Most Republican males would claim that they were responsible for re-electing George W. Bush to the White House in 2004. However, it is well known that Karl Rove, the “master strategist†behind the President, attributed the 2004 win to “Soccer Moms†who had temporarily turned into “Terror Moms.†“Soccer Moms†are women who have had traditional Democrat and feminist views on issues other than national security.
Shortly after the 2004 elections, a jubilant Rove made speeches, outlining how the Republican Party can dominate the US for more than 60 years the way the Democrats dominated from 1933-1994. Integral to this strategy would be a massive effort to win the favor of women who have normally voted Democrat. What Rove did not say in plain English, however, was that his strategy for the 2005-2009 years has been for the Bush Administration to support all aspects of feminism other than support for abortion or lesbianism. Apparently, Rove has never read the book “Who Stole Feminism†where Christina Hoff-Somers outlines how “Gender Feminism†(Victim Feminism) is much more of a threat to men than any ideological preference for abortion or lesbianism.
One of the most noxious elements of modern gender feminism is the promotion of misandry in American culture as well as the “Domestic Violence Industry†where lawyers and many unscrupulous women profit handsomely by making false abuse claims, whether to win a house in a divorce settlement or to win a million bucks by pretending a police officer improperly frisked someone at a traffic stop. Any Republican politician or so-called “strategist†has to recognize that it is this aspect of feminism, and not Britney Spears kissing Madonna, that makes American Republican males bristle at the mention of the word “feminismâ€Â. Has any Republican presidential nominee even noticed the Duke Rape Case fiasco? Moreover: has any Republican politician mentioned the word “feminism†in public since 2004? No, because it is their strategy not to.
Rove, undeterred by his ridiculous new strategy’s massive failure in the 2006 elections, apparently still feels that Republican males would still jump on the bandwagon of selling men out as “wifebeatersâ€Â, “deadbeat dadsâ€Â, “sleazebagsâ€Â, “sex offenders,†“sex tourists,†“stalkers†and “pervertsâ€Â…mostly all terms that were previously the domain of radical feminists.
Apparently, the “Terror Moms†who “made the difference†in the 2004 elections, think of American men in those terms and they are needed for the Republican Party to be ascendant for 60 years.
Did anyone stop to think that traditionally Republican males, especially those who don’t like feminists, may not want such a newfangled party to be ascendant for 60 years? When did we agree to let soccer moms make policy for us?
Never mind that many “deadbeat dads†are hard-working slaves who broke under the wheel of a tyrannical judge. Never mind that thousands of registered sex offenders, not even mentioning those who were caught streaking at baseball games or skinny dipping with their girlfriend in states that have no sense of humor, were victims of either false charges or charges for having slept with a woman when she was drunk but otherwise aware and responsible for her behavior. Never mind that, even in the mind of the public, a “stalker†is often a man who sent flowers to a woman whom he didn’t know didn’t like him.
In a rerun of what happened when social conservatives joined the feminist movement in 1919 to get Prohibition passed against the will of returning war veterans, Rove, with the help of Senator Sam Brownback, made it seem like all socially conservative males, including returning Iraq War veterans, would adopt the new victim feminist platform against their fellow males. Anti-male laws like VAWA and IMBRA were passed without debate and often without Republican politicians even bothering to read them. New Internet regulation is being written because we Republican males are apparently very upset that some other males are “bad guys†and we would gladly lose our freedoms to talk with women online, in order to stop the bad guys from doing so.
In 2007, Republican male voters started polling in favor of Rudy Giuliani, who seemed to be philosophically apart from Karl Rove and the Bush Administration. But starting in the month of July 2007, Giuliani’s weekly broadcast newsletter has been heavily touting how Giuliani will “push women’s issues worldwide†and “stop sex tourism†and “keep sex offenders offline†without ever mentioning how he will work to prevent fewer “Duke Cases†nor mentioning how he will protect our 1st Amendment rights to assemble online, put a stop to the “Domestic Violence Industry†or “prevent the export of feminism worldwideâ€Â. Did someone tell Giuliani that men who disagree with anti-male feminism must be “liberalsâ€Â?
The mainstream media will never call Rudy Giuliani as to why, when he was already leading in the polls, he has recently felt the need to go after the votes of gender feminists as if we can all live happily under one tent. It remains to be seen if, at least, the right wing blogosphere calls him to the carpet and asks him the tough questions.
