There is no limit to the amount of control that feminazis want to have over our lives. If women do not adhere to the unbelievably strict rules set down for us by the fascist feminist Left, then they are labeled anti-feminist and anti-woman. The latest example of the femisogynist litmus test is Taylor Swift, denounced as unfeminist… for writing about true love and having a wholesome image. The nerve!

Taylor Swift isn’t even 21 yet, and she’s already a force to be reckoned with. She became a superstar in 2006 at the age of sixteen, and today she’s sold over 10 million albums and appeared in several major motion pictures. She’s written her own music and said that most of her songs are autobiographical. She not only sings, but she also plays guitar and has produced much of her own music. Does any of this matter? Nope! Her latest song, Mine, has the femisogynists up in arms.

This song is rife with freaky-deaky, weirdo language that frames Swift as someone perpetually under the ownership, or at least care, of a male authority. The lyrics describe her as not a woman, but as a “careless man’s careful daughter” that her new boyfriend has “made a rebel of.” This is problematic to me, in the sense that it implies a transfer of her ownership from one man to another. I think it’s weird in this song that she doesn’t seem to have any sense of her own identity away from the love interest, or her father. I do, however, give her props for the use of the line “we got bills to pay.” Though grammatically incorrect, it implies that Taylor will be helping to pay the bills though some means of gainful employment. Let’s go back in time 50 years so that I can congratulate her on being progressive!

The other thing I found noteworthy was how Taylor was dealing with the transition from teen star to general entertainer. As much as she infantilizes herself, Swift is distinctly more adult here as compared to her previous videos. She’s got bills to pay! She has children! Usually when you see “teen” stars (she’s 20) make the transition from adolescence, they do it via the sexy route, à la Britney, LiLo, and Miley. This video is unique in the sense that Taylor Swift appears to be trying to age herself into a more matronly, albeit still conventionally attractive, role. It’s not often that we are encouraged to make an association between young pop starlets and motherhood….

Aside from completely misconstruing the lyrics, why does it matter what Taylor Swift writes about? Here is a self-made woman, someone who has built a career for herself, and done it in a classy, age-appropriate manner. For most rational, normal people, Taylor Swift is considered a role model. But it’s not good enough for the feminazis. Heaven forbid someone writes songs about their own feelings without consulting the fascist feminists about whether or not it’s considered Feminist Approved.

Feministing also jumped on the anti-Taylor Swift bandwagon, because Taylor Swift — a woman — is somehow “sexist.” And the reason that she is sexist is because a few femisogynists decided that the message of her music is somehow bad. Traditional love and romance is considered the most sexist thing ever when it comes to these enlightened beings. (After all, why should a woman be in a traditional, loving, respectful relationship?) When you consider that, as stated before, most of Swift’s songs are autobiographical, as in, based on her own experiences in relationships, it’s even more ridiculous. The feminazis claim that the issue is that music should speak to people, but obviously her music does speak to people, or she wouldn’t be selling millions and millions of albums. The issue here isn’t that women and girls don’t empathize with Taylor Swift’s lyrics, it’s that the feminazis want to decide what kind of relationships are sexist and not sexist.

The issue here is not about Taylor Swift. It’s about the monster that these feminazis have turned feminism into. Equality has gone completely out the window. It’s just like how pro-abortion advocates call themselves “pro-choice”. It isn’t about women deciding what choices to make for themselves. Taylor Swift, for example, is a successful, independent, wealthy woman who has accomplished so much at an incredibly young age. But because certain women who have hijacked the term feminist don’t like what she sings about, she’s automatically labeled as sexist and anti-feminist. Wouldn’t equality mean that a woman could choose to write whatever kind of music she wanted to write about… and that women could choose to listen to whatever kind of music they like? Feminism is not about a litmus test for how a woman lives her life, and it isn’t a list of rules. Feminism is about equality… something that the women who claim to be fighting for women’s right threw out the window a long time ago.

ShareThis

It’s long been predicted by the pro-abortion extremists that if Roe v. Wade is overturned, women will have to go back to being butchered by seedy abortions in back alleys. There are hysterical stories consisting of coat hangers and women bleeding out because evil right-wingers wouldn’t let the kindly abortionists practice out in the open. The truth, of course, is much less hysterical. But what pro-abortion feminazi with an agenda to push would ever admit to that? Well, Amanda Marcotte, femisogynist extraordinaire, let the truth slip in a recent column written for pro-abortion website RH Reality Check.

Marcotte was applauding the television series Mad Men for featuring a character, Joan, who had gotten two abortions in the 1960s. These abortions were illegal at the time. And, says Marcotte, this is historically accurate, because the back alley abortionist myth is just not true.

In your usual overly dramatic Hollywood fare, this would have been an occasion for raising the stakes by implying that Joan was subject to a mythical back alley butcher who left her infertile for life. But instead, the doctor shrugs and suggests that the odds are that the midwife did a good job, and certainly everything that he could see was in good working order. He points out that she got pregnant after the first abortion, and so he has every reason to believe she’s fine.

Believe it or not, this was historically accurate. In the sixties, many doctors performed abortions for their regular patients and charted them as something else. If you got an abortion from someone who wasn’t your regular doctor, odds are that it was still a safe abortion. And, as I’ve written about before, the myth of the back alley butcher is mostly inaccurate. It’s tempting for pro-choicers to invoke it in an attempt to remind people of the high human cost of banning abortion, but in the end, portraying abortion providers as “butchers” mostly helps the anti-choice cause by stigmatizing the compassionate, hard-working people who have helped women in need, whether or not that help was legal.

So pro-abortion fanatics are twisting the truth to push their pro-abortion agenda? Not so fast, says Marcotte. She quickly reverts back to the typical pro-abortion hysteria, assuring us that before abortion was legal, women were indeed mutilated from botched abortions.

Which isn’t to deny that illegal abortion meant the mutilation and often death of countless women. It’s both true that when abortion was a crime most providers were professional and that hospitals had an overwhelming number of septic abortion cases. As historian Rickie Solinger points out in her book Beggars and Choosers, this is because women who didn’t know where to find a black-market abortion provider often resorted to trying to abort themselves, causing injury or even death. The coathanger is the symbol of women’s desperation when they have no access to abortion.

And Marcotte is not alone in pushing the hysteria.

Salon’s resident feminazi, Tracy Clark-Flory, was pushing the same story earlier this week about pre-Roe abortion butchery. Apparently, LAPD found the remains of some dead babies in a basement in Los Angeles. This, of course, must be evidence of back alley abortions gone wrong! (Even though organizations like NARAL insist that they aren’t babies, just clusters of cells.)

