There is a war on women taking place. The Democratic machine is working at high-speed disseminating the phrase, and in the meantime, distorting the truth on the real nature of the war. What the left has portrayed as a “War on Women” is viewed by many, including this blog, as a “War for Religious Freedom.” Being a free-thinking feminist myself, these are some timely battles in the “War on Women” that I’d love to see these self-proclaimed feminists on the American left express at least a modicum of concern over:
- Widespread rapes taking place in camps occupied by women who lost their homes in the Haitian earthquake.
- A teenage Moroccan girl was recently forced to marry her rapist by a judge, leading to the girl’s suicide.
- Disfiguring and sometimes fatal acid attacks on women around the world, including Afghanistan, Pakistan, India, Iraq, Bangladesh and Cambodia
- Sex-selective abortion (also known as gendercide) that has erased the possibility of life for over 163 million women worldwide
- A wide gender disparity in primary and secondary education worldwide
Instead of tackling any one of these important issues that set back the clock on women’s rights centuries, the feminist left has decided that the possible denial of free contraception is what constitutes a war on the fairer sex. By focusing on this to the exclusion of all else, by being the cheering section for an administration that does nothing for human rights, these “feminists” are helping to set back women’s rights back to the Stone Age.
The left’s hypocrisy is on full display when the media and Democratic machine’s treatment of Bill Maher versus Rush Limbaugh is contrasted. Earlier this week Alana highlighted a stinging new ad made by ShePAC that made clear while the President was paying lip service to feminism and Sandra Fluke, he was happily accepting a million dollar donation to his super PAC (which he once called a threat to democracy, but I digress) by a well-known misogynist. Obama’s senior campaign strategist David Axelrod has claimed that Limbaugh’s comments were worse than Maher’s, thus making the donation acceptable. I’ve heard other myopic liberals claim that Limbaugh is worse because he has higher listenership, because he isn’t a “comedian” (as Maher claims to be), because he is attacking women’s “rights” and because he is taking aim at a private citizen verses a public figure. Therefore, in these liberal minds, misogyny is acceptable when you are an unpopular liberal comedian, when you view rights in the correct manner (i.e. as they see them), when you critique a woman with sexually derogatory language when she is a politician, not an activist. Are you having a hard time keeping all of those conditions straight? A more simple explanation is this: You can be a misogynist and disparage women (preferably conservative), as long as you vote a straight Democratic ticket each and every election.
When the feminist lobby decides to expand their definition on the War on Women to women worldwide, when it calls out offenders of every political persuasion for violating a set standard of decency, I’ll be on board. Until then, I would like my female compatriots to stop pretending that they are fighting a battle for women’s rights instead of what they’re really doing: Playing into the hands of the Democratic party and all of its liberal arms.
Let's get to the nitty gritty. Western feminists consider abortion to be a secular sacrament. Any male who supports "abortion rights" is cut slack regardless of his personal vileness. Worldwide gendercide is virtually ignored. Feminists are afraid to genuinely address the horror because they consider it a slippery slope issue that will eventually justify outlawing all abortions.
The short answer to the question posed here is: Never. Multicultural relativism will always prevent Western progressives, feminists included, from pronouncing the anathema upon such horrors when they occur in the Third World. If mentioned at all, they get blamed on "Western imperialism" or some such imaginary monster in the closet.
The Catholic Church officially opposes all forms of contraception except for abstinence and the rhythm method. I am reminded of a riddle: nQ: What do you call couples who practice the rhythm method? nA: Parents. nCatholics no longer have larger families than median non-Catholic Americans. It's because of contraception. Contraception reduces the number of abortions and illegitimate births. Opposing contraception makes no sense whatsoever. The Catholic Church silently dropped its opposition to contraception until the current election, while officially maintaining its stance. The same thing happened with divorce, since the Church now grants annulments. Jesus, to be sure, forbade divorce, but then he also said that looking at someone with lust in one's heart was committing adultery. "If thy right eye offend thee, pluck it out" (Matthew 5:27-29). nAs far as opposing the use of taxes for contraception, we should consider the fact that this costs the government next to nothing. There are Tea Party members who seem to oppose all taxation. That is disloyal. If we love our country, we have to allow it to support itself. There is no route but taxation.
If contraception costs next to nothing, then there's no case for forcing the Catholic Church to violate its beliefs and teachings by providing it. Any woman who has a problem with the Church's position can, of course, seek employment elsewhere. It's a free country…for the moment…
I usually agree with much of what you write on this and other blogs, but this comment, "There are Tea Party members who seem to oppose all taxation." has no basis in reality. I've never heard of a Tea Partier say *no* taxes, just fewer and better allocated coupled with less spending. n n"There are Tea Party members…" is technically correct because technically there could be a half-dozen scattered T-Pers throughout the country that feel that way and therefore the statement would then be accurate, but overall, the thrust is disingenuous.
