Archive for Feminism

Dingbats for Dhimmi

I wasn’t sure there was more to say about the shameful, degrading climbdown by Brandeis University over their invitation to Ayaan Hirsi Ali—but that if there was, Phyllis Chesler would be the one to say it:

The Brandeis professors who demanded that Ayaan Hirsi Ali be “immediately” dis-invited wrote that “we are filled with shame at the suggestion that (Hirsi Ali’s) above-quoted sentiments express Brandeis’s values.”

Eight[y] seven professors or 29% of the Brandeis faculty signed this letter. These professors teach Physics, Anthropology, Near Eastern and Jewish Studies, English, Economics, Music, Film, Computer Science, Math, Sociology, Education—and Women and Gender Studies. Four percent of the signatories teach Anthropology, 6% teach Near Eastern and Jewish Studies, 9% teach Physics—and 21% teach Women and Gender Studies.

In my 2005 book, The Death of Feminism, this is precisely what I was talking about, namely, the feminist departure from universal human rights, a greater focus on anti-racism than on anti-sexism, and a deadly multi-cultural relativism. These Brandeis feminists, both male and female, are defending Islamist supremacism, (which is not a race), and attacking an African Somali women, who happens to be a feminist hero.

Feminists have called Hirsi Ali an “Islamophobe” and a “racist” many times for defending Western values such as women’s rights, gay rights, human rights, freedom of religion, the importance of intellectual diversity, etc.

The 1960s-early 1970s feminism I once championed — and still do — was first taken over by Marxists and ideologically “Stalinized.” It was then conquered again by Islamists and ideologically “Palestinianized.”

Feminists became multi-cultural relativists and as such, refused to criticize other cultures, including misogyny within those other cultures.

To be fair to the libbers, the same psychosis came to afflict many leftists. Liberal Jews have been similarly “Stalinized” and “Palestinianized”. Just as Stalin (and, later, the Palestinians) intended (Lenin’s “useful idiots”). Stalin and the Arabs were so successful, feminists at Brandeis turned on a feminist victim of Islamofascism, Jews have turned on Israeli victims of Islamic terrorism, and the Obama Left has turned on the nation that is greatest defender of liberty in the world.

Heckuva job, Uncle Joe!


Why Was Martin Bashir Permitted To Resign?

Why didn’t MSNBC fire him?

Just over two weeks ago, MSNBC host Martin Bashir delivered a harsh piece of commentary that culminated in the suggestion that someone should “s-h-i-t” in former Alaska Governor Sarah Palin‘s (R-AK) mouth. Bashir offered an abject apology on his next broadcast, but a chorus of critics continued to demand action against the host. After a reported “vacation” for the host earlier this week, Bashir announced, in a statement to Mediaite Wednesday afternoon, that MSNBC and Martin Bashir are parting ways.

Here’s the statement to Mediaite, from Martin Bashir, via email:

After making an on-air apology, I asked for permission to take some additional time out around the Thanksgiving holiday.
Upon further reflection, and after meeting with the President of MSNBC, I have tendered my resignation. It is my sincere hope that all of my colleagues, at this special network, will be allowed to focus on the issues that matter without the distraction of myself or my ill-judged comments.
I deeply regret what was said, will endeavor to work hard at making constructive contributions in the future and will always have a deep appreciation for our viewers – who are the smartest, most compassionate and discerning of all television audiences. I would also wish to express deepest gratitude to my immediate colleagues, and our contributors, all of whom have given so much of themselves to our broadcast.’

MSNBC released Bashir’s statement, plus the following statement from MSNBC President Phil Griffin:

“Martin Bashir resigned today, effective immediately. I understand his decision and I thank him for three great years with msnbc. Martin is a good man and respected colleague – we wish him only the best.”

Seriously, why is it ok to suggest that someone piss and shit into a woman’s mouth, just because she has the gall to be a conservative woman? Why is this ok? Why did it take this long for him to go, and why was he allowed to resign?

- Aggie

Comments (3)

The War on Women… By Women

Cathy Young takes down Gloria Steinem:

How does Steinem represent modern feminism’s worst features? Let me count the ways.

