Recently, a bright, young, conservative woman told me I had gone too far in my criticism of feminism. She even said my harsh criticism of feminism “almost made her want to be a feminist.” In addition to being dead wrong she may be in danger of becoming a liberal.
The “you almost make me want to be a feminist” statement reminds me of one I heard from a young liberal woman after a speech I gave in Spokane, Washington. The livid lib was upset because I referred to college professors who support speech codes as “dope smoking hippies who dropped too much acid in the 60s.”
By implying that a large amount of acid was required to make sense of the speech codes, I was simply making a joke. I was also drinking wine that night before the speech but that’s okay because the audience was Catholic.
It is predictable that a liberal would approach me after a speech and say “I’m now more liberal because of your harsh comments about professors who use acid.” By stating that I reinforced her liberalism by using offensive language (read: by making her even angrier) she simply reinforces my true definition of a liberal:
One who suffers from an emotional disorder that renders him, her, or it unable to appreciate humor.
Putting aside my disdain for a “conservative” who contemplates moving to the left because my comments have caused “offense,” I have come to the firm conclusion that I’ve not been nearly harsh enough in my treatment of feminists. And today I plan to start treating them the way they deserve to be treated.
My understanding of (and disrespect for) the underpinnings of modern feminism was actually fostered by a biologist who once made a very candid remark about the foundation of his support of Darwinism. When asked about the lack of evidence supporting Darwinism – the fossil record, etc. – he confessed there was a very human reason for his faith in evolutionary theory despite the lack of scientific evidence. He confessed that if Darwinism were not true, he wouldn’t be able to sleep around.
At the heart of his support for Darwinism was a desire to get God out of the picture by any means whatsoever. And his desire to get God out of the picture was in turn motivated by his desire to copulate with as many people as possible without feeling guilty. I wonder whether some untenured psychologist would dare to publish a paper called “A Cognitive Dissonance Theory of Human Devolution.” I think we all know the answer to that question.
Giuliani: Propaganda From Politicians to Separate Communities From Police is "Shameful" | Katie Pavlich
Interview: Former Senior CIA Official Defends Interrogation Program, Blasts 'Political' Report | Guy Benson
Christie to Obama: Cuba Should Send Back Cop Killer Joanne Chesimard Before U.S. Goes Further With Normalization | Katie Pavlich