So which is it? Pre-Roe abortions were safely performed by kindly law-breaking abortionists or women were dying from botched, self-induced abortions? Funny how she can’t quite keep her story straight. Of course, it’s not like it really matters. Either way you slice it, abortions must be kept legal, according to the pro-abortion radicals like Amanda Marcotte. Whatever the narrative, whatever the facts, the agenda is the same: abortion must be legal and widespread. Femisogynists will argue up and down that pre-Roe abortions were just so dangerous, but now that it’s legal, abortion is somehow “safe”. Unfortunately, the reality is quite different. Even today, with abortion legalized, there is no such thing as a “safe” abortion.

It’s interesting that pro-abortion advocates decided to call themselves pro-choice. If it was really about choice, and not about being specifically pro-abortion, then the feminazis wouldn’t be OK with the blatant lies and manipulation that are so commonplace in the abortion movement. If it was about being pro-woman, then one might think that the femisogynists would want women to be completely informed about the risks associated and where they were with the pregnancy. Planned Parenthood, for example, has been caught multiple times lying to women about whether or not the heart has started beating yet and how developed the baby is. Even worse is the evidence of Planned Parenthood’s willingness to cover up the statutory rape and sexual abuse of minors in order to sell abortions. Does this bother the femisogynists? Nope — there’s been not a peep about it. They don’t care as long as women are getting abortions. It isn’t about choice, because for them there’s only one choice, and that’s abortion. Any amount of lies and manipulation is allowable for them if it leads to more abortions.

Yet pro-lifers are the ones labeled anti-woman.

OK, you might be thinking. So women are sometimes tricked into abortions. Surely abortion isn’t harmful to women who know the facts and aren’t lied to, right? Not so much. There are myriads of risks associated with abortions that femisogynists just don’t want women to know about. It triples the risk of breast cancer, and increases the risk of future miscarriages. Women who have abortions have higher rates of depression and substance abuse, and are also more likely to commit suicide. One organization, Operation Rescue, launched a program called Abortion Whistleblower to document botched abortions and abortion abuses. They’ve found that botched abortions have become an epidemic. They also were able to compile a list of what they call abortion’s bad boys, abortionists convicted of crimes ranging from rape and sexual abuse to murder, manslaughter, fraud, and corruption. There were filthy clinics, falsified medical records, and even one instance of cannibalism.

Safe, legal, and rare, huh? It doesn’t exactly seem like we’ve come all that far from the pre-Roe days that the abortion extremists warn us about. And it doesn’t seem like being pro-abortion equals being pro-woman. In fact, the truth seems clear: you’d be hard-pressed to find something more harmful to women than abortion, but what does an abortion extremist like Amanda Marcotte care about that? There’s an agenda to push. Abortions were either perfectly safe pre-Roe or they left women butchered out of desperation, depending on what works better to sell abortion. It’s pathetic how far the femisogynists will go to further the cause of abortion. It’s even more pathetic how they claim to be doing it in the name of women — the very people who end up getting hurt the most.

ShareThis

Sarah Palin has had the femisogynists hopping over the past year. The media tried to destroy her in 2008 and failed. Since then, she’s become a force to be reckoned with.

She’s been sweeping the country, becoming influential in elections, writing a best-selling book, and becoming a Fox News contributor. Lefties were furious that they couldn’t keep this woman down. But nothing got the feminazis’ panties more in a bunch than when Sarah Palin called herself a feminist.

She has been empowering conservative women to get involved, calling for all of the “mama grizzlies” to rise up and defend the future of their country for their children. Furious that someone else was speaking for women other than Feminazi Approved Womyn, the leftist EMILY’s List decided to make a video trying to hijack the term mama grizzlies from Sarah Palin.

This plan radically backfired, and they’ve been the laughingstock of the blogosphere ever since. After all, who had the idea that dressing up like Ewoks to diss Sarah Palin would be a good one?

EMILY’s List is a pro-abortion group, and their number one beef with Sarah Palin, like most femisogynists, is likely that she’s pro-life. On top of that, she doesn’t like government run health care! Egads! Apparently, these are the things that “real” mama grizzlies — i.e., lefty mama grizzlies — care about. How could little bear cubs survive without knowing they can have an abortion when they’re 16 while their mothers proudly look on?

One of the biggest problems with lefty women trying to co-opt the phrase mama grizzlies is that … well, come on — who would ever see one of them as a mama grizzly? When you think of a pit bull or a grizzly bear, you think of strength, independence, ferocity.

I’d love to name one of today’s so-called liberals that could be described as strong, independent, and fierce, but there aren’t any. When attacked, lefties automatically go into whine mode. When in doubt, accuse someone of being a racist and scream that IT’S NOT FAIR!!!!. Then they’ll demand that the government step in to right the injustice, because the notion of handling your own problems for yourself is an idea that lefties just can’t understand.

When you need a nanny state government to take care of you cradle to grave, you can’t exactly then turn around and label yourself as a strong, independent, capable American, can you? People have been laughing at this, because who would ever describe today’s femisogynists as strong, kick-ass women? They probably don’t even understand why people are laughing at them.

A lefty feminazi attack when her cubs are threatened? Ha! Their version of “attacking” would involve a rally for NOW and whining for President Obama to do something.

But that’s only scratching the surface. The EMILY’s List ewoks got an epic fail for more reasons than just unintentional hilarity.

Let’s consider the creepiness of wanting to fight for the right of your daughter to choose. Think about that. They want their daughters to be able to have abortions. There’s something inherently twisted about that.

How could a mother want her daughter to have an abortion, to kill her future grandchild? Abortion is inherently anti-woman. There’s not much more harmful to women than the glorifying of abortion. Abortion actually is in fact harmful. Yet these women see taking away abortion as the number one threat to their daughters? That’s twisted and sick.

On top of that, the hyperbole is disturbing. They claim that if Sarah Palin had her way, health care wouldn’t exist in America … because, you know, before Obamacare was passed, no one had health care in the United States.

They’re for some reason mum on the fact that the Obama administration is trying to decertify Avastin, a breast cancer treatment drug, for cost reasons. But hey, Sarah Palin wants to take away ALL HEALTH CARE. Obama is God, and Sarah Palin is the devil.

Oh, and Sarah Palin (and most conservatives) doesn’t want to take away unemployment benefits. We just don’t want bloat those benefits by putting even more debt onto the shoulders of not only our cubs, but our grandcubs and our great-grandcubs.

Despite all of this, the truth is that yes, Sarah Palin doesn’t speak for these women. Sarah Palin is a pro-life conservative Republican. These women are pro-abortion lefty femisogynists. The major difference? Sarah Palin wouldn’t likely tell these women that they can’t call themselves feminists or that they aren’t true women.

