Two years ago, during our annual peer evaluation, a feminist professor suggested (via e-mail) that I may have falsified information in my annual productivity report. She claimed I had listed an article as “in print” without placing any re-prints in my “supporting documents” folder. A few minutes later, she wrote back admitting she had misread my report. I had listed the article as “in press,” which meant that the absence of reprints was simply a function of the fact that the article had not yet been printed.
The incident did not surprise me. Feminists are generally more confrontational in emails than they are in person – unless, of course, they are with a large group of feminists. They also approach orgasm every time they think they have caught a man doing something wrong. But, although it was unsurprising, the incident was certainly enlightening.
I say the incident was enlightening because, seven years before that, another feminist listed a first-edition book as “in print” in her annual report without providing any supporting documentation. Then, three years later, she listed the same first-edition book as “in print,” thus twice receiving credit for the same publication. I brought this to the attention of the department chairman but, to my knowledge, nothing ever happened.
More recently, feminist Rosemary DePaolo appeared in an ad misrepresenting her accomplishments as UNC-Wilmington Chancellor. The ad, appearing in “The Black Pages” phone book, which advertises black-owned businesses, used this bold heading:
New Black Faculty 2006-2007.
Among the fifteen pictures of “new black faculty” there were several of black professors who have been at UNC-Wilmington for many years. There was also at least one picture of a black professor who has been gone from the university for several years. It was a triple blow to the university because she was (and still is, I suppose) a black lesbian.
But the university solved the problem of losing a black, a woman, and a homosexual - all rolled into one person - by simply lying with taxpayer money in an ad meant to a) appease the black community, and b) cover up the failures of the chancellor with regard to improving diversity. It is a strong accusation but there were simply too many “errors” in the ad to attribute to the administration’s generally high level of incompetence.
Of course, despite the obvious deception, nothing has happened to the chancellor and nothing ever will because she is a feminist. And we all know that feminists are held to a lower standard than men because, curiously, we think that is a good way to end sexism.
But there really is more to these cases than “society” simply holding women to a lower standard of ethical conduct. I think such cases really have a lot to do with the current goals of the feminist movement. This revelation came to me when I heard two feminists talking the other day about an alleged relationship between Ashley Olsen, 21, and Lance Armstrong, 36.
I don’t have to tell my readers that both feminists were offended by the relationship. Nor do I have to explain that they were offended because they thought Armstrong was taking advantage of the younger Olsen and that he was somehow perverted for taking interest in one so young.
But perhaps I should at this point remind the reader that feminists are staunchly opposed to parental notification requirements for minors seeking abortions. Feminists will almost always defend a teenager’s right to make such a decision on her own. They are even reluctant to require parental notification in cases where the girl is not yet a teenager.
So why is a 12-year-old mature enough to have an abortion while a 21-year-old is too immature to date Lance Armstrong? The answer lies in what I think feminism has come to mean now that a woman has the same opportunities as a man:
Feminism is a political movement that seeks unlimited rights for women without corresponding responsibilities by exempting women from all criticism.
The arrogance of modern day feminism is best illustrated by the case of a feminist atheist who was mad at God after several people were killed in a natural disaster. “How could a God who is good and just decide arbitrarily who should live and who should die?” she asked indignantly.
Of course, the feminist is pro-choice on the issue of abortion. She feels entitled to as many abortions as she deems necessary. She can abort every other pregnancy, every third pregnancy, every odd-numbered pregnancy, every even-numbered pregnancy, or, for that matter, every one of them if she so chooses.
But no one will ever confront the angry feminist with her hypocrisy. It shows more than that the modern feminist believes she is above God. It shows that the modern feminist movement is succeeding wildly in achieving its current political objectives.
Dr. Mike Adams’ new book, “Feminists Say the Darndest Things,” will appear in bookstores across America on February 14th.