If you study history, you learn to see patterns. What happened in the French Revolution was replicated in the Russian Revolution — destruction in the name of ‘equality’, and the implementation of ‘reforms’ according to a radical ideology, followed by a bloody nightmarish failure. Last night I received an email from a reader:
What would a feminist-approved rape trial look like?
I know what the verdict would always be 100% of the time, but I just want to know what the procedure would be in order to reach that verdict. We all know that current justice system is not good enough for feminists and that the campus sexual-assault system isn’t quite up to the feminists’ liking either. So… then what? What would a feminist-approved system look like?
I imagine a dunce cap might be required at some point. Thoughts?
It’s like anything else with the Left: They are against the status quo. The existing society is unjust, and therefore …
Well, therefore what? Ever since the French Revolution we have seen a repetition of the same pattern: Destroy the system, replace it with something dreamed up by intellectuals and the result? Catastrophe.
The regime of Lenin and Stalin was infinitely more cruel than the czarist regime.
So, feminists want to destroy the current legal system and we ask, “What will you replace it with?”
The answers are always either (a) vague or (b) frightening, or (c) both vague and frightening.
What is clear, going back to Catharine MacKinnon in the 1980s, is that feminists think the law is on the side of the rapist, and that the normal due-process protections of defendants shouldn’t apply in rape cases. We see the kind of kangaroo-court proceedings established on university campuses, where the accusation alone is tantamount to proof, and where exculpatory evidence is ignored, and if you point this out as an injustice, you are accused of being a “rape apologist.” We can therefore assume that this is what feminists would institute as the basis of legal “reforms” in our courts, if they had the power to do so — which they might someday get, if Hillary is elected.
Some people observing this step-by-step advance of feminism may think, “Well, I’m not a rapist. My son is not a rapist. This will never affect me.” Yet the secondary and tertiary effects of such policies are difficult to predict, and the Law of Unintended Consequences can take decades to work itself out. Many of the problems we see today are consequences of policy changes that happened in the 1960s and ’70s, such as the end of university administrators acting in loco parentis. Once upon a time, a boy caught in the girls’ dorm (or vice-versa) outside regular visiting hours was subject to expulsion. Now most universities have coed dorms, and no effort at all is made to curb sexual promiscuity, and then everyone acts surprised when rapes happen. But conservatives who opposed the coed dorm policy decades ago are not heeded when they say, “I told you so.” Some consequences are not intended, but they are to some extent predictable, and letting college kids run wild was certain to have negative results, even if not all of the results could be foreseen.
Feminism fails because feminism is a War Against Human Nature. (Radical feminism has declared war on human nature. Feminists assert that everything most people think of as normal and natural about sex — including basic ideas about what it means to be male and female — is oppressive to women. Award-winning journalist Robert Stacy McCain examines these theories and warns that feminism’s radical ideas about “equality” could destroy our civilization.)
In times of revolution, when society begins spinning out of control, the wise course is to protect yourself and your family from harm — insofar as this is possible — while warning others about the danger ahead. Prophets of doom are never popular, but when we see history repeating itself the way it is now repeating, we have a duty to sound the warning.
Study the life of Leon Trotsky. He sided with the Mensheviks when Lenin first split the Marxist movement in Russia, but when the crisis of 1917 erupted, Trotsky saw that Lenin’s strategy could succeed, and so cast his lot with the Bolsheviks. During the subsequent era, Trotsky’s leadership of the Red Army was decisive in saving the Leninist regime, but when Lenin fell ill, Trotsky was reluctant to push himself forward as Lenin’s successor. This enabled Stalin to gain the dictatorship, and Trotsky was subsequently purged and exiled and ultimately assassinated — a victim of the revolution he had helped make possible.
Now, consider this headline:
The source for that headline is a radical feminist site. For more than two years, I’ve reported how radical feminists — especially including Cathy Brennan — have opposed the transgender movement. To a great extent, such feminists are like Trotsky, warning against the danger of Stalinism.