Dogmatic denial of sex differences. There is a perfectly legitimate argument (to which I myself am sympathetic) that male/female differences are culturally influenced and less important than individual differences. There is certainly widespread support for the loosening of traditional gender-based restrictions. But Steinem takes the anti-difference view to fanatical extremes of what dissident feminists Daphne Patai and Noretta Koertge have dubbed “biodenial.” In 1997, interviewed for John Stossel’s ABC News special, “Boys and Girls Are Different: Men, Women and the Sex Difference,” Steinem derided scientific research on sex differences in brain functioning as “anti-American crazy thinking.” She also suggested that upper-body strength tests requiring firefighters to lift heavy loads were sexist. What about situations when firefighters have to carry injured or unconscious people out of burning buildings? Steinem insisted, with a straight face, that it was better to drag them, since “there’s less smoke down there.” While I thought the ABC special leaned too much toward generalizations about difference, Steinem made the worst possible spokesperson for the skeptics.

Fixation on male villainy. Like many in the sisterhood, Steinem does not let her belief in absolute equality interfere with a focus on men as perpetrators of violence and evil. In theory, she blames “the patriarchy,” asserting that it has robbed men as well as women of full humanity; she has even said (rightly) that we won’t have real equality until we recognize men’s capacity for care and nurture just as we have recognized women’s capacity for strength and achievement. Alas, actual, unreconstructed men usually appear in Steinem’s writings as dangerous brutes.

In her 1992 book, Revolution from Within: A Book of Self-Esteem, Steinem writes, “The most dangerous situation for a woman is not an unknown man in the street, or even the enemy in wartime, but a husband or lover in the isolation of their own home.” She has also touted the long-discredited notion of a long prehistoric period of peaceful, benevolent, egalitarian “gynocentric” societies later displaced by violent, oppressive male rule.

Junk scholarship. Steinem’s talk of peace-loving prehistoric matriarchies is just one example of her penchant for peddling pseudo-scholarly nonsense — often on college campuses, where she is a popular speaker. Thus, in a 1993 speech at Salem State College, Steinem rehashed not only the matriarchy theory but the myth that the witch-hunts in Europe were an effort to exterminate still-existing pagan religion and killed as many as nine million women. She also spun a fanciful “revisionist” history of Joan of Arc as a pagan worshipper who led French armies to victory but was executed as a witch once the war was won because she had grown too powerful. (In fact, Joan, by all available evidence a devout Catholic, was executed for heresy after being taken prisoner in the still-ongoing war.) While Steinem is not an academic, equally shoddy pseudo-scholarship is all too common in women’s studies classrooms.

Misinformation. Steinem’s dissemination of faux facts is not limited to distant history. In Revolution from Within, she asserts that 150,000 women and girls in the United States die from anorexia every year — multiplying the actual number by about 1,000. (As Christina Hoff Sommers documented in her 1994 book, Who Stole Feminism?, the claim of a 150,000 death toll was based on a feminist professor’s mangling of a statistic referring to anorexia sufferers.) The same book discusses an alleged crisis in girls’ self-esteem based on a single shoddy study from the American Association of University Women.

There’s plenty more, but she concludes:

Steinem is an undeniably talented and charismatic woman; her message is often couched in appealing terms of female empowerment, freedom, and basic fairness. But in practice, her advocacy promotes far less positive values. This is a Medal of Freedom recipient who has backed attacked [sic] on free speech and colluded in the imprisonment of innocent people.

We subscribed to Ms. Magazine for a while. I can’t remember a single redeeming article, but they did perform a public service with their No Comment section at the back of the magazine. Sexually suggestive and degrading—or just plain sexist—advertisements, thusly:

Of course, sometimes you just have to lighten up:


Obama’s War on Women [UPDATED---TWICE!!]


A sexually suggestive advertising campaign in support of Colorado’s health insurance exchange is taking heat, after the latest ad featured a woman boasting about her birth control while wondering how to get her man “between the covers.”

The ad, by ProgressNow Colorado and the Colorado Consumer Health Initiative, is being hammered as demeaning to women. It follows a prior ad from the same campaign featuring young men doing keg stands, under the banner “Got Insurance?”

“It’s degrading to women, and it says a lot about what they think of America’s youth today,” Rep. Cory Gardner, R-Colo., said of the latest ad.

These are the same “American youth” who turned out to vote for this dumbass—so is the government wrong?

Gardner told Fox News they’re “making a joke of the whole process.” Further, he said the ads are changing the subject at a time when the law’s rollout is running into serious problems.

“They’ve turned ObamaCare into a story about pills and pilsners just trying to make a failed program work,” he said.

Pills, pilsners, and pot:

It’s no more degrading than the average beer commercial during a football game—which is to say pretty degrading.

I used a special app to magnify one of the pills the girl is all set to swallow (at least, I think that’s what she’s all set to swallow). I hope you’re as unsurprised as I was:

UPPERDATE: Planned Parenthood got punked!!!

