The latest group of women to gather claimed last week they were celebrating “women’s day” while letting a man pay for the privilege. I can’t help but smile at the incredible hypocrisy.

Their sugar daddy, George Soros, pumped in over $200 million to make their self-absorbed display of nonsense possible for the whole world to witness.

That explains why so many of them could take a day off from work — and why all those glossy, printed signs just happened to appear as if this spontaneous act of community just organically happened.

A true feminist would understand the moral contradiction in claiming to support all women while denying many the right to express opposing opinions.

More from LifeZette TV

MORE NEWS: Maine Police searching for woman who left dog poop in mailboxes of Trump supporters: Defaced campaign signs

No — there was a guy pulling the strings.

Liberal men usually want women to be reliant on their money and reliant on their political positions, even as they support issues they’ve labeled as “women’s.” Does anyone really believe, for example, that Hillary Rodham Clinton would have waltzed into New York as an Arkansas carpetbagger and claimed a Senate seat had she not been married to her husband — who just so happened to be President Bill Clinton?

Do you agree that protesting is acceptable, but rioting is not? Yes No Email Address (required) By completing the poll, you agree to receive emails from LifeZette and that you've read and agree to our privacy policy and legal statement Results Vote

Let me ask here as I digress a bit: Have you ever heard of a “man’s issue”? (Pause for a beat.) No, neither have I. The assumption has always been that all issues are of interest to men, but the feminists allow themselves to be carved into a special class of people relegated to dealing only with “women’s issues.”

So, if there are no men’s issues and liberal men are huge supporters of “women’s issues,” could it possibly be that they were the ones who created these philosophical ghettos of thought for feminists to grasp onto forever?

I get a kick out of the men at pro-abortion rallies: They claim they love women and support their “right to choose.” Of course they do. They have huge grins on their faces as they scan the crowd for their next conquest. There will be zero accountability on a man’s part for finding, seducing, impregnating, and leaving a clueless woman — who thinks she is liberated by this man’s action — to deal with the consequences of his immaturity.

MORE NEWS: Will You Ever Go Back To The Office?

Related: A Day Without Whiny Women in America

Men who are vocal supporters of abortion are not only clueless about the devastating consequences of such a decision for any woman. They are declaring women are not worth protecting, that children are disposable, and that their unbridled desires should be sated by any woman at any time because they are superior in all ways to women.

Remember the Promise Keepers rally back in 1999 in Washington, D.C., at which over 1 million men gathered to honor women and their families — and agree in unison that women were worthy of praise and adoration? There were naked women at the rally who were furious men would want to keep their promise to cherish and honor their wives. What? So the way you protest against men — whom you claim only see women as sex objects to force into submission — is to strip naked and run around without clothes? I am still having a hard time getting my arms around that one.

But ironically, as the feminists were excoriating these men who were humbling themselves before the world, vowing to keep promises they made to their wives, another sort were getting ready for the big Woodstock reunion 30 years after the original.

Remember the one where there was looting, burning, rape, and mayhem — and basically a disaster by anyone’s standards? One hopes we can all agree that rape is evil. But ironically, the reactions were restrained, with explanations ranging from, “It’s just kids having fun,” to “This isn’t the ’60s anymore.”

Well, that’s true, but arson, rape, and larceny are still crimes no matter what decade. What was amazing was the lack of concern about the debauchery against women, when there was such great concern, during the Promise Keepers rally, that women were being forced to be submissive.

Related: Girls Don’t Need the Women’s March

The talk shows were buzzing, feminists were pulling out their hair, and liberals were wringing their hands that women could possibly be happy with one man in a committed, loving relationship. There was a cry to liberate women from this brand of brainwashing by dangerous men. These men were so dangerous that a million of them, testosterone laden, could gather on the mall for an entire day and not have one incident of violence or abuse, and certainly not rape.

So, let me ask those who condemn actions like those of the Promise Keepers while ignoring the abuse of women at Woodstock ’99: Which group of men would you want your young daughter walking near?

You’ve played right into the hands of the guys with all the power, control and money.

I think the definition of a true feminist should be: a woman who has carved a trail herself, against all odds; a woman who has not been intimidated into acquiescing to defeat; and a woman who humbly honors those around her as viable individuals entitled to forge a different path in their lives. If she truly embraces her identity as a woman and the unique ability she has to bring new life into the world, then a true feminist would embrace that distinction and not try to minimize or destroy it.

A true feminist would understand the moral contradiction in claiming to support all women while denying many the right to express opposing opinions. She would see that same moral contradiction in supporting the murder of baby girls in the womb.

I do not oppose a true feminist. I just want to redefine the truest sense of the word while other women want to hijack a term that could have been honorable. It could have elevated women to a position where they were equally as revered as men. But when a group despises who they are, works to emulate what it claims to hate, and distorts the very nature of their existence, it is very hard to applaud that type of self-immolation. Self-loathing is indeed a force that, when coupled with anger and fear, will determine the destiny of any human being — no matter who pays for the privilege, how many colorful signs they carry, or how many silly hats they wear.

You’ve come a long way, baby: You’ve played right into the hands of the guys with all the power, control, and money — and you have nothing to show for it but a trail of tears.

Nina May is a writer, producer, and director, and currently the showrunner on “Daily Bread,” a faith-based post-apocalyptic drama.