"Contraception reduces the number of abortions and illegitimate births". Nonsense, as the stats clearly prove: every malady related to human has sexuality increased substantially since contraception became widely available. Your remarks about the Catholic Church are as bigoted and contemptible as they are ignorant. As to your remark about taxation: it has nothing to do with the issue, inasmuch as the problem is compulsory insurance coverage, and the abrogation of the First Amendment. How do you –an otherwise intelligent person, as other comments demonstrate– manage so completely to miss the point?
Leftists, including most feminists, hate Israel more than they love life. They can't bring themselves to say anything against honor murders in Islamic countries, since they fear they might be tangentially supporting Israel.
Yes. Absolutely. I have always wondered what exactly was the source for this attitude, the underlying pathology. I locate it in the solipsistic morality that is the soul of liberalism: if they can't, somehow, take responsibility for a thing, it doesn't exist. It's an attitude that gives them the right to certify victims and validate their own titanic moral vanity. In the ME, the original sin in their eyes is US support for Israel, expiation for which is a simple matter.
Unfortunately the Feminist movement lost credibility in the 1990s by refusing to criticize Bill Clinton for his behavior toward women. It was obvious that organizational allegiance was to political liberalism first and the best interest of women second. The question of whether or not the Feminists and the policies they pursue are in the best interest of women has often been debated.
Very good blog Bethany. Feminist Lefties are nothing but radicals wearing mascara (well, usually). It's painful hearing their trivial, juvenile grievances to the point of having to block the noise from my senses. For a taste of *real* abuse and suffering, a brief visit to Voice of the Martyrs, Amnesty Int'l, OMCT.org (World Org Against Torture) should suffice to shame anyone with a conscience away from the pathetic whining that passes for activism in Left World.
Is there some robot that writes these…if the liberals are so concerned with_____, then what are they doing about the situation in Timbuktu? And, if George Clooney (for example) gets arrested trying to prevent murder in Africa, it's " why are they not more concerned with things at home.?" n nMost individuals would have difficulty impacting policy in Pakistan or Morocco, but I have seen NGOs take some of the terrible issues you mentioned. But, given the chance – they would probably get bashed by the reactionaries expressing outrage here. n n n
Excellent article and excellent points. We're a nation of children ruled by children. If a person wants to have sex for fun, then they should pay for her birth control — I should not be forced to pay for it. Where is the personal responsibility? And how in the world can you can any thinking person say that not wanting to pay for someone else's sexual exploits equates to a war on women? When women are no better than cattle in many parts of the world (and less valuable then cattle in many parts of a certain subcontinent)? Please, America, grow up!
Men should not be allowed to interfere with women issues UNLESS they are asked or when violating human's rights (not embryo's rights).
OK, by the same token, men shouldn't be asked to PAY for them, either. n nFrom domestic violence to single parenthood to everything else — right on down to how we wouldn't have to have as many streetlights if it was not to protect *women* from being raped — do you have any idea how much this costs male taxpayers? n nOK, dear, it is your body — do with it as you please, but *you* and not the taxpayer are responsible for anything and everything that happens as a consequence and I don't even want to hear about it. This is how it used to be, and if you weren't married to the guy when he got you pregnant, it was your problem and that of your parents. And if he started using you as a punching bag, you wanted to hope that your father and brothers were bigger than him (or that you had a male friend bigger than him) or you could look forward to a life of bruises & broken bones. And young ladies (and women in general) simply didn't go places by themselves, they went on the arm of a guy who would protect them or had to stay home. n nSteven, forget not that the Afgan Taliban was created to empower women (in an era of pandemic rape after the collapse of the Soviet-backed government). Do not forget what life is like for women in much of the Islamic world — where women's issues are a women's concern — and where only a female doctor may treat a woman, except that women aren't allowed to go to medical school — a friend's wife explained the reality of medical care for women in the Islamic world — and why she so very much loves America and being an American….