Yet that’s exactly what’s happened to Sarah Palin!

Sarah Palin was told that she wasn’t a real feminist because she wasn’t pro-life. Women who voted Republican were told that they weren’t real women.

The original feminists, like Susan B. Anthony, were pro-life. They didn’t advocated feminist litmus tests or demand that voting women only vote a certain way. Today’s femisogynists couldn’t be further away from what feminists actually stood for, yet they’ve hijacked the movement and sought to silence strong conservative women.

When that didn’t work, they tried to hijack Sarah Palin’s massively successful mama grizzly campaign. Even the XX Factor, Slate‘s so-called feminist blog, called this a win for Sarah Palin. Even people on their own team saw this for what it was: an epic fail for the EMILY’s List ewoks.

ShareThis

There’s a new nightmare on the block for femisogynist moms. Now that they’re all grown up and settled down with teenage daughters of their own, they’re shocked to find out that the sexual empowerment they’ve been championing for decades has backfired on them. How has it backfired? Well, the femisogynist moms are finding out that sexual empowerment has really turned their daughters into slutty teens.

Canadian magazine Maclean’s examined the phenomenon in a controversial article titled “Outraged Moms, Trashy Daughters: How did those steeped in the women’s lib movement produce girls who think being a sex object is powerful?” Confused moms who label themselves as feminists can’t understand why their daughters label themselves as sex objects, sleep around, and demean themselves yet call it empowerment.

But the generation that grew up reading Our Bodies, Ourselves is most apoplectic over what they see as the unrelenting pressure on girls to be sexual, and not on their own terms. “I’m so deeply pained to see where women are today and how girls—and I mean girls—are being groomed to believe their purpose in life is to be sexual beings that please men,” says Nancy Vonk, the co-chief creative officer of Ogilvy & Mather in Toronto and the mother of a 16-year-old daughter. Vonk recalls wearing satin hot pants when she was 15. “But it was a different time,” she says. “Back then there was at least equal premium put on intellect and what was in your head. It was the opposite of ‘Go out and please men.’ ”

Kate Lloyd, the director of program and service development for the Learning Disabilities Association of Ontario and an academic coach to teenage girls, says the heightened sexual activity concerns her. “A blow job is just like shaking hands. It’s ridiculous,” she says. “But their attitude is: ‘We’re emancipated; we’re liberated; we’re in control, don’t worry.’ They see being able to hold that type of sexual behaviour over the boys as power; I see it as giving their power away.” But one 19-year-old girl sees the double standard facing girls as more complex. “If men have a lot of sex it’s a good thing, but if women have a lot of sex it’s a bad thing,” she says. “Men have a biological imperative to spread their genes. But that should not be a reason to control women.”

So basically, the 60s era of sexual empowerment was OK, because they weren’t trying to “please men”. They were taking control of their own sexuality. Wearing skanky hot pants was groovy back then. But these girls, they’re just sleeping around! They dress like whores! They’re slaves to the men!

It was just fine for the femisogynists to dress and act like sluts when they were growing up. It’s not OK for their daughters to do it, though. What’s the difference to them, though? And why are they so confused about how it happened?

One culprit for why girls are so hyper-sexualized these days can be traced right back to the extreme sex education being taught in our schools, with the charge being led by femisogynists to keep the sex ed coming. Girls have been taught by the adults in their lives to embrace their sexuality, have been lovingly encouraged to explore their sex lives in new and innovative ways. The feminist extremists gush about the brilliance of giving their daughters vibrators, they teach middle schoolers how to have good sex. Planned Parenthood distributes sexually explicit brochures to Girl Scouts and teach 10-year-olds about anal sex. Children are inundated about sex from extremely young ages about sex, something that the femisogynists encourage, and yet they can’t understand why teenage girls are sleeping around?

Consider how one feminist blog recently praised the sex ed programs in the Netherlands. What exactly does this consist of? Pretty much exactly what you would expect.

Next year, 12-year-old Sasha explains to me, they will learn how to put a condom on a broomstick (she says this without a trace of embarrassment, just a polite smile). Across the city, nine-year-old Marcus, who lives in a beautiful 18th-century house on a canal, has been watching a cartoon showing him how to masturbate. His sister, 11, has been writing an essay on reproduction and knows that it is legal for two consenting 12-year-olds to make love. Her favourite magazine, Girls, gives advice on techniques in bed, and her parents sometimes allow her to stay up to see a baby being born on the birthing channel.

Then there is Yuri, 16, who explains to me in perfect English that “anal sex hurts at the beginning but if you persevere it can be very pleasurable.” When I ask whether he is gay, he says “no” but he has watched a documentary on the subject with his parents.

This kind of sex ed is apparently going to be compulsory for all children beginning at the age of 5 this year in the Netherlands, and this program is being praised as the kind of program we need in the United States.

When this is what we are teaching our daughters, then how can there be any surprise when they turn out to be putting that knowledge to very good use? The other problem is that we have given our children a complete lack of boundaries when it comes to sex. Take abstinence before marriage, for example. It has become socially unacceptable for parents to tell their children to wait until they’re married to have sex. It’s not the “cool” thing to do, just like it isn’t “cool” to expect your high-schoolers not to drink. They’re going to do it anyways, so might as well teach them to be safe, right? But here’s a question.

If we take away the boundary of abstinence before marriage, then what’s the next boundary? 18? OK, so maybe that’s too old. Let’s say 16. But what if the teen says they’re ready for sex at 15? What about 14? Or 13? Where do you draw the line? The reality is that there has to be a line drawn somewhere. It is inappropriate for children to be having sex, but we’ve been indoctrinating our children that sex is OK for decades.

And we’ve also been indoctrinating girls to believe in some other harmful things as well.

The femisogynists gender bigots have been trying fervently to brainwash girls that men are oppressors, that the male patriarchy is trying to keep them down, and that chivalry is sexist. Forget restricting sex to marriage — if you believe all of that, you don’t even need to restrict sex to love. Nowhere in the article did any of the mothers even mention the words “love”, “marriage” or “family.”

The fascist feminists have been engaged in serious social engineering over the past few decades, subverting marriage and family. The word “father” is also noticeably absent. Femisogynists have tried very hard to make sure that fathers no longer have any say in a girl’s sexuality. But now that some of those activists have grown up and started families of their own, they’re realizing that they maybe don’t like the results so much.

And of course, we can’t forget about abortion. Abortion opened the door to sex with no consequences. It opened the door to men being able to use women and not have to deal with the responsibility of the possibility of a child. We let the sex genie out of the bottle, and for a while, femisogynists cheered it. But it seems like some of the femisogynists moms aren’t liking what they’re seeing.

