[This is only about half done for length and half done for editing. But I published it, whoops, there it is. So expect it to change a lot; then I’ll promote the piece. Meanwhile, here’s an intimate look at a work in progress :-) No extra charge. ]
Modern feminism is the denial of femininity. Where women differ from men, that difference must be minimized, stamped out, obliterated. Ridicule and derision await women who do not wish to become men. It is as profoundly self-loathing and destructive as defending one’s abuser. For all the supposed “wisdom” of the female half of humanity, who are supposed to be more peaceful, more thoughtful, more caring, more healthy and so forth, because of their innate connection to the next generation, we see that the cause which has taken their name is now taking their lives.
Feminism, please recall, is that force in politics which enables pornographers, abortionists, womanizers, pimps and human traffickers to do their work with political and social cover; even a cache that increasingly opens these vile practices to casual exposure and creeping approval in the popular culture. I cannot imagine a more pathetically conflicted creature than a woman who feels that she is “empowered” by receiving money to have sex on camera, unless it is the supposedly respectable women walking about with their clothing on and defending the practice. It is an appalling spectacle reminiscent of the scene in Nineteen Eighty-Four where the pigs and the men look at each other across the table, and not only can we no longer tell the difference, but neither can they. Why bother oppressing people when you can get them to do it themselves?
A contrast is offered by the treatment offered to Sandra Fluke and Ann Romney by the progressive power structure. Ms. Fluke is encouraged to exist as a disposable, forgettable receptacle for satisfying the desires of men in the greater DC area, a well-publicized walking opportunity for consequence-free sex. The economy, you see, has cut into her ability to buy condoms. Mrs. Romney is criticized as “not having worked a day in her life” despite having raised five sons while battling breast cancer and multiple sclerosis, not to mention being married to a guy named “Mitt”. The economy, you see, is beyond her understanding because she cannot produce a W-2. This from an administration which feels that a demand for the production of legally required documents is worthy of scorn, and a pretty cool political ploy.
The administration and its fellow travellers feel that Fluke is qualified to speak while Romney is not, despite the fact that Mrs. Romney has responsibilities whereas Fluke has none. This is feminism’s corner of what I call the credentials plantation, where not only do those who toil never question authority, but they feel unworthy for the occasional unbidden impulse to do so. After inadvertently wondering if a professor has gotten an answer quite right, they immediately suppress the involuntary moment of heterodoxy and move along. Nothing to see here. Permission is required before speaking, and while sex, pregnancy, and killing have no consequences on the plantation, heterodoxy, disagreement, and insubordination can be the end of the ride.
And what a ride it must be! Very few on the left are as stupid as they uniformly sound. They are actually shrewd, like any child raised in a war zone, and know that in order to survive, they dare not anger those with the power to destroy them. If today’s truth is that women find it empowering to take mere cash in exchange for men’s entertainment at seeing their guts rummaged, then neither the women nor the men are prepared to challenge that obvious falsehood. Movies like Pretty Woman portray prostitution as some sort of independent consultancy, which like many careers can pose challenges and force decisions in order to resolve conflicts. Nothing is different, everything is relative, and women are at their best when weighing the odds of being strangled and beaten to death versus their need for money. In a rhythmic fashion, if you please.
Yet it is conservatives who oppress women by opening doors and insisting that “you’re not leaving this house dressed like that.” Cultural norms are an inheritance of wisdom from hundreds of generations of men and women who have confronted and solved challenges we face as part of the human condition. Young women’s heads are turned just as easily as young men’s, but by a different set of triggers. Men are more sexually excitable by sight alone than women are, less likely to connect consequences with sex, and physically more powerful than women in any reasonable comparison. You do the math. Societies develop different mechanisms to keep those factors from wiping out society. These are rules, manners, roles, customs. Some work better than others.
Yet modern feminism and its sister -isms in academia insist that we not allow that some societies do better at this than others. We are supposed to believe that the rules and customs which produced us and our predecessors have suddenly become obsolete because a pompous and conceited minority of well-credentialed eggheads have invented a new system. All that is required is the complete restructuring of society and and those who live in it. We have heard this before, and those of us who listen to the voice of history recognize the beating of drums and the call of horns of totalitarian slaughter.