Why I don’t take feminists seriously, Part IV

Mike Adams
|
Posted: Jan 30, 2006 12:05 AM
After Parts I, II, and III of this series, I have finally started to get a few hate males from feminist readers – letters usually known as “hate mails” when sent by non-feminists. One hate male writer said she couldn’t take me seriously because I am a hunter. That brings me to my next point about feminists.

11. When faced with uncertainty, feminists have less self-control than hunters.

Once when I was deer-hunting in Ivanhoe, North Carolina, I saw something moving in the brush about 100 yards away. It was foggy outside and I was looking through a 4 X 32 scope mounted on a Marlin 30-30. I never take a shot over 100 yards with that little brush gun. And I never shoot at anything unless I know exactly what is out there.

That day I got to thinking about the feminist approach to abortion. Feminists often justify abortion by saying that the procedure is no different than picking a scab. That’s when I start asking questions.

I often ask feminists about a film I saw of a fetus in the so-called “first trimester” of development. The baby (sorry, that is my opinion) was yawning, rubbing its eyes, and even rolling around and playing in the womb. I like to ask feminists whether they have ever seen a scab yawn.

When I press them on the issue, they seldom admit that the fetus is a person. But they seldom state unequivocally that it is not. They usually say they “don’t know for sure.” And they say that I “don’t know for sure” either.

That really epitomizes our differences. When I know it is a deer in the brush, I pull the trigger. When I know it is a human, I hold my fire. When I don’t know, I also hold my fire.

The feminist who “doesn’t know” whether it is a person, has the abortion anyway. She just pulls the trigger. That really says it all, doesn’t it?

12. Feminists cannot grasp the importance of gradual self-disclosure.

Long before I earned a Master’s degree in Social Psychology, I learned that one of the keys to successful relationships is choosing the appropriate pace of self-disclosure. If you too rapidly reveal intimate details of your personal life, people tend to devalue your friendship. If you reveal things more slowly, stronger relationships tend to follow.

People are often turned off to feminism because feminists tend to reveal intimate details of their lives very quickly. This is especially true of feminist professors in the classroom. The following complaint I received from a college student is illustrative:

“Dr. Adams: I agree with your observations on feminism. I took an English class taught by a feminist who I liked very much at first. When she started complaining about her first husband I felt sorry for her. By the time she started attacking her fifth husband I wanted to withdraw from the course. I have no idea how many different times she’s been married. I just know that none of the divorces were her fault.”

Sadly, it gets much worse than that in the feminist classroom. Feminist professors also discuss their sexual experiences – consensual and non-consensual – in excruciating detail in public. Venues include the classroom, books, and sometimes in “scholarly” articles. The First Amendment gives them the right to reveal what most people would say is “too much information.” But it does not give them the right to be taken seriously.

13. Feminist-sponsored Masturbation Workshops on college campuses.

No explanation necessary. But see the example from Grinnell College, if necessary.

14. Feminists would rather solve a problem by changing “society” than by changing their own behavior.

One obvious example of this is “love your body day” - not to be confused with masturbation workshop day. At many universities, “love your body day” concludes with feminists holding a beauty pageant featuring overweight models – usually with pretty faces. The purpose of this is to convince us that bigger women are just as attractive as smaller (by this, they mean thinner) women.

Sociology professors often pursue the notion that beauty is not objective but “socially constructed” by showing their students medieval paintings of nude, pudgy women. The argument is that fat used to be considered attractive. Therefore, it can be that way again with enough social engineering. So, feminists seek nothing less than to change societal perceptions of beauty with millions of dollars of tax-payer funded programs.

Wouldn’t it just be easier to exercise?

Along the same lines, have you noticed how chic it has become for feminists to claim that they are Marxists? Feminist professors spend a good bit of time trying to persuade their students that Marxism is the answer to America’s problems.

If a woman’s opportunities are better under communism, wouldn’t it be easier to get a job at the University of Havana than to start a bloody Marxist revolution?

I’ve never seen a bunch of poor, oppressed feminists board a leaky boat in Miami in order to paddle their way to freedom in Castro Cuba. But I do have a few friends in South Florida who escaped from communism. They still have their boats. And we’d be proud to give these Marxist feminists a lift to Havana any time.

So think about my offer, ladies. In the meantime, I’m going to smoke a good Honduran cigar while I’m writing Part V.