Feminists are fascinating.

The fascination I have is similar to the way a person can be transfixed by something so distasteful and shocking that they cannot look away.

The endless examples of their cognitive dissonance are indisputable proof of the corruption of their ideology.

I was reading an editorial today which urged Australians to make sure they acknowledged and paid homage to our fallen servicemen and women on ANZAC Day despite the fact there is a lockdown due to the Corona virus.

One paragraph struck home and stirred the fiery embers in my gut into a flaming inferno!

An early start to the day is no big ask to pay respects to the men and women of our armed services who saw and endured the hellish conditions of war, so we could be spared from it.

I know I have written at length about this issue before but if it is good enough for our media to ram it down my throat on annual basis then I can respond to this feminist inspired crap with the same regularity.

The editorial continues:

Those who survived still carry the scars-both physical and mental, and many never spoken of-from their time in action. For one day a year they are reunited with their comrades who truly understand the traumas they have encountered. As tough as it is losing jobs, being isolated from family and friends, and enjoying less freedom of movement, it pales compared with the impact war zones have had on so many Australians, men and women.

Yes sir!

Thousands of grey- haired women fill our pubs and clubs, sharing their war stories and the memories of girlfriends who had their brains blown out or were disemboweled by shrapnel. You see them all over Melbourne. And one’s heart simply aches as you watch the ever-thinning ranks of old women limping down Swanston Street, medals proudly displayed as they wave to the grateful, adoring masses.

If ever there was an example of the feminist capacity to grab the spotlight in order to share centre stage with men who actually earned their day in the sun, it is this. Sadly, we have to endure it every year. It is shameful and I cannot understand why sane women do not raise a voice in protest at this historical revisionism.

What is most galling is that feminists love to trot out that old canard that men cause all the wars and the atrocities which inevitably occur and that such conflict would never occur under female leadership.

They are quick to distance themselves from any of the negative connotations associated with the gruesome reality of war, whilst being ready to jump right on board the war wagon when the accolades and thanks are being given.

Before anyone mentions that a tiny minority of females have indeed served overseas in the past twenty to thirty years, even then, most of them are kept well away from the frontlines.

So, women share equal footing and recognition with men when sacrifice in times of war is mentioned regardless of the enormous disparity in victims.

Compare this feminist approach to war with their approach to domestic violence. One third of all victims of domestic violence are men. More than 50% of the children murdered in family violence incidents are murdered by women, yet men are never mentioned in any speech, campaign or advertisement about this societal scourge other than as perpetrators. Women are never mentioned as anything other than victims.

It is all a gigantic lie sold to a gullible public.

How difficult would it be for the compassionate, caring feminists who are so concerned about victims of family violence to say: Family violence is an issue which affects the lives of men, women and children all over Australia. Let’s find a way to end this terrible, damaging abuse.

You know…equality. Genuine care and compassion for all.

Why is gender only specified when women are the majority of those affected, albeit by a small margin?

Any hint or suggestion that women may be drafted in time of war leads to anxious, breathless explanations as to why this is a misunderstanding of what true equality means.

“The Norwegian Association for Women’s Rights (NKF) considers female conscription as a misunderstanding of the concept of gender equality and the intentions of the Law on Equality. Gender equality implies first and foremost that women and men should have the same human rights and fundamental freedoms. Women should be valued and allocated power and resources on equal terms with men. But women and men do not have to be alike or do the same things to be equal. To ensure gender equality it is important in many cases that women and men are treated equally. But they should not necessarily be treated equally in all situation”

Hilarious. They have a cop out for every occasion. Offered them a chance to enjoy male privilege and they hurl it back in your face!

They make it abundantly clear they don’t want to be treated equally!

In an online editorial for Playboy, Lucy Steigerwald, a contributing editor to Antiwar.com, acknowledged that excluding women from draft registration was “unfair” and “sexist.” “But the solution to the decrepit notion that the young of the country are communal property is not to remove the sexism, it’s to remove the draft,” she wrote. “You don’t stop the runaway truck of U.S. foreign policy by throwing a man in front of it, and you definitely don’t stop it by throwing a man and a woman, just to make things equal,” Steigerwald wrote.

Or how about this comment from CodePink?

“Women’s equality will not be achieved by including women in a draft system that forces civilians to participate in activities that are against their will and harm others in large numbers, such as war. The draft is not a women’s rights issue, as it does nothing to advance the cause of equality and functionally limits freedom of choice for Americans of all genders. “While we demand equal pay for women in all areas of our economy, it is irresponsible for the fight for women’s rights to seek equal moral injury, equal PTSD, equal brain injury, equal suicide rates, equal lost limbs, or equal violent tendencies that military veterans suffer from. When it comes to the military, women’s equality is better served by ending draft registration for everyone.

