|
|
|
|
 |  |  |
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|
| BOOK OF ZED / Presenting Feminism! A Coming OUT. |
Presenting Feminism! A Coming OUT
Feminism: An ideology that advocates political, social and economic equality,
empowerment and freedom for women, with full rights, opportunities and responsibilities
equal to and non-distinguishable from those of all other members of society. (Or 'men' if
you will.)
What's wrong with this?
From all ostensible indications, feminism is wonderful thing. It is an ideology whose very
presence indicates the advancement of the human species and equality for all.
I'm all for this 'feminism'
My mother is a top class pharmacist and most of my aunts are Managers and Directors in
the Banking Industry. None of them would be where they are, using their brains to support
themselves and their families without the ground breaking work of Mary Woolstonecraft,
Elizabeth Cady Stanton, Lucretia Mott and the ever radical Susan Brownell Anthony, etc.
Add to that distinguished list the Marquis de Condorcet, Mr Mott (Lucretia Mott's husband),
John Stuart Mill, Immanuel Kant and so on. These men were feminists too.
I grew up in an environment in the advent of feminism. It was a fact that I got the most
competition in academics from a girl, and the women in my family are all assertive and
intelligent women. All these women and all the confident and strong women out there in the
world are feminists, so defined because they do not fear going out to face the world and
carving a place for themselves in it.
That being said, amazingly only a few American women in the 1990s classify themselves
as feminists.
Has the movement fallen into disrepute?
No, because almost a 100% of people, male and female, think that women 'must' and
should have rights equal to that of men.
Then why is the term 'feminist' so repulsive?
It is said that at the heart of every movement there is always a vanguard party or
philosophy that, by its prominence, is representative of its views, and it is that vanguard
party that society looks to, to see what the movement represents and stands for.
The vanguard party thus has to be the loudest, most attention grabbing section of the
movement. It does not by default mean the most popular or largest section of the
movement.
The vanguard party is thus not selected by the movement, it selects itself. The vanguard
party, in the public eye, then becomes the movement, its ideals become the movement's
ideals, and it therefore represents the movement in whatever it does. The movement's
image changes only when the vanguard party changes or when there is a change of
vanguard parties within the movement.
What is feminism's 'vanguard party?'
In my studies of this, it seems that there are three major ideologies within feminism:
Liberal Feminism, which simply means equal rights and responsibilities for all persons,
regardless of sex/gender as supported by Stanton, Mott and Anthony. Most American
women, while most say they are not feminists, strongly advocate this.
Socialist Feminism was popular in the sixties but it has declined since the collapse of the
Soviet Union. It is basically the same as Liberal Feminism except it is closely tied
politically and culturally with Marxism. Lastly comes
Radical Feminism, which as of now is the vanguard party of Feminism. It has the least
support and the most opposition among all of them, but it is the loudest and most active. It
and its ideologies, varied though they may be, stand virtually unchallenged by the other two
(for shame) and thus it is assumed to represent the feminist movement's attitudes, to
define the movement and all it stands for.
My interpretation of Radical Feminists has led me to believe that Radical Feminism is a
psychological disorder where the female of the human species believes the species
evolved incorrectly and that the inherent weakness of her gender is a fluke of nature.
I see merit in Donna Laframboise's self-description of "dissident feminists," which makes
it clear which movement currently has the political, economic and social power. However,
even this is unsatisfactory in defining RadFem philosophy and dogma, since feminism has
built into its name the notion that it is concerned with women's issues. The RadFem is truly
less interested in women's issues than she is in vilifying males.
The RadFem blames her GENDERS shortcomings and unhappiness on this deviant
evolution and tries to manipulate the natural order of things to suit her - to the direct
detriment of all others. RadFems are so narcissistic that they cannot see anything but their
immediate actions.
The destructive consequences of their actions are not even remotely contemplated or
anticipated - even when it affects them directly. The recent execution by lethal injection of
Karla Faye Tucker in the state of Texas is such an example, the RadFems have made
such a stink about gender equality that the governor of the state of Texas was left with no
alternative but to break a 150 year old tradition.