PPVC didn’t take kindly to the ad, apparently mistaking it for conservative satire of the world’s Sandra Fluke types, and labeled it “#slutshaming.”

Of course, the advertisement was nothing of the sort—but it still took PPVC over two hours to catch on.

Slutshaming! Love it!

Comments (4)

Her Logic is Sound

At least she’s honest:

When you talk about being pro-choice, sex selective abortion is often slung at you as the triumphant gotcha. “You love women so much you want them to be in charge of what grows inside their bodies, but what about the women who are aborted, have a go at answering that? ZING!”

The answer is actually remarkably simple, and it’s this: it doesn’t matter whether what’s growing inside you is liable to end up as a man or a woman. What matters is whether the person it’s growing inside – the person who is going to have to deliver the resulting baby, at not inconsiderable personal peril – actually wants to be pregnant and give birth to this child. In a world where it’s possible to end a pregnancy safely and legally, it seems like rank brutality to force anyone to carry to term against her will.

Exactly. And since we’ve decided the “parasite” growing within has no rights (does a tapeworm have rights? lice?), why shouldn’t “the person who is going to have to deliver the resulting baby” also be able to determine the manner in which to “end a pregnancy safely and legally”? Maybe she’s into martial arts and wants to work on taking punches or kicks to the stomach. Maybe she’s a fashionista with lots of designer coat hangers. Maybe she has a kinky thing for scurvy little men in white lab coats poking around her privates and proffering steaming cups of strange concoctions.

Who are you to judge, you and your “rank brutality”?

Seriously, why should pro-choice (anti-life) women give a damn whether the “baby” or “child” (her words) growing inside her is female? “I am (pre-natal) woman” is so 70s. Today’s woman doesn’t celebrate her sex, she celebrates herself. Whether “what’s growing inside” her is a female or male tapeworm, brain-eating amoeba, or child is irrelevant. What matters is it’s growing inside her, and she wants it gone. Hasta la vista, baby.

PS: What’s this about pregnancy coming with “not inconsiderable personal peril”? Are preggers women keeling over right, left, and sideways?

She’s British, remember:

British women are more likely to die in childbirth than those in the former communist state of Slovenia, new research has shown.

Just as many British women are dying in pregnancy and childbirth as they were 20 years ago, according to a study in the Lancet.

Eight out of every 100,000 pregnant women die shortly before, during or after giving birth in the UK.

The UK’s death rate is worse than that of Albania, Poland, Hungary, Slovakia and the Czech Republic.


Ballot Box

Isn’t this what I’ve been saying about feminists?

Actress Susan Sarandon endorsed Public Advocate Bill de Blasio in the New York City Mayor’s race Sunday, saying the issues pulled her to de Blasio and away from City Council Speaker Christine Quinn, who would be the first female mayor of New York.

“As a woman, initially I was interested in Quinn,” Sarandon said at a fundraiser Sunday night, according to Politicker. “It became clear to me that, you know as a woman, you can’t just vote your vagina.”

Why not? You all voted one into the White House.

But fair point by Ms. Sarandon. A woman is not always the best candidate, even for women.

And women’s issues ought not to begin and end with abortion. It’s sad and disturbing that they do.


Light Reading

Who could use a break from Islamofascim and sectarian slaughter? Anyone? Oh, come on, five minutes won’t kill you.

As an enticement, this story has racism, sexism, anonymous yutzes spouting ignorantly on social media—and a pretty brunette who rolls her eyes too much (but did I mention she’s pretty).

I knew you’d come round:

The viral hashtag #SolidarityIsForWhiteWomen was born when so-called ‘male feminist’ Hugo Schwyzer admitted in a Twitter meltdown that he had built his career targeting women of color. When feminists across race lines weren’t outraged, blogger Mikki Kendall created the movement. Social justice editor at PolicyMic, Liz Plank, says why white feminists need to stop talking and start listening.

And white guilt too! Wow!

Hey, how can I get to be a social justice editor? I’d probably be a better antisocial justice editor, but doesn’t have any listings.

If I may offer another “male feminist” (in most ways that count, if I do say so myself) point of view for the button-cute Elizabeth Plank and her phalanx of feminist fillies, maybe Hugo Schwyer is just an a-hole. Nothing more, no further insight required, just a five-alarm, flaming butt-hole, an inferno of assholity. You’d be surprised how many men are (well, maybe you wouldn’t), just ask the others of us.

We’re constantly surprised by how many of you are drawn to the a-holes. Try talking about that amongst yourselves.