Suddenly they are very concerned about the men too!

The argument that extending the [Selective Service] registration requirement to women is a way to help reduce gender-based discrimination is specious. It does not represent a move forward for women; it represents a move backward, imposing on young women a burden that young men have had to bear unjustly for many decades — a burden that no young person should have to bear at all. Even more disturbing, this argument fails to acknowledge or address the pervasive climate of sexism and sexual violence that is the reality of military life for many women who serve.

The doublespeak is truly remarkable and the panic is palpable.

How ironic that these very same women who grab any opportunity to speak of the noble fight of their suffragette heroes never mention the vicious campaign they initiated in order to shame boys (they were mostly boys) into going off to fight and die on the battlefields.

Now, when presented with the opportunity to redress the callous bigotry of the icons of their movement, they quiver and quake and refuse to answer the call. I wonder if Ms. Pankhurst and her gang would be demanding they do their duty or face shame and disgrace?

I think not.

After all, she thought it was only right and proper for the men on the Titanic to give up their lives so women could live.

Some suffragettes, including Sylvia Pankhurst, of the militant Women’s Social and Political Union (WSPU), showed scant regard for the sensitivities of the occasion, asserting that – as “women and children first” was the “universal” rule – the men’s actions were not “chivalrous”, and insisting their sacrifices did nothing to offset the shoddy way women were treated in everyday life.

The excerpt below lauds her work during WW1 and makes a passing reference to her championing of the White Feather Campaign, seemingly blithely including it in her resume of good works during that time.

Emmeline put the same energy and determination she had previously applied to women’s suffrage into patriotic advocacy of the war effort. She organised rallies, toured constantly delivering speeches, and lobbied the government to help women enter the work force while men were overseas fighting, even organising a parade of 30,000 women to encourage employers to take them on in industry. A supporter of conscription, she also became a prominent figure in the white feather movement (which handed white feathers, a sign of cowardice, to men in civilian dress to shame them into enlisting). Another issue which concerned her greatly at the time was the plight of so-called war babies, children born to single mothers whose fathers were on the front lines. Emmeline established an adoption home at Campden Hill designed to employ the Montessori method of childhood education. Although this was turned over to Princess Alice due to lack of funds, Emmeline adopted four children herself.

Treat us women like men? The very same people we refer to as privileged every day.

Perish the thought!

The charade performed by feminists every day is torn away and exposed for the fraudulent, deceitful joke it is whenever there is the slightest chance that true equality is coming to a place near every one of them.

When the army wants to demonstrate how diverse it is they make sure they recruit more women by having physical testing standards lowered. Of course, the vast majority of these women will never face an enemy soldier in combat or be found anywhere near the frontlines of any war.

A woman hits a man in his face. He punches her face in retaliation.

Feminists brand him an abusive, sexist monster for daring to hit a woman!

Are women the same as men? Are women the physical equal of men, or are they fragile, weak and helpless?

Believing women are fragile and weak would surely be the only possible reason anyone could be upset when a man hits a woman in retaliation.

No woman would give a damn if a tiny man punched a larger man and got knocked out for his troubles. They would say he got what he deserved and he was a fool for punching a bigger man in the first place. I’m sure many who witnessed such an incident would laugh as the tiny, unconscious man was carried out of the bar.

So, is it possession of a vagina that grants this invisible protective shield rather than physical weakness?

Which is it? Are women powerful or are they fragile? Or does vagina ownership grant the possessor certain privileges unavailable to men?

I think we know the answer.

Women’s durability in the building/roadworks industry is yet to be tested as all any female does here in Australia is hold the stop signs as the men dig, drill and climb telegraph poles. If the men held signs while the women dug the ditches it would soon be in the news and questions about the disappearance of chivalry and courtesy would abound.

This would not bother me in the slightest were it not for the endless girl power advertisements that flood our screens and the endless call for more women to enter the building industry and show the boys that anything they can do we can do better.

Fine.

If you are going to work alongside the men in the local council road crew then do it. But all one ever sees, without exception, is the female members of the roadside crew doing none of the heavy-lifting, digging and climbing but assuredly receiving the same pay cheque as their mud splattered, weary male counterparts.

Surely the day of reckoning will come and feminism’s hateful and dishonest agenda will become a subject of much wonderment and examination as future academics try to understand how such a corrupt, bigoted ideology established on a base of lies and half-truths ever took root in Western culture and wrought so much damage.