It used to be that men had to prove their love and commitment before having sex. But femisogynists instead told women that they were better than that, that having sex like men made you empowered. Decades later, we’re seeing the results of this social experiment.

It’s ironic, isn’t it, that the very people who manufactured the social experiment are now the ones complaining about how it all turned out — and, as usual, taking absolutely no responsibility for the disaster.

ShareThis

American women have some of the best lives in the world. We can literally do whatever we want. American women can go to school where we want, we can go to college, we can work wherever we want, we can marry whoever we want, and we can choose to lead whatever kind of life we want to lead. Millions of women in oppressed countries around the world cannot even imagine the freedom that American women so enjoy — and take for granted. We’ve come a long way in less than one hundred short years, but a lot of women can’t see that.

We’re constantly told that we’re victims of an invisible patriarchy, that we’re slaves to our hormones, that without abortion on demand we can’t fully be women, that we don’t need a man but we need the government. The people that tell women these lies are the same people who pretend to be fighting for us, who have hijacked feminism: the fascist feminists. Whereas once feminists fought for equality, today the femisogynists fight for things like taxpayer funded abortion and universal health care. They fight for women to be able to sleep around like men and ignore the consequences. And most of the time, women don’t even know they’re being manipulated and lied to. Thankfully, once the lies are exposed, it’s easy to see the con.

Here are eight ways that fascist feminists are ruining America’s women.

8. Encouraging Promiscuity

Once upon a time, men had to earn sex with a woman. He would have to take her on a series of dates. He would have to enter into a relationship with her to prove his commitment to her. He would have to invest time, money, and emotions into their relationship. The woman held all of the power. Now, men don’t even have to take women onto dates. Often, dating happens after a couple has started sleeping together regularly. Men barely have to put any effort into it anymore, women just give it up hours after meeting random guys at a bar or a party.

This, according to the femisogynists, is called being “empowered”. It’s being in charge of your sexuality. As far as they’re concerned, all that you need to do is get yourself some birth control and you’re A-OK. Emotional consequences? STDs? No problem! As long as you don’t get pregnant, sleeping around is just fine, even if you’re still in high school.

The problem? Most women don’t feel this way, and especially not young girls. Two-thirds of teenage girls who have sex in high school go on to regret it. Teenagers who have sex are much more likely to be depressed or suicidal. 1/4 of sexually active teens have an STD. A whopping 8,000 teens get an STD daily. And, even when you use contraception, pregnancy is still a possibility. Teenage mothers have higher likelihoods of poverty and dependence on welfare. But do the fascist feminists care about any of this? Nope! It’s sexual freedom, baby. Who cares about the consequences? If it feels good, just do it. The problem is that sex has become so devalued that celibacy has actually become trendy. Women are realizing that sleeping around all the time with tons of different men does not bring you strength or empowerment or freedom or love. But femisogynists don’t want women to know that.

Feministing founder Jessica Valenti wrote an entire book about it called The Purity Myth. Expecting women to be abstinent is ridiculous, virginity is weird, and fathers wanting their daughters not to have sex is creepy. But casual one-night stands? Hook-ups? SO awesome! Just use a condom, because they’re totally foolproof. Abstain? Hold out? So for our grandparents’ generation and un-empowered, frigid, prude chicks.

7. Sanctioning Victimhood

If a woman loses to a man in an election, it’s because she’s a girl. If a woman doesn’t get a promotion, it’s the patriarchy trying to keep her down. If a man winks at a woman on the street, he’s just trying to keep her in her place. If a woman gets accidentally pregnant, her life is forever ruined and her only option is to get an abortion.

These are some of the attitudes you’ll find in the fascist feminist set.

Rather than encouraging women to take control of their own lives and be truly empowered, the femisogynists are forever trying to make sure that women always wallow in victimhood. Everything is sexist, everything, from jeans to office dress codes to the obvious fact that men like to look at boobs. They complain that there aren’t equal numbers of men and women committing suicide. Even having babies is considered sexist (but more on that later). Radical feminists see sexism everywhere, and the patriarchy is always trying to keep women down. But how does this do women any favors?

The reality is that sexism is not everywhere, and women cannot be truly empowered if they see themselves as consummate victims. The reality is that the victim act is really just an excuse for fascist feminists to be greedy little whiners who get special treatment.

6. Dabbling In Misandry

Feminism has gotten a nasty reputation. Radical feminists are to blame for this of course, and they whine about it incessantly. Ask anyone what they think of when they hear the word “feminism”, and they’ll almost always think of “man-haters”. And there’s a good reason for it, too. When radical feminists hijacked feminism, a great many of the people involved in the radical feminist movement do indeed hate men.

A large part of the man-hating movement from the fascist feminists involves domestic violence and rape, which are, of course, horrible. The vast majority of men do not beat or rape their wives or daughters and find men that do despicable. But fascist feminists paint all men with a broad brush, so that even men who don’t engage in domestic violence or rape are still somehow responsible for it. And if they aren’t angry, violent oppressors, then they are useless, worthless creatures who are inferior to women. You will find some of the most awful vitriol aimed at men in the fascist feminist movement. The depths of the anger that these women possess is disturbing. Maybe they didn’t have a father growing up, maybe they had a boyfriend who did beat them, but for whatever reason, many of the fascist feminists truly hate men. The only men they approve of are feminized-beta male-Michael Cera-types, who I guess pose no threat to them because they’ll roll over and do anything a woman wants them to do.

It’s sad and ridiculous that femisogynists spend so much time accusing American men of oppressing women, and then completely ignore the actual oppression women face in the Middle East. The radical feminists are almost completely silent about that. They’ll throw it a bone every now and again, but by and large, they ignore it. Women in the Middle East are raped and have no way of getting justice for it; they are sold into slavery through forced marriages when they are still children. Oftentimes they cannot get an education or work among men. They cannot wear what they want, practice whatever faith they want, or make their own decisions. And this is all because of actual sexist men. But radical feminists ignore them and set their sights on American men, some of the most enlightened men on the planet.

Ask any American man who has a daughter, a sister, or a wife what he wants for American women, and most of them will say that they want girls to be able to get an education and be whatever they want to be. In this last presidential election, Hillary Clinton came extremely close to winning the Democratic nomination for president — that alone shows how far we have come. But fascist feminists ignore that, because they have an anti-male agenda to push.

5. Destroying Chivalry

One of the easiest ways a man can show respect towards a woman is through chivalrous actions. Opening a door, pulling out a chair, giving up a seat for a lady… actions like these all show deference and respect for a woman. Being willing to protect a woman and put yourself at risk for her shows her value and worth. But for some reason, chivalry has come under attack. Men don’t practice chivalry anymore, to the disappointment of women everywhere.

