Feminism

Islamic radicalism may be creating a “clash of civilizations,” but sexual radicalism is undermining the social foundation of all civilization.

“All politics is on one level sexual politics.” — George Gilder, 1986

Four decades into the boldest social experiment ever undertaken in the Western democracies, the full impact of what was once quaintly known as “women’s liberation” is at last becoming clear. The political class of both the Left and Right have colluded to limit the debate to a series of innocuous controversies: job discrimination, equal pay, affirmative action. Only abortion has any depth, and that debate has been mired in stalemate.

Meanwhile, beneath the political radar screen, the real consequences are finally emerging: a massive restructuring of the social order, demographic trends that threaten the very survival of Western civilization, and perhaps least noticed, an exponential growth in the size and power of the state — the state at its most bureaucratic and tyrannical.

Feminism has now positioned itself as the vanguard of the Left, shifting the political discourse from the economic and racial to the social and increasingly the sexual. What was once a socialistic assault on property and enterprise has become a social and sexual attack on the family, marriage, and masculinity. This marks a truly new kind of politics, the most personal and thus potentially the most total politics ever devised: the politics of private life and sexual relations.

Read the full article here.

(CHICAGO) -- Just when we thought we had seen our share of fantastic and colorful ideas for 2009, Representatives Lucille Roybal-Allard (D-CA) and Ted Poe (R-TX) are hoping you won't mind just one more to add to the list.

Titled the SAFE Act ("Security and Financial Empowerment"), H.R. 739 intends to promote victimhood and allegations of domestic violence by granting lifetime job security to anyone who makes a claim of Domestic Violence, creating powerful incentives for highly conflicted spouses and intimate partners to file false abuse charges, which would trivialize real problems associated with domestic violence, while marginalizing actual victims of physical abuse that need and deserve the attention of law enforcement and the courts.

H.R. 739 seeks to prohibit employers from refusing a job to any person who claims to have suffered from domestic violence or "substantial emotional distress or psychological harm" – words that can be interpreted to mean just about anything.

And, as hard as it is to believe, no actual evidence of domestic violence is required to receive these benefits. The "victim" only has to sign a sworn statement or get a restraining order, which are notoriously easy to get because of the low standards of proof and weak definitions of domestic violence that are currently used to destroy intact families.

Furthermore, judges are reluctant to deny applications for fear of being blamed if something bad happened following the denial. A family or household member of the Domestic Violence "victim" is also entitled to the same benefits.

H.R. 739 also allows any person who "is, has been, or may be the subject of abuse" to qualify for lifetime health insurance coverage.

The "victim" would also be entitled to 30 days of emergency leave as well as unemployment compensation. The bill amounts to a lifetime guarantee of job security and availability of employer-subsidized health insurance for any person who claims to be a victim of domestic violence or psychological abuse, or for any family member. And the person who allegedly inflicted the abuse has no right to refute or appeal the charges.

Some readers might wonder if we're exaggerating when we say all this, but we're not – see RADAR's analysis of the bill here: http://www.mediaradar.org/docs/RADARanalysis-HR739-SAFE-Act.pdf

Suffice it to say, this bill is prime example how the feminist mantra of victimhood has spun out of control, and how even Republican lawmakers are being co-opted by them.

Over 1 million restraining orders are issued each year in which partner violence is not even alleged. This so-called "SAFE" Act is the last thing we need. Take action today!

 Our last two alerts targeted VAWA funding in the stimulus bill. Although we were not fully successful in removing it, we did succeed in eliminating $75 million from the final package – $325 million instead of $400 million. Thank you for helping expose how VAWA has spiraled out of control because of the lack of an honest debate!

Act Now!

Rep. Ted Poe

's sponsorship of this bill is clearly out of step with his party's stand on economic policy. Please contact his office and ask him to withdraw support for H.R. 739.

As always please remember to be polite.

Rep. Ted Poe (R) Texas, 2nd Congressional District Phone: 202-225-6565 Fax: 202-225-5547 Webform: http://poe.house.gov/contact/contactform.htm

If you or someone you know would be interested in working to stem the growing tide of feminist-dominated agendas that are designed to destroy intact families and parent-child bonds, please write to us at: info@illinoisparentsandchildren.org.

If you support our efforts, please be sure to forward this message to others within your personal and professional networks.

Thank you for your time and consideration.

Michael Burns

President/Co-founder

Illinois Alliance for Parents and Children

Chicago, Illinois

"Building a More Empathic Human Context"

The Dangerous Rise of Sexual Politics Islamic radicalism may be creating a “clash of civilizations,” but sexual radicalism is undermining the social foundation of all civilization.

“All politics is on one level sexual politics.” — George Gilder, 1986

Four decades into the boldest social experiment ever undertaken in the Western democracies, the full impact of what was once quaintly known as “women’s liberation” is at last becoming clear. The political class of both the Left and Right have colluded to limit the debate to a series of innocuous controversies: job discrimination, equal pay, affirmative action. Only abortion has any depth, and that debate has been mired in stalemate. Meanwhile, beneath the political radar screen, the real consequences are finally emerging: a massive restructuring of the social order, demographic trends that threaten the very survival of Western civilization, and perhaps least noticed, an exponential growth in the size and power of the state — the state at its most bureaucratic and tyrannical. Feminism has now positioned itself as the vanguard of the Left, shifting the political discourse from the economic and racial to the social and increasingly the sexual. What was once a socialistic assault on property and enterprise has become a social and sexual attack on the family, marriage, and masculinity. This marks a truly new kind of politics, the most personal and thus potentially the most total politics ever devised: the politics of private life and sexual relations.