Another recent example is that of Mary Kay LeTourneau, a former grade-school teacher
who was convicted of having sex with a 13-year-old male former student. She was recently
arrested for violating the orders of the court by again seeing the child and was
subsequently ordered to serve out the remainder of her sentence of 8 years for rape.
The RadFems did not see this, but in this case alone, they FORCED the courts to deal
with the issue of RAPE BY A WOMAN. While it is now true that these sorts of cases are
few and far between, the fact is that the RadFem agenda has opened the door for other
women to be sentenced and treated in the traditional MALE punishment model.
Even scarier, these Radical feminists are winning their propaganda war. Like all
propaganda wars, the core of their appeal is based on a thinly veiled pack of lies and
semantically based manipulations. That and lies, damned lies, and statistics too.
Now to make a clear distinction between these 'vanguard feminists' and true feminists, I
would refer to them as RadFems. Because of their powerful position in the movement, any
and all feminists are taken to be RadFems.
The RadFems define Modern feminism as "that social movement which has as its goal
rights without responsibilities for women, and responsibilities without rights for men, all
under the guise of gender equality."
They run the Domestic Violence Programs, make up a large percentage of national
women's organizations and run the Women's Studies departments in Universities. Thus
the public perception of a feminist is really the public perception of a RadFem.
A feminist is assumed to be:
"A woman who hates men, the patriarchy, and all things male
(and/or)
who prefers her career to her children or for that matter ANY children (abortion by any other
name is the destruction of children)
(and/or)
who is anti-family, anti-male, anti-traditional morality
(and/or)
who is a lesbian
(and/or)
who is an atheist or who practices Wicca witchcraft
(and/or)
who consistently confuse "assertiveness" with "aggression" (the opposite of love is not
hate, it is indifference, but the RadFem does not understand this - they only know how to
hate)."
What causes these perceptions?
The RadFems themselves, by their (loud) words and deeds have reduced feminism in the
public eye from a progressive social movement to something resembling a whining hate
camp filled with ugly, fat, over educated, boorish and boring, humorless, androids. Their
gender confusion alone relegates them to the near psychotics of history.
Their main figures, Marilyn French, Susan Brownmiller, Andrea Dworkin (note by the
editor, she is the picture for the ―Feminism‖ chapter), Catherine MacKinnon, Robin
Morgan, Kate Millett, Susan Faludi, Gloria Steinem, Patricia Ireland and N.O.W., etc are
well known for their hate filled diatribes against men. They are misandrists in every sense
of the word. Most of them are lesbians as well, which, due to the reverence in which they
are held by RadFems confirms but does not necessarily imply the above stereotype. They
are also almost universally atheist or devotees of religious philosophies that support witch
craft of satanistic theology.
And since they are the representatives of feminism, such an obviously good and
progressive social movement, it is not possible to attack their views without being
accused of being against women's rights, whether you are male or female, even if you are
well known within the movement.
This has frighteningly put them in the very powerful position of being able to dictate their
agendas without allowing the opposition to present their views. If indeed opposition dared
speak out, they are vilified by the RadFems, who because they exist in the name of
feminism can claim a higher moral ground (political correctness).
The targets or the chosen 'bogey man' of the RadFems are men as a whole, and
heterosexual men in particular. This same 'them and us' tactic is reminiscent of Nazi
Germany, 'them' being the Jews and 'us' being the Germans. As one writer said after
reading Susan Brownmiller's 'Against Our Will'
“I've read Mein Kampf and in my mind it's a tossup between them." All you need do to
'Against Our Will' is to substitute the word woman for German and man for Jew and the two
books will basically say the same thing, broadcasting their hate to one and all.”
The most dangerous aspect of this new feminism is how it continues to demonize men in
every way one can possibly think of and the fact that they do it without concern for the
people they are defaming as individuals and the effect of their hate filled propaganda on
society.
RadFems continuously and religiously spout facts about how men as a whole oppress
women, in the work place, in the home, in everything under the sun. The fact is that this is
simply not true. Consider these facts:
Women control 86% of all personal wealth in America.
55% of all University graduates are women.
Women cast the majority of the votes in America (54%).
They win over 90% of custody disputes.