Why not? Well, according to a poll taken of college men, it’s because of radical feminism. Chivalry has been dubbed sexist. There’s an attitude from women that they don’t need a man. Women act as if chivalrous actions are somehow disrespectful. So why should men continue to be chivalrous? Many, many women are completely unappreciative when men treat them like a lady. And, according to the femisogynists, things like holding doors open for women are totally sexist. Fascist feminists see chivalry as dated, sexist, and demeaning. It doesn’t matter that most women yearn for it deep down. They miss romance, they miss dating, and they miss being treated with respect and honor. How many times do women cry on the phone to their friends that they can’t find a man who treats them well? Killing chivalry has a lot to do with that. Women have been manipulated and conditioned to see chivalry as something antiquated and disrespectful, so they spurn it when they see it. They still crave it though. They’re wanting something better.

Chivalry gives a woman power, the very thing that femisogynists claim to be after. If a man is going out of his way to be chivalrous towards a women, it’s because he respects her, it’s because he sees value in her, and it’s because he wants to show that he is worthy of her. Chivalry is actually empowering to women, it elevates them, but it’s missing in our relationships today because fascist feminists destroyed it. It says a lot more about the worldview of the radical feminists than it does about the merits of chivalry.

4. Attacking Motherhood

What would women say their most important role is as a woman? Could it be high-powered careerwoman? Sexually liberated minx? Pro-abortion activist? Maybe these are the most important roles a radical feminist could play, but for most normal women, their most important role is that of mother.

Think about it. Motherhood is biologically hardwired into us. Most women feel called to have children, and feel that there is nothing more beautiful or precious than a child. It’s why so many women are devastated when they miscarry or can’t have children. It’s also why so many women are destroyed after an abortion — they realize that they’ve just killed their baby.

Fascist feminists, though, want to free women of their motherhood chains. Having babies is sexist and breastfeeding is creepy. Nuclear families are dangerous, and motherhood destroys your life. It’s their own agenda that is being pushed, not what women actually want or need.

3. Requiring A Feminist Litmus Test

Nothing angers leftist feminists more than combining the words “feminism” and “Sarah Palin” in a sentence. When Sarah Palin defined herself as a feminist, Jessica Valenti and the feminist left lost their minds. That’s because to the fascist feminists, only certain women count as “real” feminists. Amanda Marcotte even helpfully defined the specific issues that women are supposed to care about. Only women who cater to the liberal extremist agenda can be called feminists to women like Jessica Valenti and Amanda Marcotte.

Consider Sarah Palin, a feminist if there ever was one. She’s an empowered, self-made woman with a high-powered, successful career. She also has five beautiful children, and a loving, supportive husband. She’s even admitted to struggling with the thought of having an abortion, but chose instead to give birth to her son Trig. But because she is a conservative, and because she is pro-life, she is shunned by the fascist feminist set.

The truth is, they’re likely intimidated by strong conservative women. Conservative women don’t live in a world of constant victimhood. They don’t define themselves by their gender. And when conservative women like Sarah Palin and Nikki Haley endure disgusting misogynist attacks, they don’t wail about the patriarchy keeping them down. And conservative women actually represent feminism and the average American woman, whereas femisogynists represent only themselves and their own pro-abortion, sexist, anti-male, victimized agenda. When faced with true empowerment, fascist feminists can only try to tear the empowered women down.

2. Promoting Lies and Manipulation

The lengths femisogynists will go to in order to keep abortion legal and commonplace are shocking and despicable. The abortion lobby, and Planned Parenthood in particular, profits off of the lies and manipulation of women. Live Action has exposed the dishonesty in their Rosa Acuna Project, which shows how far clinics will go in order to convince a woman to get an abortion. They’ll tell women that there isn’t a baby inside their womb, they’ll lie about the heart beating, or how developed the baby is. Clinics routinely give out medically false information to women, and radical pro-abortion feminists never say a word about lying to women in order to sell an abortion.

But if you really want to anger the fascist feminists, bring up mandatory pre-abortion ultrasounds, which they call emotionally torturous. One mother interviewed by the New York Times about seeing an ultrasound before her abortion said that women “almost have to think of it as an alien” in order to keep the images from haunting them. Of course the images haunt women — it’s an image of their unborn child that they’re about to kill! Seeing that image will convince many women not to have the abortion. And this is why the pro-abortion feminists are so vehemently against making women see an ultrasound first. They claim to be pro-choice, but how can anyone be pro-choice if they can’t make an informed choice?

The femisogynists don’t want women making their own choice when it comes to abortion. They want women with unplanned pregnancies to choose abortion, always, and never to keep their babies. So they excuse the lies, cover up the manipulation, and fight an ultrasound which would force abortion providers to be truthful about the baby they’re about to kill. If women are going to have abortions, then abortion providers and the pro-abortion feminists owe it to those women to at least give them medically accurate information.

1. Glorifying Abortion

There is perhaps nothing more anti-woman than abortion. But the pro-abortion radical feminists have flipped that onto its head, claiming that to be against abortion is to be anti-woman. And this may be the number one way that fascist feminists are destroying women.

Right now, 22% of all pregnancies will end in abortion. But how does abortion hurt women?

Well, first there are the physical risks. Abortion triples the risk of breast cancer, and abortions also increase the risk of future miscarriages. Emotionally, there are also some horrific consequences. Women who abort are much more likely to commit suicide, with a suicide rate three times higher than the general suicide rate. Women who have an abortion are at a higher risk for long-term clinical depression. There is also a link between abortion and substance abuse, and it can even have an effect on the children who were not aborted (called Survivor Syndrome). There’s also been a connection found between abortion and subsequent child abuse.

But all of this is denied by the fascist feminists. Abortion is important, because an accidental pregnancy will ruin your life! It’s horrifying how much the radical feminists actively try to convince women to have an abortion, that it’s no big deal, that you won’t feel guilt, sorrow, and regret for the rest of your life. The facts are clearly against them, which is why they try so hard to cover those facts up.

The truth is that abortion is not just some normal little medical procedure; it’s a tragedy. Most women intuitively know that; it’s why so many women struggle so much after aborting their children, especially when they realize they’ve been lied to or manipulated into doing it. That is anti-life, and it is anti-woman. It’s a tragedy, for the life that was lost and for the women who have to live with the consequences for the rest of their lives.

The radical pro-abortion crowd fights for abortion “rights” because they have an agenda to push. They don’t care about how harmful it is, and how it can absolutely destroy a woman.