Read the rest here.

Hat tip to Moe Lane at Redstate for pointing me to Michelle Cottle's convoluted reasoning at The New Republic concerning Sarah Palin and Hillary Clinton.

Titled 'Shattered', it starts out asking the big question for everyone on the Left, "Can someone please tell me what the hell happened?" Obama supporters want the answer to offer substance to go with the stuff they've been shoveling. They know they won but haven't yet figured out how. An answer would point them in the right direction as the diss Hillary strategy is no longer available. Cottle and the rest of Hillary's supporters want answers to ward off the next pretender to Hillary's throne.

I like Cottle's assessment of the Hillary campaign.

... This presidential election was supposed to be a high-water mark for feminism. Hillary Clinton ... wasn't running as a Woman [or] to prove herself tough enough to hang with the Big Boys: [Her] strategy was to prove that she was tougher than the Big Boys. ... Hillary's candidacy was expected to showcase what it means to be a broad-shouldered, ass-kicking modern woman.

Iowa was where Hillary's inevitability narrative unraveled, but New Hampshire was where she got the idea that redemption lay in the legions of gals who rallied 'round when the (mostly male) political establishment and punditocracy began salivating at the thought of her imminent demise. ... Hillary's now famous moment of teary-eyed vulnerability fueled their fury. ...

And, just like that, the strong, proud, fearless, gender-transcendent Hillary morphed into a disrespected, mistreated victim. Grievance feminism came roaring back with a vengeance. ...

... the Democratic National Committee was compelled to insert into its platform this statement: "We believe that standing up for our country means standing up against sexism and all intolerance. Demeaning portrayals of women cheapen our debates, dampen the dreams of our daughters, and deny us the contributions of too many. Responsibility lies with us all."

Not even the primary's resolution could end the drama. ... the true dead-enders--an overwhelmingly female cohort--grew ever more marginalized and belligerent. ... they were increasingly derided as overly emotional and downright nutty. ... the extremism of Hillary dead-enders has played into all those tired stereotypes about women being fuzzy-headed and irrational.

The short version is Hillary talked tough but folded under pressure playing the gender card. Her supposed legendary leadership skills fizzled revealing a woman who couldn't run a campaign, let alone a nation. The "If you don't choose Hillary, you're sexist!" group did garner her a loyal core group but it was unable to deliver the nomination. Democratic "girlie-fication" was so complete, PUMAs forced anti-sexist language into the formal platform. That was the extent of real Democratic support for women. Hillary was the feminist heroine struck down while on her holy quest.

Enter Sarah Palin. Determined to stick to her non-sexist guns, Cottle goes after Palin, not on the issue of gender, but on the issue of issues. Well, maybe not so much.

The Palin pick is disheartening on so many levels. For starters, even what little we know about the Alaska governor's policy views is enough to make a traditional feminist weep. The staunchly conservative Palin not only opposes abortion rights (even in cases of rape or incest), she also supports abstinence-only sex education and takes a strict free-market approach toward health care. ...

... Palin is abjectly unqualified to sit one heartbeat away from the presidency. She is less than two years into her first term as governor of a state with a population roughly equivalent to that of Baltimore or Fort Worth. Her minimal experience with national domestic issues is overshadowed only by her total lack of experience, or even apparent interest, in foreign affairs. This ... makes the cynical tokenism of Palin's selection all the more vivid.

Having analyzed Hillary well, Cottle fails to bring the same objectivity to Palin's evaluation. She seems unable to conceive that choosing a woman of "intelligence, politcal savvy, [and] judgement"; a "smart, ambitious" woman; a "ballsy" woman who also happens to be a "staunchly conservative" woman could be anything other than "cynical tokenism". Yes, she really did say all those nice things about Sarah Palin before dismissing her just because she's a woman.

Strong, accomplished women are acceptable only if they're Democrats. Drooling GOP neandrathals wouldn't nominate one until the Left showed them the political value in it. Palin isn't the nominee because she's all the good things Cottle says about her. She's the nominee because her vagina might attract votes. Palin is just a political whore being pimped by McCain.

At some point, Cottle and the Left must give up the unqualified token woman meme. It's a non-starter and a bad-ender, too. Go back to championing the right to kill unborn babies, to tax the country into economic oblivion, to enshrine destructive energy policies into environmental utopian fantasies, to cling to 20th century solutions for 21st century problems and the rest of the bunk passing for serious issue debate on the Left. They'll fare better with traditional losing arguments than with talking down the gender they'd love to praise but can't just because of ideology.

But, perhaps Cottle is a faux feminist willing to put Party before private parts. Or maybe, deep down, she's not a real feminist at all. Seeing Hillary implode at the first sign of trouble, perhaps she's convinced if Hillary couldn't weather the storm, no woman can. If the Left brings their own storm - going after Sarah with smears, lies and distortions starting with her family and moving to her person, her positions and Party, then doing it all again; belittle her, shame her, wound her enough and she'll fold. If Hillary couldn't take it, who is this upstart from the outside to think she can? At the end of the day, she's just a woman, after all.

Who knows? Cottle may even be right. I don't believe it, but she sure seems to. What to do, and what to say, however, if she turns out to be wrong? So who is the one advancing the feminist cause? And who is fighting a principled fight for the rights and opportunities of women? It would appear to be John McCain. It sure isn't Barack Obama. And it's not Michelle Cottle, either.

Thinking Cottle gets the nod for President of Hillary dead-enders - but what do I know - I only have a penis ...

Blue Collar Muse