even now in the process of scoping out their prey.

Los Angeles: Pay Parents to Take Care of Their Kids

A new welfare program in Los Angeles county targets two of the most perennial problems of the welfare culture: unemployment and caring for the children of working families.

Now some welfare state twit has come up with the ultimate grandiose government program: Why not pay unemployed parents to care for their own children?

With steep state budget cuts under debate in Sacramento, Los Angeles County supervisors voted Tuesday to push for changes to CalWorks and other government aid programs they said would save nearly $270 million.

Included in their suggestions is a novel proposal: Put unemployed parents to work caring for their own children.

I don't even know what to say about this.

Let me try....

Liberalism, feminism, and the whole welfare state has now reached a point of ultimate stupidity. The only place to go from here is a rubber room.