I am going to say three things that Ms. Mandel and others may find offensive at first blush: n n1: The Lord created men to protect women from other men. n2: The Lord created women to protect men from ourselves. n3: Feminism seeks to have the state protecting women instead of having men do it. n nThe second point is the most overlooked and the one that women least understand — guys are inherently self destructive. Inherently — we drive to fast, we drink too much, we eat all the wrong things and are too macho to be concerned about our own health — and even as to suicide, for all the media hype, it is guys not gals who are successful in this and I further argue that a lot of single-fatality OUI crashes are actually suicides. n nHistorically, men sought a wife for four reasons. Yes, sex and children — children being far more important in an earlier era when prosperous adult children was the only form of old age pension. nIn the era before refrigeration, microwave ovens and 24-hour restaurants, it wasn't just that a woman was a good cook and could make tasty dishes but her ability to preserve food for the long winter and to prepare it safely. (In an era before chlorine bleach and hot running water, the Kosher laws had a very real public health aspect to them — people who didn't follow them *died*.) n nBut the fourth is companionship and nurturing — which guys need in a way that women don't. nLook at mortality of married couples — when the husband dies, the widow misses him but lives the rest of her life — when the wife dies, the widower almost always follows her into the grave within a year. The same thing is true in terms of both mortality and auto accident rates for men in general — a married man will live longer and is less likely to wreck his car — and the insurance rates reflect this. n nAnd the fact that a woman gives a man emotional stability is so well known that — even though it isn't supposed to be — the fact that a male candidate is married is very much a positive thing and often essentially required for high level positions. The converse is true for women — once a woman gets to a mid/high level in most fields, folks could care less whom she has at home – and the concern earlier is only if it would interfere with her productivity. But as to the guy, if he has a wife, he will be more stable and more productive. n nAs much as it claimed not to, feminism really taught women that they are nothing but plumbing. Feminists studied women, who aren't men, and most of the initial scholars were women who didn't have very good relations with the men in their lives — this would be like having Nietzsche as the premier scholar in our understanding of women. And the Sandra Fluke thing is the logical conclusion of all of this — we have three generations of women (the third currently in K-12) believing that the only thing that any man will ever see in them is sex. n nSexual acttractability, sexual availability, feminism teaches that this is all any man will ever see in them — completely ignoring (if not rejecting) the nurturing stuff that makes a guy stay with a woman although it will take more than a few beers to pry this out of them. All this stuff about men not helping with housework — what is being missed is that the only reason they do any of it is because it makes the woman happy — guys are perfectly content throwing all the clothes into a pile and putting on whatever is on top of the pile. n nAnd what really REALLY being missed in all of this is that women are forced to have sex with guys in order to have them in their lives. Women want men in their lives, and the only way they can get them – in post-Feminist America — is by sleeping with them. n nIt was a Friday night at UMass in early March, just above freezing and damp, cold wind from the NorthEast spitting snow. Six young ladies sitting at the bus stop, attired in micro-mini-skirts (and little else) shivering as the snow melted on their legs. Desperately hoping that a guy — any guy — would pay the least scintilla of interest in her. And the guys, coming of age in an era where "all men are rapists" has been drummed into their heads, are too scared to even say 'hello' and instead congregate in a group on the sidewalk. And one wonders how much less a young lady can wear in her attempt to acquire the attention of young men. n nThis is what forty years of feminism has given us. Folk like Sandra Fluke *have to* have sex with all the guys in order to have anything resembling a social life. This is progress????
One other thing — as much as I wish women could look out for themselves, there are two simple realities. First, during the second half of pregnancy, childbirth itself, and for some time afterwards, a woman is essentially helpless. She can't protect herself, she really can't even meet her own basic needs herself — unlike other mammals, the size of the human head means that she really needs the help of others in childbirth itself. n nShe needs someone both protecting and providing for her – not even emotional support and companionship (although both are important), not in helping her with her "nesting" instinct, but in the provision of basic necessities. This is probably offending a lot of women — but it also is quite real — childbirth is medically incapacitating. n nHistorically, women looked to a husband that would be there for them. He would protect her, keep the fire burning, cook as best he knew how and the rest, but he would be there when she was at her most vulnerable point. And this was something that women looked for in a mate — a "good provider" able to meet her needs and someone faithful enough to stay with her. n nWhat feminism has done is replace the guy with the state. We don't have "single mothers", we have women married to the government. This has meant a more powerful government and that, I fear, is where a lot of the feminist stuff is coming from. Women aren't independent — far from it — they have just substituted one spouse for another. n n(I would so love to see a re-write of Betty Fredan's book, substituting "social service agency" for "husband.") n nSecond, men do bad things to women — and most women are smaller and weaker than most men. Women have smaller bones, which will break easier as well. n nHistorically, a woman looked to her father, her brothers, her husband and her sons to protect her. Yes this mean she had to be nice to them, maybe even subservient to them (although this may have been in appearance only, as women are far more manipulative than men ever could dream of being). n nNow she looks to the state to protect her. She absolutely has to be nice to these people, and she is far more subservient to them than she ever would have had to be to her male family members because while they may or may not have genuinely loved her, the faceless state sees her as nothing but a number. n nAgain I will offend — but the reality is that women need to be protected and are still seeking protectors — it is not a case of *if* but one of *who*. And if you are to be in such a status, are you better off with someone whom you have picked yourself (ie husband) or whom you have raised from birth (ie your sons) or a faceless government bureaucracy and the police? n nWould you rather having someone protecting you because he loves you or because he is paid to do it? It isn't that you aren't going to have to have someone doing this — so in such case, whom would you find less restrictive? n nWhom would you prefer to have holding your hand during labor — someone who genuinely cares about you or a social worker trained not to become emotionally attached to you? And if you feel unsafe, whom would you prefer to be able to call — someone who loves you so much that he will put your wellbeing above his own and come storming in after you without any thought to his own safety, or the police officer who will wait outside until his backup arrives? n nThe radical feminists don't want you asking these questions….