94% of work-related deaths are suffered by men.
Women are the victims of 35% of violent crimes.
The remaining 65% are men.
75% of murder victims are men.
85% of suicide victims are men.
24 out of the 25 worst jobs are exclusively male.
66% of health care is spent on women, discounting pregnancy related care.
If men are supposed to be ruling the world in some system of misogynous patriarchy then
how come we let the „terrible tragedy‟ of above happens?
Why did the all male government of years back give women the right to vote?
Why did the men of those times allow women the choice to go out and work if they so
wished?
Why did we extend rights once only reserved for men to women?
Is it all part of some cunning plan?
RadFems like Susan Faludi would have you think it is. A thorough examination of the facts
would show that the foundations of the RadFems agenda are lies. The RadFems think that
the whole world - including the majority of women - are fools.
Here are a few historical dates that in their entirety make the existence of a patriarchal
oppressive state a complete fallacy:
Mary Lyon founded the 1st woman's college in US - Mt. Holyoke College in 1837.
Antoinette Brown Blackwell was the 1st formally educated woman minister of the
Congregationalist Church in 1853.
Mary Walker was the 1st (and only) woman to receive the US Medal of Honor in 1866.
She was a Civil War surgeon.
Victoria Woodhall was the 1st woman to run for President of the US in 1872.
Susan Salter was elected the 1st woman US mayor of Argonia, KS in 1887.
Alice Wells was the 1st policewoman in the US in 1910.
Jeannette Rankin was the 1st woman elected to US congress in 1916 from Montana.
Only legislator to vote against both WW I and WW II.
Ever hear of prohibition? The 18th Amendment? THE FEMINISTS DID THAT ONE in
1919 to protect "women and children" from drunken men.
Nellie Taylor Ross was the 1st elected female state governor (of Wyoming) - 1925.
Ever hear of "illegal" drugs and "controlled" substances? THE FEMINISTS DID THAT
ONE in 1937. The entire war on drugs which is crippling our nation TODAY can be traced
to racist and sexist ideals fostered by early feminists to protect "women and children" from
stoned men. The movie "Reefer Madness" was all about the loosening of female moral
virtue with a weed.
Feminism: An ideology that advocates political, social and economic equality,
empowerment and freedom for women, with full rights, opportunities and responsibilities
equal to and non-distinguishable from those of all other members of society. (Or 'men' if
you will.)
What's wrong with this?
From all ostensible indications, feminism is wonderful thing. It is an ideology whose very
presence indicates the advancement of the human species and equality for all.
I'm all for this 'feminism'
My mother is a top class pharmacist and most of my aunts are Managers and Directors in
the Banking Industry. None of them would be where they are, using their brains to support
themselves and their families without the ground breaking work of Mary Woolstonecraft,
Elizabeth Cady Stanton, Lucretia Mott and the ever radical Susan Brownell Anthony, etc.
Add to that distinguished list the Marquis de Condorcet, Mr Mott (Lucretia Mott's husband),
John Stuart Mill, Immanuel Kant and so on. These men were feminists too.
I grew up in an environment in the advent of feminism. It was a fact that I got the most
competition in academics from a girl, and the women in my family are all assertive and
intelligent women. All these women and all the confident and strong women out there in the
world are feminists, so defined because they do not fear going out to face the world and
carving a place for themselves in it.
That being said, amazingly only a few American women in the 1990s classify themselves
as feminists.
Has the movement fallen into disrepute?
No, because almost a 100% of people, male and female, think that women 'must' and
should have rights equal to that of men.
Then why is the term 'feminist' so repulsive?
It is said that at the heart of every movement there is always a vanguard party or
philosophy that, by its prominence, is representative of its views, and it is that vanguard
party that society looks to, to see what the movement represents and stands for.
The vanguard party thus has to be the loudest, most attention grabbing section of the
movement. It does not by default mean the most popular or largest section of the
movement.
The vanguard party is thus not selected by the movement, it selects itself. The vanguard
party, in the public eye, then becomes the movement, its ideals become the movement's
ideals, and it therefore represents the movement in whatever it does. The movement's
image changes only when the vanguard party changes or when there is a change of
vanguard parties within the movement.
