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

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.

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.

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."