While it would have been difficult, if not entirely impossible, to predict such weirdness as Bruce “Caitlyn” Jenner being named Glamour magazine’s “Women of the Year,” still these bizarre developments are not altogether surprising to conservatives. “Equality” is a corrosive solvent, totalitarians are never satisfied by any compromise, and Feminism Is a Totalitarian Movement to Destroy Civilization as We Know It. If you grant every demand feminists make today, tomorrow they will return with a new list of demands. Once it was obvious that the Supreme Court would side with LGBT activists on same-sex marriage (and the Lawrence v. Texas decision in 2003 was a clear signal of this intent, as Justice Scalia foresaw), the question was, “What next?”
No one predicted in 2003 that, as a result of the Lawrence ruling, by 2016, the White House would seek to impose gender-neutral restrooms on America’s schoolchildren but . . . “Equality!”
Radical feminists now see themselves depicted as bigots — lumped in with Christian conservatives in this regard — for insisting that separate public facilities are necessary for the safety of women and girls.
All of us who feel a sense of foreboding about the impending disaster know that we will be denounced as paranoid fearmongers if we speak bluntly about the kind of dangers that lurk in the future. The frog has been boiled slowly for a long time and I’m reminded of a once-famous title by Lewis Grizzard: I Haven’t Understood Anything Since 1962. Sure, I was only 3 years old in 1962, but I understand now what Grizzard was saying. The cultural upheavals of the 1960s unleashed destructive social and political forces, and every effort to put the genie back in the bottle — e.g., the so-called “Reagan Revolution” — has only occasionally slowed the tempo of catastrophe. We have had a few short periods of apparent calm, when it seemed that order was finally restored. Yet these are merely brief halts in our Long March to the Gates of Hell, because the forces of anarchy and depravity will never rest until America is finally destroyed.
Remember the Minnesota parents who are raising their 5-year-old son as a girl? We recognize this as Munchausen Syndrome by proxy, and yet we see how feminist theory can be used to justify this pathology:
For more than 40 years, radical feminists have advocated androgyny — the abolition of gender — as the means of achieving “equality.” . . .
Feminism condemns normal human behavior as “male privilege” and “tyranny” (Firestone), “patriarchal power” and “sexual repression” (Dworkin), “male sexual dominance” (MacKinnon), and “the systematic oppression of women” (Scanlon). Because of feminism’s hegemonic influence in academia, these ideas have become widely accepted on university campuses, and inevitably have begun influencing policy and curricula in public schools.
Just today, I was skimming a 2005 anthology edited by Professor Chrys Ingraham (SUNY-Purchase). This academic text includes an essay by Professor Diane Richardson (Newcastle University) in which she invokes “critical perspectives on the social construction of gender and sexuality” to condemn heterosexuality as an oppressive “system of privileged, institutionalized norms and practices.” In feminism’s “theoretical framework,” Professor Richardson explains, “sexuality is seen as a key mechanism of patriarchal control.” Because I know what feminist theory actually is — and can cite the sources by name — what am I to say of those feminists who insist that the transgender phenomenon is anti-woman?
When radicals decided to destroy the social order (e.g., “patriarchal power”), who could predict what would emerge from the chaos?
Promoters of “gender-neutral” childhood want to convince parents that our common-sense objections to their bizarre schemes are motivated by ignorant prejudice. Feminists now consider “normal” a synonym for wrong. Heterosexuality is the worst thing in the world, and parents who try to raise normal kid are obviously haters, guilty of homophobia.
Teaching girls to hate boys is perfectly OK with radical feminists, who likewise approve of deliberate anti-male discrimination in the name of “diversity,” and what did they expect would be the result? After radical feminists have waged a four-decade crusade to destroy families and undermine Judeo-Christian morality, to what system of values can they now appeal in opposing the transgender cult? “Social justice”?
Do feminists expect chivalrous courtesy from deranged perverts? Do they think transgender billionaire James “Jennifer” Pritzker gives a damn what happens to girls and boys subjected to sex-change “treatment”? Do they think George Soros actually cares about women and children?
Ignorance of history does not excuse the folly of radicals who have forgotten (or perhaps never learned) that Roberspierre went to the guillotine and Trotsky died at the hands of a Communist assassin.
