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.
As I think about the candid remarks of the freely fornicating biologist, I am reminded of a sociology professor’s response to a film showing an ultrasound of an abortion being performed on a fetus during its so-called first trimester of development. Without addressing the issue of when life actually begins she pleaded for the preservation of a woman’s right to choose by reminding people that a woman who gets pregnant “might not know” or “might not even like” the man who got her pregnant.
The similarities between the remarks of the freely fornicating biologist and the slut-sympathizer-slash-sociologist are analytically indistinguishable. And the remarks of the latter are a grim reminder that the feminist mantra that a “woman has right to control her body” is not a reference to the fetus at all. It is simply a reference to her own body and her desire to share it with those she “might not know” and “might not even like.”
Given that a) feminists who defend abortion invariably fall back on the “right to control her body” argument and, b) this argument is invariably motivated by nothing more than lust, the following re-definition of feminism is in order:
Feminism is a minority social movement, whose members murder innocent children in order to obtain sexual gratification.
Those who would quibble with my assertion that all feminists commit murder do so based on the mistaken assumption that a woman must have or actually perform an abortion to commit a murder. That isn’t so.
Charles Manson never actually stabbed or shot any of the five people at the Tate residence. Nor did he stab either of the LaBiancas the following evening. His conviction on all seven counts of murder was due to his choice to enter into a criminal conspiracy with the very people who did, in fact, directly commit the murders.
Whether they have ever had or performed an abortion themselves, all feminists today are voluntarily involved in a movement whose principal issue/goal is abortion on demand. And this meeting of the minds renders the term “baby killer” equal applicable to both the committed and casual feminist alike.
Clinton Loses The Washington Post: "Use of Private E-mail Shows Poor Regard For Public Trust" | Katie Pavlich
That Time Hillary’s State Department Booted An Ambassador For Using…A Private Email Account | Matt Vespa
WH Counsel's Office: Wait, Hillary Used Her Personal Email While She Was Secretary Of State? | Matt Vespa