What is feminism's 'vanguard party?'
In my studies of this, it seems that there are three major ideologies within feminism:
Liberal Feminism, which simply means equal rights and responsibilities for all persons,
regardless of sex/gender as supported by Stanton, Mott and Anthony. Most American
women, while most say they are not feminists, strongly advocate this.
Socialist Feminism was popular in the sixties but it has declined since the collapse of the
Soviet Union. It is basically the same as Liberal Feminism except it is closely tied
politically and culturally with Marxism. Lastly comes
Radical Feminism, which as of now is the vanguard party of Feminism. It has the least
support and the most opposition among all of them, but it is the loudest and most active. It
and its ideologies, varied though they may be, stand virtually unchallenged by the other two
(for shame) and thus it is assumed to represent the feminist movement's attitudes, to
define the movement and all it stands for.
My interpretation of Radical Feminists has led me to believe that Radical Feminism is a
psychological disorder where the female of the human species believes the species
evolved incorrectly and that the inherent weakness of her gender is a fluke of nature.
I see merit in Donna Laframboise's self-description of "dissident feminists," which makes
it clear which movement currently has the political, economic and social power. However,
even this is unsatisfactory in defining RadFem philosophy and dogma, since feminism has
built into its name the notion that it is concerned with women's issues. The RadFem is truly
less interested in women's issues than she is in vilifying males.
The RadFem blames her GENDERS shortcomings and unhappiness on this deviant
evolution and tries to manipulate the natural order of things to suit her - to the direct
detriment of all others. RadFems are so narcissistic that they cannot see anything but their
immediate actions.
The destructive consequences of their actions are not even remotely contemplated or
anticipated - even when it affects them directly. The recent execution by lethal injection of
Karla Faye Tucker in the state of Texas is such an example, the RadFems have made
such a stink about gender equality that the governor of the state of Texas was left with no
alternative but to break a 150 year old tradition.
Another recent example is that of Mary Kay LeTourneau, a former grade-school teacher
who was convicted of having sex with a 13-year-old male former student. She was recently
arrested for violating the orders of the court by again seeing the child and was
subsequently ordered to serve out the remainder of her sentence of 8 years for rape.
The RadFems did not see this, but in this case alone, they FORCED the courts to deal
with the issue of RAPE BY A WOMAN. While it is now true that these sorts of cases are
few and far between, the fact is that the RadFem agenda has opened the door for other
women to be sentenced and treated in the traditional MALE punishment model.
Even scarier, these Radical feminists are winning their propaganda war. Like all
propaganda wars, the core of their appeal is based on a thinly veiled pack of lies and
semantically based manipulations. That and lies, damned lies, and statistics too.
Now to make a clear distinction between these 'vanguard feminists' and true feminists, I
would refer to them as RadFems. Because of their powerful position in the movement, any
and all feminists are taken to be RadFems.
The RadFems define Modern feminism as "that social movement which has as its goal
rights without responsibilities for women, and responsibilities without rights for men, all
under the guise of gender equality."
They run the Domestic Violence Programs, make up a large percentage of national
women's organizations and run the Women's Studies departments in Universities. Thus
the public perception of a feminist is really the public perception of a RadFem.
A feminist is assumed to be:
"A woman who hates men, the patriarchy, and all things male
(and/or)
who prefers her career to her children or for that matter ANY children (abortion by any other
name is the destruction of children)
(and/or)
who is anti-family, anti-male, anti-traditional morality
(and/or)
who is a lesbian
(and/or)
who is an atheist or who practices Wicca witchcraft
(and/or)
who consistently confuse "assertiveness" with "aggression" (the opposite of love is not
hate, it is indifference, but the RadFem does not understand this - they only know how to
hate)."
What causes these perceptions?
The RadFems themselves, by their (loud) words and deeds have reduced feminism in the
public eye from a progressive social movement to something resembling a whining hate
camp filled with ugly, fat, over educated, boorish and boring, humorless, androids. Their
gender confusion alone relegates them to the near psychotics of history.
