Recently in Feminism Category

I came across a remarkable and largely unknown commemoration statue in Washington DC. It, of course, is from a very different era. A better one, I think. It thanks men for their sacrifice.

With an inscription that NEVER could or would be made today, The Women's Titanic Memorial is like a time capsule to a saner and braver world. It gives thanks to the men aboard the Titantic who, unlike the neo-Marxist portrayal by James Cameron in his detestable movie, willingly sacrificed themselves so that the norm of women and children first could be adhered to. In fact many of the boats were cast half empty. (Because of that movie agitprop, many people think there was a lot of pushing and shoving to get aboard the lifeboats. No.)

I think the angry, grievance-filled feminist belief structure that has firmly taken hold in this country make young women have a confidence and a clarity and a sense of purpose that is notably lacking in the young men. I see the young men as slothful shlubs, while the young women are walking around as if the world was made for them.

Something is amiss.

This is taking the sexual consent dictum too far.

A women writes to advice columnist Emily Yoffe, aka Dear Prudence, asking about her sex life with her husband. In effect, she seems to think that spontaneous, if drunken, sex with her spouse is some kind of sexual abuse - a crime - and wonders whether she should divorce her husband. "Prudence's" response:

But even a married couple who have had sex hundreds of times can enjoy that alcohol might ignite a delightful, spontaneous encounter. Your approach, however, seems to be to treat your sex life as if it is subject to regulatory review by the Department of Health and Human Services. Your prim, punctilious, punitive style has me admiring your put-upon husband's ability to even get it up, given the possibility he'll be accused of rape--or turn himself in for it!--if one of you fails a breathalyzer test. Living in terror that expressing one's perfectly normal sexual desire could end one's marriage, and freedom, is itself a form of abuse. Stop acting like a parody of a gender-studies course catalog and start acting like a loving wife. If you can't, then give the poor sap a divorce.

And women wonder why men are becoming more gun-shy about sex and marriage. Who needs that kind of misery and fear because a woman has bought into the feminazi tripe that no sex is ever consensual, even when it is...unless maybe it's lesbian sex?

This young woman is still stuck in the college "Mother may I?" paradigm. I agree with Prudence on this one, but will take it one step farther by advising this young woman to divorce the poor suffering bastard now and let him find a real woman. The last thing he needs is an indoctrinated, self-victimizing neurotic like her.

Sheesh.

(H/T Instapundit)

I approve of this comment on Pat Buchanan's column looking at Democratic strategist Hillary Rosen's hare-brained comment that Ann Romney had never worked a day in her life as a stay-at-home mother of five sons who, the last time I checked, weren't covered in tats and on a reality tv show.

The Founding Fathers would never have approved--they didn't even like a large standing army--of US troops being stationed for close to a century at foreign countries like Germany, Japan, and South Korea when the original rationale has long since disappeared.

I think the English language should have rights, too.

Feminists view our beloved tongue as something to use for their political ends.

I'm not interested. But when I come across a clunky sentence at the end of an editorial in the University of New Hampshire newspaper--on a frivolous topic that's being blown out of proportion because of militant secularism--I can only shake my head, saying, "O tempora! O mores!"

Here it is:

When a student leader gives the pretense of acting on behalf of his/her constituents, he/she needs to actually be doing so.

Apparently, to be women, feminist orthodoxy notwithstanding.

Rebecca Hagelin, writing in the Washington Times in a review of a new book co-written by Phyllis Schlafy and her niece Suzanne Venkler, The Flipside of Feminism, lays out what is a devastating indictment of feminism:

The research is clear: Women want better. The American woman wants to be married; to care for her own children, instead of sending them to day care; and prefers to work part time rather than the long hours of C-suite executives. (According to the Pew Research Center, almost ⅔ of working mothers with children under 17 say they would prefer part-time work -- a significant jump in just the past 10 years.)

This was too good not link.

Apparently the National Organization of Women (NOW) has destroyed its last shred of credibility (as if it's had any over the past decade or so) by endorsing Jerry Brown for governor after he or one of his staffers were heard calling his Republican opponent, Meg Whitman, "a whore."

This endorsement shows how far a once effective and respected organization has fallen. NOW used to stand for equal rights for women, showing women were capable of doing most of the same jobs as men, and worked hard to do away with laws and policies that discriminated against women. But over the past couple of decades it has degenerated into something that has worked hard to revictimize women, denigrate women who choose to stay home and raise their children, criminalize men, and has supported measures and causes that benefit no one except NOW and its misanthropist leadership.

Betty Friedan must be spinning in her grave.

(H/T Instapundit)

UPDATE: Glenn Reynolds has more on this, particularly liberal women-hating women.

Dangerous guy, but a fun trip nonetheless. I wish I knew some of the stuff he dishes out. I didn't fare well in the dating scene. It was like the desert: an occasional oasis then a long stretch of nothingness.

But here is the amoral trickster, speaking truth to power:

The purpose of women as traditionally understood is to have & nurture babies. That's what they're built for, not competing against men as equals in the brutish world. But feminism decades ago went to war against things traditional, even the traditional understanding of biology.

Well, evolutionary biology is providing much corroboration to the traditional views of the sexes. This started for me way back in 1991 by hearing an interview with Anne Moirs, the author of Brain Sex, which made much hay of reporting on studies showing that brain wiring and endocrinology make the sexes different, giving legitimacy to traditional views of sex differences. She was apologetic about it then. The years have only given added strength to her thesis. One of the UK reviewers, where Ms. Moirs hails, wrote, "Women talk, and men drive." Hm-um.

This is not to say I excuse lack of opportunities for women or sex discrimination. I refuse to use "gender" incorrectly. I don't. My wife works outside the home, for instance. More power to her.

But she's also the mother of four children. God bless her. And she leads me to believe that I'm the father of all of them.

Well, some feminists who drank the Kool-aid are not happy campers. Not happy at all. Their biological clocks have stuck the dooming chime on the last of their fertility and they are wondering what it's all for. The good job, the vacations, the nice clothes...

They want a baby, dammit!

I am childless and I am angry. Angry that I was so foolish to take the word of my feminist mothers as gospel. Angry that I was daft enough to believe female fulfilment [sic] came with a leather briefcase.

It was wrong. It was crap.