ShareThis

This was the situation my maternal grandmother found herself in at 14. Instead of having an abortion, she gave my mother up for adoption, and my mother was adopted by wonderful, loving parents and got a great family. Had my biological grandmother chosen to have an abortion, my mother would not be here — and neither would I. We do not have a relationship with her, but she chose to give my mother a life. I’m proud of her for that.

Apparently, rapper/actor Nick Cannon’s mother was in this exact situation. She got pregnant at 17, and was going to have an abortion. She ultimately changed her mind, giving birth to her son, Nick. He wrote a song thanking her for her decision and the sacrifices she made entitled “Can I Live?” (lyrics here). Here is the touching music video:

Chloe at Feministing found this video, and proceeded to blast it as “anti-woman”… and cruelly mocked it, sneering that his mother chose life and ended up with a “C-grade celebrity”. I guess if babies don’t grow up to become A-list celebrities, then they aren’t worth the hassle — in Chloe’s world, anyways.

Adult-with-the-voice-of-a-fetus Cannon’s argument is that not would his mother be killing someone were she to get an abortion, but she’d be killing him, Nick Cannon, the “Oprah-bound” “star” of Drumline. Drumline, guys.

It’s interesting that this is part of her argument. If he had been the star of, oh, Avatar, would she still be mocking him? Is it about the level of celebrity for her? I’m pretty sure that Cannon’s mother doesn’t love her son just because he’s a celebrity, and the point Cannon makes is a good one, whether a parent is considering an abortion or not. All parents wonder what their child will grow up to be, and how far they might go in life. And while Nick Cannon might indeed be a C-grade celebrity, he’s still more well-known than Chloe is, so does she really have much room to be sneering at him for his lack of fame?

And, believe it or not, even babies destined to grow up to be C-grade celebrities deserve a chance to live. I wonder if Chloe would be willing to tell her mother that she wished she had been aborted, if it was what was best for her at the time. And if Nick Cannon is such an inconsequential celebrity, then why is she getting so upset about him professing his pro-life views?

If this were just a rap to thank his mother for the sacrifices she made for him, it would be really sweet. And I understand that the knowledge that your mother very nearly aborted the pregnancy from which you resulted might color your view of abortion, but Cannon’s not just thanking his mother here. He’s calling on women, all women, who find themselves in a similar situation, to make the same decision she did. There is no other possible way to interpret the message “if your baby could speak, it would beg you not to have an abortion.”

… This video isn’t just about “telling the story of his life,” it’s about encouraging other women to make the same decision his mother did. It’s about telling people that no matter what sacrifices it requires of her, a seventeen-year-old woman who gets pregnant should keep the pregnancy, even if she has to drop out of high school, go to night school and depend on government welfare programs. Even if she has dreams other than the ones in which she sees her baby (“you see me in your sleep, so you can’t kill your dreams”? Really, Nick?). And what’s his reasoning? Because that baby might end up being a C-grade celebrity who will thank you for your strength and sacrifice years later, in the form of a poorly-written rap with a barely-concealed political agenda!

It’s quite clever, really, to focus on what the baby might become, on what the world might have missed out on if someone’s life had never come to pass, whether that person is Nick Cannon or Tim Tebow or you, the person watching this video. It’s clever because it forces us to acknowledge that even if we don’t believe a fetus is a person, it undeniably has the potential to become one. That might feel like a victory for anti-abortion forces, but in fact, it reveals a crucial weakness in the approach of those who argue for restrictions on abortion.

The focus on the baby’s potential life lays bare exactly where pro-life priorities lie, and it’s not with women. Women don’t matter here. Babies, fetuses and the potential they represent are all that matters. What women want, what women need, none of those things are important compared to the potential future life of the fetus. And if a woman has goals that would be impossible to achieve if she had a baby, or if she doesn’t want to make the enormous sacrifices that might be required of her, she’s weak. The admirable women are the ones who are “strong” enough to “make the right decision” even if it’s completely against their interests.

The focus on what the baby might grow up to be reveals just how anti-woman the anti-choice stance really is, despite the lauding of women like Cannon’s mother as strong and admirable. Because, as Cannon’s video demonstrates beyond a shadow of a doubt, we’re meant to care more about the potential for the fetus’ life than the woman’s. We’re expected to care more about a being that merely possesses the potential to become a fully-fledged person with thoughts, hopes, dreams and accomplishments, than we do about the woman who has already fulfilled that potential.

So just remember, ladies, even though it’s your body and your life, it’s not about you. You don’t matter. What matters is that the next generation of human life not be denied the glory, the greatness and the genius that will be Drumline 2.

The overall theme of this post is common for the pro-abortion fanatics. They love to claim that if women cannot have abortions, it means that they have to give up their entire lives — and call this anti-woman. Is it not, though, anti-woman to assume that women are such victims, incapable of living and working while pregnant? While mothers? Feminists look at pregnancy as something crippling, as if being pregnant somehow means that you aren’t able to function. It’s as if in their world, pregnancy turns women into blind-deaf crippled retards who somehow cannot continue to go to school (you can’t learn when you’re pregnant or something), you cannot keep working (it’s too rough on your fragile pregnant body), and your life is completely over (because obviously you’ll have no future if you have a baby). And, as usual, the idea of adoption is never mentioned. I just can’t quite understand how making women out to be these fragile, weak little victims who can’t handle sacrifices or hardship somehow makes women more empowered.

And while the pro-abortion crowd likes to pretend they only care about the life of the woman, it’s simply not true. Pro-abortion feminists like Chloe don’t care about women at all. They care about abortion. It’s why they are against pre-abortion ultrasounds and laws requiring clinics to give medically accurate information. (They know that if a woman sees an image of her child, or knows that the baby already has a heartbeat, they’ll be much less likely to go through with the abortion.) It’s why they try to drown out the post-abortion trauma women face — from increased health risks (like breast cancer) to higher incidences of miscarriage, they don’t want women to know about it. They also don’t want women to know about the emotional trauma many women face. Post abortion, many, many women are stricken with feelings of guilt, regret, and sorrow. Pro-abortion radicals do not want women to know about any of these things, yet they trumpet themselves as pro-woman. What they actually are is pro-abortion.

I don’t think Nick Cannon’s song is genius or even that good. The video has touching moments, though, especially the scenes of mother and son together at the end. While feminists might like to pretend that women who choose life over abortion will regret it their entire lives (remember, pregnancy is a life-ruiner), I’d suspect the opposite. Many, many parents struggle when they’re first starting out, and especially teenage parents. There will be many, many sacrifices to make, and life will inevitably be harder. But I’d be willing to bet that most of the parents who make these sacrifices for their children ultimately say it was worth it in the long run. They love their children enough that they are willing to sacrifice, willing to work harder, to give their children the chance to have a better life. And it’s because they love their children. Feminists like Chloe, though, would have parents miss out on that love just because the road might be a little bit harder. Because, you know, Heaven forbid life be anything but easy. If you can’t do what you want, when you want to, as much as you want, then it’s not fair! They can’t seem to understand that hard work pays off in the end, and a little sacrifice can be very rewarding in the long run. A life of sacrificing for your children does not mean you somehow love your children less, but pro-abortion feminists can’t understand that, can they?