But if you want to stop talking that’s fine with me. (I watched the video with the sound down anyway.) Feminists had precious little to say about “Dr.” Kenneth Gosnell, Bill Clinton’s serial abuse of women, Anthony Weiner’s serial abuse of himself, or many other issues involving men and women’s “reproductive health”. Most if not all feminists would sell their female souls for the unfettered freedom of abortion on demand. I’ve frankly heard enough.

Comments (7)

You Can’t Fool All The People All The Time

Watch an Irish politician explain Obama:

- Aggie


The War on Women Rages Apace

Et tu, Ruthie?

One of the most liberal members of the U.S. Supreme Court, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg could be expected to give a rousing defense of Roe v. Wade in reflecting on the landmark vote 40 years after it established a nationwide right to abortion.

Instead, Ginsburg told an audience Saturday at the University of Chicago Law School that while she supports a woman’s right to choose, she feels the ruling by her predecessors on the court was too sweeping and gave abortion opponents a symbol to target. Ever since, she said, the momentum has been on the other side, with anger over Roe fueling a state-by-state campaign that has placed more restrictions on abortion.

“That was my concern, that the court had given opponents of access to abortion a target to aim at relentlessly,” she told a crowd of students.” … My criticism of Roe is that it seemed to have stopped the momentum that was on the side of change.”

The ruling is also a disappointment to a degree, Ginsburg said, because it was not argued in weighty terms of advancing women’s rights. Rather, the Roe opinion, written by Justice Harry Blackmun, centered on the right to privacy and asserted that it extended to a woman’s decision on whether to end a pregnancy.

Ginsburg would have rather seen the justices make a narrower decision that struck down only the Texas law that brought the matter before the court. That law allowed abortions only to save a mother’s life.

Okay, Justice Ginsburg isn’t exactly dispatching pregnant teenagers to back alleys (are there front alleys?). But anyone who has questioned Roe in the past—merely as bad law—has been treated like a Manson family member. With leprosy. And bad breath.

With respect, however, I think she misstates the case. We “opponents of access to abortion” have not targeted Roe, per se, but abortion itself. And speaking only for myself, I am not opposed to “access to abortion”, but to abortion itself. It may be “murder” or it may be a “women’s health procedure” (like calcium tablets!), but I think it should be safe, legal, and rare. What say you, proponents of “access to abortion”? It’s your language; will you say it with me? Safe, legal, and r-r-r-r…

Oh, so close!


“Thank you Planned Parenthood. God bless you. God bless you.”

Who uttered those perversely ironic words?

Who else?

President Obama became the first sitting U.S. president to deliver a speech to Planned Parenthood on Friday.

The organization is America’s leading abortion provider.

During a speech at the Planned Parenthood National Conference in Washington, Obama told the room of about 1,000 attendees that the organization is here to stay, despite efforts by Republicans to strip the group of federal funding.

Planned Parenthood received $542 million in federal funding in 2012.

“[N]o matter how great the challenge of opposition,” Obama told the crowd, “Planned Parenthood is not going anywhere.”

“It’s not going anywhere today, it’s not going anywhere tomorrow.”

“Thank you Planned Parenthood. God bless you. God bless you,” Obama concluded.

If the president were thanking Planned Parenthood for aborting unborn children in a manner somewhat more… humanely? … than Kermit Gosnell then I can understand his point. But the good Dr. G was absent from his remarks.

For President Obama to use the Almighty’s name in blessing an organization that specializes in evil (however necessary that evil might be) chills me to the core. Talk about the banality of evil!

Comments (1)


Reading the more disgusting details of the Gosnell trial—and there are no less disgusting details—caused me to wonder: what must NOW think of this horrific abuse of women?

How unlike a dame: they don’t tell you what they’re thinking.

If the link works, it’s the result of a search of NOW for Gosnell’s name. There were three hits. One was a dud—either a dead link or an error. Another was to an external site, not part of NOW, not even recommended by NOW. And the only legitimate mention of this serial abuser and butcher of pregnant women, many of color, came from a commenter who challenged a pro-abortion article with Gosnell’s example. His point was summarily dismissed.

As we have observed before, feminism isn’t about anything anymore but the unfettered, unregulated right to abortion. They try to soften the impact by calling it women’s reproductive health, but there are three lies in that expression. It ain’t about health, it ain’t about women, and it sure as sh*t ain’t about reproduction.

PS: When I was in college, feminism meant demanding to be called a college “woman”, not “girl”. So Karl Marx was wrong again: history may repeat itself, but as farce first, then tragedy.


Childless in Seattle

This columnist has decided not to have children.