Their main figures, Marilyn French, Susan Brownmiller, Andrea Dworkin (note by the
editor, she is the picture for the ―Feminism‖ chapter), Catherine MacKinnon, Robin
Morgan, Kate Millett, Susan Faludi, Gloria Steinem, Patricia Ireland and N.O.W., etc are
well known for their hate filled diatribes against men. They are misandrists in every sense
of the word. Most of them are lesbians as well, which, due to the reverence in which they
are held by RadFems confirms but does not necessarily imply the above stereotype. They
are also almost universally atheist or devotees of religious philosophies that support witch
craft of satanistic theology.
And since they are the representatives of feminism, such an obviously good and
progressive social movement, it is not possible to attack their views without being
accused of being against women's rights, whether you are male or female, even if you are
well known within the movement.
This has frighteningly put them in the very powerful position of being able to dictate their
agendas without allowing the opposition to present their views. If indeed opposition dared
speak out, they are vilified by the RadFems, who because they exist in the name of
feminism can claim a higher moral ground (political correctness).
The targets or the chosen 'bogey man' of the RadFems are men as a whole, and
heterosexual men in particular. This same 'them and us' tactic is reminiscent of Nazi
Germany, 'them' being the Jews and 'us' being the Germans. As one writer said after
reading Susan Brownmiller's 'Against Our Will'
“I've read Mein Kampf and in my mind it's a tossup between them." All you need do to
'Against Our Will' is to substitute the word woman for German and man for Jew and the two
books will basically say the same thing, broadcasting their hate to one and all.”
The most dangerous aspect of this new feminism is how it continues to demonize men in
every way one can possibly think of and the fact that they do it without concern for the
people they are defaming as individuals and the effect of their hate filled propaganda on
society.
RadFems continuously and religiously spout facts about how men as a whole oppress
women, in the work place, in the home, in everything under the sun. The fact is that this is
simply not true. Consider these facts:
Women control 86% of all personal wealth in America.
55% of all University graduates are women.
Women cast the majority of the votes in America (54%).
They win over 90% of custody disputes.
94% of work-related deaths are suffered by men.
Women are the victims of 35% of violent crimes.
The remaining 65% are men.
75% of murder victims are men.
85% of suicide victims are men.
24 out of the 25 worst jobs are exclusively male.
66% of health care is spent on women, discounting pregnancy related care.
If men are supposed to be ruling the world in some system of misogynous patriarchy then
how come we let the „terrible tragedy‟ of above happens?
Why did the all male government of years back give women the right to vote?
Why did the men of those times allow women the choice to go out and work if they so
wished?
Why did we extend rights once only reserved for men to women?
Is it all part of some cunning plan?
RadFems like Susan Faludi would have you think it is. A thorough examination of the facts
would show that the foundations of the RadFems agenda are lies. The RadFems think that
the whole world - including the majority of women - are fools.
Here are a few historical dates that in their entirety make the existence of a patriarchal
oppressive state a complete fallacy:
Mary Lyon founded the 1st woman's college in US - Mt. Holyoke College in 1837.
Antoinette Brown Blackwell was the 1st formally educated woman minister of the
Congregationalist Church in 1853.
Mary Walker was the 1st (and only) woman to receive the US Medal of Honor in 1866.
She was a Civil War surgeon.
Victoria Woodhall was the 1st woman to run for President of the US in 1872.
Susan Salter was elected the 1st woman US mayor of Argonia, KS in 1887.
Alice Wells was the 1st policewoman in the US in 1910.
Jeannette Rankin was the 1st woman elected to US congress in 1916 from Montana.
Only legislator to vote against both WW I and WW II.
Ever hear of prohibition? The 18th Amendment? THE FEMINISTS DID THAT ONE in
1919 to protect "women and children" from drunken men.
Nellie Taylor Ross was the 1st elected female state governor (of Wyoming) - 1925.
Ever hear of "illegal" drugs and "controlled" substances? THE FEMINISTS DID THAT
ONE in 1937. The entire war on drugs which is crippling our nation TODAY can be traced
to racist and sexist ideals fostered by early feminists to protect "women and children" from
stoned men. The movie "Reefer Madness" was all about the loosening of female moral
virtue with a weed.
| BOOK OF ZED.. |