ShareThis

The femisogynists just cannot let Sarah Palin go. Ever since she came out of the closet as a feminist, their heads haven’t stopped exploding. When you add in the number of strong, successful, conservative female politicians who have emerged in the past year, it’s no wonder that the fascist feminists have been going through a major identity crisis. The Sarah Palin feminist story is actually pretty old news, but the feminist left just can’t stop bringing it up. The latest to join in on the cacophony of complaints is the executive vice president of the National Organization for Women (NOW), Bonnie Grabenhofer. The problem? All these gosh-darned conservative women, led by that dastardly Sarah Palin, just don’t realize that they’re victims and slaves to their reproductive rights. How dare a woman think she paved the road to her own success and be pro-life??

Grabenhofer starts with the trite and beaten-to-death meme that Sarah Palin is not a feminist.

NOW executive vice-president, Bonnie Grabenhofer, told The Daily Caller that to her, “feminism is a social justice movement aimed at getting social, political, and economic equality for women. We work for the advancement of women on multiple fronts.”

… According to Grabenhofer, Palin doesn’t qualify as a feminist.

“I do not consider Sarah Palin to be a feminist,” she said. “She has benefitted from the work of feminists but she has not worked to advance the rights of women. She works against the progressive ideas meant to help.”

What, exactly, disqualifies Sarah Palin from being considered a feminist? She’s a self-made women with an impressive career. For those unfamiliar with Palin’s career pre-politics, she first worked as a sports reporter; after marrying her husband, Todd Palin, she worked with him in the commercial fishing industry in Alaska. She got into politics pretty much at the lowest possible level: at the PTA. She then ran for a seat on the Wasilla city council, eventually moving on to become the mayor, and then governor of Alaska. The rest is history. She was forced to step down as governor, but her career has been far from over. She’s now a bestselling author with an upcoming second book to be released later this year, a Fox News contributor, and a public speaker. She’s the clear breadwinner of her family, but by all accounts seems to have a happy, healthy marriage with her hunk of a husband, Todd. They have five beautiful children together. One would think this would be the perfect definition of a feminist is. But, of course, there’s a litmus test that you have to pass in order to join the Fascist Feminist Club, and Sarah Palin failed. It doesn’t matter how self-sufficient she is, or how equal a partnership she has with her husband, or how hard she worked to forge herself a spot in the boys’ club of politics. Because she’s pro-life, she can’t be considered a feminist.

Grabenhofer continued, saying that in order to be a feminist, a woman must support abortion rights.

“If you cannot control your reproductive rights, you cannot fully participate in society,” she explained.

Abortion is the end-all, be-all for the femisogynists. It is the sacred cow of their movement. If you don’t support abortion, then you aren’t a real women. Not only are you not a real women, but you are anti-woman, and an anti-feminist. There’s no room for dissent in today’s extremist feminist movement. But there’s a slight problem with their orthodoxy. Grabenhofer’s argument, that if you cannot control your “reproductive rights”, you cannot participate fully in society insinuates that a pregnant woman cannot is not capable of participating fully in society, thus the need for abortions.

Isn’t that a little insulting to all mothers, everywhere?

ShareThis

Last week, before the airing of an episode of Friday Night Lights on NBC, feminist sites were gleefully discussing the fact that a teen-age character was pregnant and contemplating an abortion. They were not only gleeful, but were actively and proudly rooting for her to have the abortion and for NBC to air the episode. An example from a post at Feministing entitled “I’m rooting for an abortion this Friday night”:

In the real world, abortion is one of the most common surgical procedures in the country and more than a third of American women will have one by age 45 . On TV, however, unexpected pregnancies usually result in a baby without even a mention of the “A” word. If a character does consider abortion, as Private Practice ’s Maya did last season and Grey’s Anatomy ’s Christina did in Season 1, it typically ends with an 11th hour change of heart or a convenient miscarriage as a last-minute cop-out….

And I want all the teenage girls watching who may one day find themselves, like Becky, unexpectedly pregnant and very scared to know that they too can have an abortion and that life–and football–will go on.

Safe, legal and rare, huh? Well, rare unless you have super fun football games that you must attend. Safe, legal and rare – yet also a most common surgical procedure, with claims that one-third of all women will have an abortion? If you check the statistics, that number doesn’t actually bear true, thankfully. However, only a femisogynist would not only try to claim that one third of pregnancies end in abortion, but would also intellectually dishonestly try to spin it into a positive and an attempted rationale for an insane argument. To anyone else, that’s a devastating, horrifying and incredibly sad statistic.

But, what else can one possibly expect from the Pro-abortion rah-rah sisterhood? Earlier this year, the same site had a post encouraging women to proudly brag about their abortions:

Women are never ashamed to say “Oh I had a vaginal delivery” or “I had a Vaginal Birth after Cesarean” or even talk about their tubal or biopsy.

Stop being ashamed!
Stop avoiding the “a word” and get it out there!
Women should not be forced into a closet, or live under a shroud of shame for having an abortion!

SAY IT LADIES!

abortion….. Abortion….. ABORTION!

Come on, ladies! Empower yourselves by live tweeting your abortions! Watch family fare on the television with your daughters and say “Oh, I hope she aborts that baby — just like I should have done instead of a pesky old boring vaginal delivery of a living child. If only, sigh. I could have been so proud of myself! Abortion!”

And again, several months ago, Jessica Valenti lamented the fact that another tv show, MTv’s 16 and Pregnant, didn’t have any brag-worthy abortions. They apparently refuse to accept the fact that more and more young people today are trending Pro-Life.

They refuse to accept it because they are not pro-choice. They are pro one choice only. They are striving to make abortion the default choice, because, as always, it’s not about women or children. It’s purely agenda driven. Identity politics and gender-based political wedges are their bread and butter. They use fear to keep women in progressive line by keeping them perpetual victims. They diminish motherhood by convincing people that it’s a form of enslaving punishment. They have devalued life to the point where it is now expendable at one’s convenience and even for one’s own convenience.

In this instance, sadly, the femisogynist cheerleaders got their wish. The episode, which had been previously aired on DirectTv, did air on NBC. And the character, high school sophomore Becky, had an abortion. Of course, they won’t “root for” counseling for Becky. They will deny, always, the trauma that abortion may also cause to the woman. They deny the very existence of post-abortion syndrome and the life-long guilt and pain those women bear. Instead, they will  rejoice at the thought of killing a baby who isn’t timely.