First, I just have to say thanks, man, for reading all that incredibly mind corroding garbage (like feminist textbooks) so that we don’t have to. Your sacrifices are greatly appreciated!
Second, the LGBT movement is already starting to eat its own over the transgender issue and feminists are going to be the losers if the trannies get their way in its entirety. Of course, the feminists are dragging good and decent women with them.
I’m not a believer in the rapture, but sometimes I wish it were on its way.
“Chicago billionaire (((James “Jennifer” Pritzker))) is funding the transgender agenda.”
“Do they think (((George Soros))) actually cares about women and children?”
“(((Trotsky))) died at the hands of a Communist assassin.”
When you add in (((Shulamith Firestone))), (((Andrea Dworkin))), (((Betty Frieden))), (((Bella Abzug))), (((Naomi Klein))), (((Susan Faludi))) and (((Gloria Steinem))) it might almost make one think there’s some connection between these folks who want to undermine Western Civilization.
Nah, that’s just crazy talk!
Think anti-Semitic rant. Yep Jews run the world and that’s why you can’t ever have nice things cause they just ruin it for good folk like you. Maybe you should smarten up or work harder.
Would you say Hollywood is really patriotic and produces wholesome family entertainment these days?
Just noticing things.
I have never been so upset by a poll in my life. Only 22% of Americans now believe “the movie and television industries are pretty much run by Jews,” down from nearly 50% in 1964. The Anti-Defamation League, which released the poll results last month, sees in these numbers a victory against stereotyping. Actually, it just shows how dumb America has gotten. Jews totally run Hollywood.
How deeply Jewish is Hollywood? When the studio chiefs took out a full-page ad in the Los Angeles Times a few weeks ago to demand that the Screen Actors Guild settle its contract, the open letter was signed by: News Corp. President Peter Chernin (Jewish), Paramount Pictures Chairman Brad Grey (Jewish), Walt Disney Co. Chief Executive Robert Iger (Jewish), Sony Pictures Chairman Michael Lynton (surprise, Dutch Jew), Warner Bros. Chairman Barry Meyer (Jewish), CBS Corp. Chief Executive Leslie Moonves (so Jewish his great uncle was the first prime minister of Israel), MGM Chairman Harry Sloan (Jewish) and NBC Universal Chief Executive Jeff Zucker (mega-Jewish). If either of the Weinstein brothers had signed, this group would have not only the power to shut down all film production but to form a minyan with enough Fiji water on hand to fill a mikvah.
The person they were yelling at in that ad was SAG President Alan Rosenberg (take a guess). The scathing rebuttal to the ad was written by entertainment super-agent Ari Emanuel (Jew with Israeli parents) on the Huffington Post, which is owned by Arianna Huffington (not Jewish and has never worked in Hollywood.)Los Angeles Times http://articles.latimes.com/2008/dec/19/opinion/oe-stein19
Fascinating Feminists Dead Beat Father turns up as a Tranny and he is also a (((Jew))). Another layer to add to their plot to rule the world.
Just a video of a talk about Jews and the porn industry given by Mike Kulich of Monarch Distributors and Rabbi Gary Katz at a Jewish community centre and an article by Joel Stein.
Facts are facts independent of whether you like them or not.
Do you believe that Jews run the world? I certainly don’t believe that, but they generally act in their own interests, which are not necessarily the same as the interests of Western Civilization.
Oh (((THEY))) act in their own interest. I am sure you are the mirror image of Mother Teresa. Western Civ? Much of the world would be running around with flint and stones if the Jews had not given out a few basic rules to follow–no killing yada yada, keep off other guys wife yada, yada–to quote (((Jerry Steinfeld)) and they are funny too. No Jews no Western Civ. For some odd reason there is a historical pattern that’s not hard to discern–People and counties that hate Jews have a tendency to crumble and the Jews tattered and all keep on keeping on. Dunno why that it is. But it is.
“No Jews no Western Civ.”
HaHaHaHaHa. Genuinely hilarious.