“What is feminism?”

This was the question that I addressed in my presentation Sept. 9 in Leominster, Massachusetts, hosted by the Worcester Tea Party, Da Tech Guy Blog and Granite Grok. (Click here to see the 30-minute video.)

What most people don’t understand about feminism is that the movement is entirely destructive in its goals. This is a consequence of the Marxist influence on feminist ideology. Any careful student of Marxism, and its historical manifestation in the Soviet Union and other totalitarian regimes, recognizes that Marx (and Engels, Lenin, Trotsky, Mao, et al.) did not begin with a plan to replace the capitalist system. How would socialism work? This was not a question that Marxist revolutionaries spent much time pondering. What mattered was the radical dream of destroying a bourgeois society that they condemned in toto. Destruction was Marxism’s goal, and what came after the revolution — the “dictatorship of the proletariat” — would just work itself out somehow.

Well, we know that worked out. As we approach the 100th anniversary of the Bolshevik Revolution, everyone with two eyes and a functional brain realizes that the Marxist-Leninist dream has produced nothing but fear, hunger and violence. To this day, from Pyongyang to Caracas, we see the nightmare of poverty and terror that descends upon any place where socialist revolutionaries “succeed.” And because the modern feminist movement owes its origins to the radical New Left of the 1960s, feminism incorporates the fundamentally destructive nature of Marxist ideology.

My presentation in Massachusetts featured some two dozen quotes from feminists, spanning more than 40 years, demonstrating the deranged nature of this destructive ideology. “Smash patriarchy” — and then what?

Exactly what did feminists have in mind to replace “patriarchy”? If your answer to that question is “equality,” then you must then tell me what this imaginary regime of equality will look like — how it will operate in practice, not theory — and demonstrate that your radical dream is both (a) possible and (b) preferable to the allegedly unjust society that you will destroy in order to bring about your heaven-on-earth feminist utopia.

It is evident that no feminist leader was ever required to provide such a plan back in those days of dope-addled radicalism in the 1960s and ’70s, and anyone interested in feminism’s history ought to consider the points I made, and the questions I raised, in my Sept. 9 presentation:

One of the key founders of the Women’s Liberation Movement was Shulamith Firestone, who in 1968 used a mailing list of SDS women to organize the first radical feminist groups in New York and Washington, D.C. . . . Firestone’s 1970 book The Dialectic of Sex reflected the Marxist influence on feminist ideology. She condemned the “biological family” as a source of “tyranny,” and advocated the “elimination . . . of the sex distinction itself.”

Whatever happened to Shulamith Firestone? She was eventually diagnosed with paranoid schizophrenia. For decades, she lived on public assistance. She died alone, at age 67, in a tiny apartment in August 2012. By the time they found her body, she had been dead for a week.

Another early radical Women’s Liberation group, led by Ti-Grace Atkinson, called themselves simply “The Feminists.” In their manifesto, they described men as “enemies” and “oppressors” of women, and vowed to destroy “sex roles,” which they claimed are the product of a political “class separation.” Again, this shows the extent to which Second-Wave feminists borrowed their ideology and rhetoric from Marxism.

It was in a 1969 interview with Life magazine that Ti-Grace Atkinson declared, “Marriage means rape and lifelong slavery.” One of her comrades, Sheila Cronan, elaborated on this claim by saying that the cruelty of marriage is demonstrated by “the fact that it appears to exist with the consent of the enslaved group.” Now, we see how feminist ideology is based in claims of “oppression.” Men are the “enemy,” marriage is “slavery” and the family is “tyranny.” Where does this kind of rhetoric logically lead? . . .

Well, you can watch the whole thing on YouTube. Nearly 50 years after Shulamith Firestone began organizing what was then called the Women’s Liberation Movement (what is now known as “Second Wave” feminism), the real-life consequences are everywhere around us:

Tennessee made headlines as the Deadbeat Dad Capital of the World a few years ago. The story started in May 2012 with Desmond Hatchett, 33, of Knoxville, who had reportedly sired 30 offspring by 11 different women. WREG-TV quoted Hatchett: “I had four kids in the same year. Twice.” When that story drew nationwide attention — “Tennessee Baby Machine Is A State Inmate” was the Smoking Gun headline — a Memphis TV station did some checking with local court records and discovered that Terry Tyrone Turnage had spawned 23 children with 17 different women, while Richard M. Colbert was the father of 25 children by 18 different women. Then in 2013, a Nashville TV station reported that Orlando Shaw, 33, was the father of 22 children by 14 different women. “I was young and ambitious, and I love women,” Shaw told WTVF. “You can’t knock no man for loving women.”

In case you lost count: 4 men, 60 women, 100 children.

None of these serial inseminators was a “father” beyond the mere facts of biology. They were not capable of paying child-support adequate to the needs of their offspring, nor did they support the “baby mamas” who incubated their seed. Various taxpayer-funded government programs — Medicaid, food stamps, WIC, public housing, AFDC, etc. — make possible such reckless sprees of irresponsible procreation. Any student of sociology would expect that when these children are old enough to reproduce, they will do so in similarly disordered ways. And this is what feminists call success. . . .

Read the whole thing at The Patriarch Tree.

A friend on Twitter commented that my columns sometimes “make me so angry I want to punch a feminazi.” Let me state for the record that I am against punching feminazis. The smart thing to do is to shun feminists — avoid them completely — and to advise others to do the same.







Share this: Share

Twitter

Facebook



Reddit



Comments