Because it’s not about being For The Women ™.  It’s not about being safe, legal and rare. That lie has been completely exposed.  And there are over 50 million dead fetuses who can attest to that fact.

As for me, I’ll root for motherhood. And I’ll root for the unborn babies.

—-

(cross-posted from NewsReal)

Follow Lori  on Twitter and read more of her work at Snark and Boobs, iOwntheWorld , Right Wing News and Red State.

ShareThis

Out: Camp fires and swimming. In: groupthink! Yes, now femisogynists are weaseling their way into the realm of summer camps:

Lots of kids go to summer camp to roast hot dogs and learn how to canoe. Others go to get really good at tennis or to immerse themselves in musical theater. And now, you can go to camp to learn how to be a feminist.

A camp. To learn how to be a feminist. I know, I thought the same thing — who on earth would want to be a feminist, much less attend a camp rife with them? Turns out, it’s the kind of people who actually choose to label themselves and who take some sort of strange pride in being a part of an irrelevant and self-diminishing groupthink.

When Sara Myles, a student at Bowling Green State University in Ohio, has trouble launching herself onto a trampoline, she shouts to rev herself up. “I can do this. I’m a feminist!” That declaration is one of the overarching themes of feminist summer camp: declaring one’s feminist status proudly, and then figuring out how to put that pride and energy to use.

Hey, here’s an idea. How about being proud of yourself as, you know, a person? You see, you kind of defeat the purpose when you take actual pride in having a victim mentality and participating in the perpetuation of lies and faux oppression. This line of alleged thinking continues with the workshops that are offered, including the following:

Activists Jennifer Baumgardner and Amy Richards started the program for college students after visiting university campuses around the country and realizing that lots of women’s studies students wanted to work as feminists, but didn’t know where to look for jobs. They planned the week in order to introduce the campers to as many different feminist organizations as possible: They vary from the Guttmacher Institute, which collects statistics about things like the number of abortions performed each year, to Babeland, a female-friendly sex toy shop.

Work as feminists? That’s an actual job now? Well, I suppose we should be grateful that they are finally admitting that. It is a job; feminism is a cottage industry that has nothing to do with actual women. In fact, their entire agenda is harmful to women as their own workshops indicate. Surprise, surprise — abortion is a key study area! Because, remember, you can’t possibly be a feminist if you are an icky pro-life woman who believes that killing babies is not something to be embraced and touted as a way to achieve a corrupted form of equality.

Good old “sexual empowerment” is covered as well via the workshops on sex toys. Either that, or the camp counselors are pervily hoping to see young women at slumber parties having pillow fights in their panties — now with “appliances”! I only hope that they have a workshop on bashing cheerleaders. No feminist camp could be complete without the demeaning of women who aren’t the “right” kind of women!

Once again, feminists prove that they are actually femisogynists who do not have the best interests of women nor womanhood itself at heart. It’s all about perpetuating a victim class and pushing an agenda harmful to all, but particularly damaging to women. Groupthink and self-labeling, good. Individuality, bad.

The entire concept of this “summer camp” is cuckoo pants.  The alleged goal is to teach women to find jobs in the “feminist” field. If they were really concerned about “equality”, why would they pigeonhole young women into jobs that only serve to foster a victim mentality? Shouldn’t the entire goal of actual feminism be that there is no longer a need nor a desire for “feminist” jobs?

But, then, it’s not about empowering women to them, is it? It’s about keeping the Left in power.

—–

(crossposted from NewsReal)

h/t Tabitha Hale’s twitter feed

Follow Lori  on Twitter and read more of her work at Snark and Boobs, iOwntheWorld , Right Wing News and Red State.

ShareThis

Amanda Marcotte

About a month ago, Sarah Palin had the gall to describe herself as a feminist. Then, a crop of Republican women rose to prominence — most notably, Nikki Haley, Meg Whitman, Carly Fiorina, and Sharron Angle — by winning primaries across the country. Nikki Haley in particular, an Indian-American Christian conservative Republican woman, was the victim of horrendous attacks from the good ol’ boys club in South Carolina. But she was able to rise above the crude attacks and still win the gubernatorial primary in her state.

Suddenly, conservative feminism is everywhere. Women have become more and more politically active, and they’re rejecting the hijacking of feminism that’s been going on for several decades. Fascist feminists have come out in full force against it, digging their heels in deeper and deeper. The idea that women could make up their own minds about political issues and actually believe in conservative principles infuriates them, because women are supposed to toe a very specific ideological line.

After several weeks of conservative feminist bashing from the leftists Lori Ziganto has dubbed femisogynists, Amanda Marcotte has chimed in, with a column saying that conservative feminism is the idea that women are too stupid to know the difference. And, as per usual with any fascist feminist, the nonsensical argument revolves almost entirely around abortion.

Marcotte argues that abortion is not harmful to women (without citing any references to back up her argument, we should believe that it’s the truth because Amanda Marcotte Says So) and that conservatives do not see women as equal to men.

Common sense would demand that one not agree that there could be a kind of feminism that would declare the entire female sex incapable of handling the right to bodily autonomy. But the anti-choice feminists swear they have an argument! The argument is that Abortion Is Bad For Women, because it thwarts women from their true desires—so deep and true that many women don’t even realize they have them—to bring every pregnancy to term, no matter how much they think they don’t want it. They marshal all sorts of made-up evidence to support this argument, claiming incorrectly that abortion causes depression and breast cancer and probably ingrown toenails. The conclusion is that women have to be forced to bear children against their will for their own good.

. . . .

But setting aside even these historical realities, the argument underpinning anti-choice “feminism” is one based on the very un-feminist belief that women are simply too stupid to know their own minds. The narrative that suggests that women only think they want abortions, but will see the light if forced to bear children is to paint half of all adults as basically very tall children, except that it’s legal to have sex with them. In the anti-choice view, every single woman who enters an abortion clinic and asks for an abortion is really just a victim of her own stupidity and gullibility, and only after she has the abortion will she see how wrong she was. (They need to believe this so badly they simply overlook the evidence showing that most women who have abortions feel relief, and even those who feel sadness often don’t feel regret.) Any feminism that starts with the premise that women aren’t equal to men, because women are too stupid to make their own decisions, is simply not a kind of feminism. This is definitional—feminism starts with the belief that women are equal to men, especially with regards to intellectual and moral abilities. A feminism that doesn’t accept this is like a humanism that believes that human beings are fundamentally wicked and undeserving of rights—that is, it doesn’t exist.

ShareThis