Big deal. It’s her choice (and her husband’s); none of my business. I hate to see people with a dog when they’re not into it, let alone a child.

But the more she explains herself (which I didn’t ask for, remember), the less persuaded I am. If you need this many reasons, most of them lame, maybe you don’t really have any.

My husband and I just ended our debate about having children. To breed or not to breed, this was the question — and it had been ticking like an egg timer in the back of my head for 15 years.

We talked about it for five months. In the car on the way to work. During dinner. For five minutes, for 30 minutes. After seeing nephews and nieces.

I wanted it to be a decision we made, not one made for us by chance or time. I turned to friends with kids for advice. “Feel free to convince me to your side,” I told them. Leaving a legacy and crazy joy, they said. I bow down to their personal sacrifice. It is an enormous gift for society to raise an educated, productive, ethical, moral child.

On our last vacation, my husband and I mulled over this question: “On your deathbed, what will you regret not doing?” We listed our answers at dinner on the last night. Neither of us mentioned children.

We have decided we have other things to give to the world. We won’t be having kids. We choose to be childless in Seattle.

I would have been fine there. She points out that Seattle and San Francisco, the two most narcissistic cities in America, have the fewest kids as a percentage of their populations. More gay people, more hipness (with some overlap), equals fewer kids. I get that.

But then she starts to justify her decision, and she loses me:

I’m lucky. I live in a time and place where I have the freedom not to have kids. But that doesn’t mean society has fully accepted me.

Feminism empowered women to talk about motherhood as a pursuit that deserves as much attention as men’s work. In the past 20 years, women have bravely spoken about struggles to conceive, which helped educate a generation about fertility. But society rarely hears from women who decide not to have kids.

“Do you have children?” My friend’s standard answer is, “No, and it’s not for medical reasons.” I’m cribbing it.

Do I detect a note of hostility? Why should an innocent question be met with such a strident answer?

Will I regret not having children to care for me when I’m old and infirm?

Kids or no kids, everyone should be saving for retirement. I don’t believe in treating children like indentured social security, and, let’s be honest, many people in nursing homes have children.

What is she, a Republican? As she is a journalist in Seattle, I very much doubt it. Don’t worry about your senescence, honey, ObamaCare’s got your back.

Would I have to sacrifice my career goals if we had a child?

Probably. I’ve gone from believing I can do it all to believing that life is short. Saying no to some things allows me to say yes to others.

My husband could be the primary caregiver while I charge after my goals, but then he would have to say no to some of his goals.

If you’re talking about some amorphous career “goals” (in journalism, no less!) as more important than possibly raising a family, you’ve made the right choice for yourself—even if I kind of pity you your way of thinking.

My mom was a senior manager at a global stem-cell bank when she retired. While my brother and I were growing up, she worked part-time. I’ve heard her say more than once: “If I had just had another 16 years, I could have gone so high.”

Ah, I think I see the issue: mom not so subtly insinuated that if not for her two children she “coulda been somebody.” Her kids are left with the subconscious belief that they were burdens, that children are joy-killers.

Am I being selfish if I don’t have children?

I’m selfish for not committing to my hypothetical child’s well-being. But I will have a lot more attention and money to shower on real-life nieces, nephews, mentees and philanthropic causes.

For which the World Wildlife Fund is eternally grateful. And any future “mentees”. (Is she planning on adopting a sea mammal?)

Also, not having a child is the most important thing I could do to reduce my carbon footprint, according to a 2009 study by Oregon State University statisticians. (Of course, like all parents, I believe my theoretical child would have grown up to become a brilliant physicist and saved the world from global warming, so this is a moot point.)

No wonder she saved this one for so late—it’s complete bull[bleep]. No statistician from Corvallis, Oregon has a relevant opinion on whether you procreate, now or in 2009. And unless your little shnookums was planning on staying warm by burning cow dung, I think he or she would have had a significantly smaller carbon baby footprint than one born in Africa or Asia. What a crock.

I told my parents in California over Christmas. “Don’t do it if you don’t want to,” my mom said without pause. “You won’t like it.”

See my point about mom above. The woman sounds like a champion child-rearer.

The ability to bear a child may be what defines me as female, but I’m still a woman without one.

Agreed. And I agree with the five paragraphs at the start. Everything else is just horse[bleep]. It’s her choice, as I say, and none of my business. But I think it’s sad someone would be so hounded by an ambivalent mother to forswear children in favor of writing editorials for the Seattle Times. That’s not a goal; it’s a prison sentence.

Comments (3)

« Previous entries Next Page » Next Page »