What do you call someone who thinks “the personal is political?” I suppose you could call them things like “uninformed, narcissistic, and delusional” but what I favor is “self-absorbed freak.” It has a nice ring to it but is highly descriptive as well because anyone who regards themselves as being more important than society, humanity, and the animal kingdom is undeniably a freak and one who failed to get past the initial stages of egoism that most of us surmount before entering kindergarten.
In the past, politics was about something more than oneself. Deceased historian Stephen Ambrose noted this eventuality when he said: “Once upon a time, if you weren’t ‘better off,’ you wouldn’t have looked to Washington for an answer. It wouldn’t have occurred to you to think of your station in life in the context of government policy. For better or worse, it was your life, and you owned it.”
Thus, let us examine a most inglorious subject—the existence of a nefarious subgroup of knuckledraggers commonly called radical feminists. These individuals are zealots who own up to nothing, know nothing, and are responsible for nothing they do. They cherish nothing more than their pathological sense of grievance and lead their lives thoroughly ensconced in their own cult of victimization.
Let me point out here that I’m not referring to feminists in general. The fact is I technically meet the definition of equity feminist. Like Christina Hoff Summers and Daphne Patai I too believe in equal rights for every citizen and that equality of opportunity is non-negotiable. But radical feminists take these goods for granted and are totally disinterested in them. The only thing they really care about is female supremacy.
Discrimination is perfectly acceptable to them provided it is applied on the basis of genitalia, and benefits women; which is precisely how “affirmative action” and “positive discrimination” function both in America and Britain respectively. Sadly, radical activists do not aspire to standards of fairness or equality. Their principal mission is to procure privilege for themselves along with their sexual conspecifics.
Although, they still attempt to deceive the general population by cloaking their intentions with t-shirts proclaiming feminism to be the radical notion that “women are people too,” but this motto is but a ruse. If they ever encountered true equality they would run from it or faint in the manner of Nancy Hopkins during the Larry Summers incident.
They metastasize the definition of equality and operationalize it as implying that some citizens—those devoid of bullocks—are more equal than others. Obviously, demanding unearned privilege is a habit dishonorable, despicable, and evil but that’s what their movement is all about. The fact is American women already have equal rights…and then some. What radical feminists desire is an entrenchment of present privileges and a massive extension of those privileges.
An example of this can be found in proposed the 2007 Paycheck Fairness Act which sought to bestow money upon women who work in fields wherein worker supply exceeds demand. Essentially, they did not consider the job market before choosing their careers.
They got degrees in the liberal arts rather than ones in engineering which would be fine except that one should never blame phantom discrimination when one’s plans don’t work out. Asking the government rewire the laws of supply and demand may prove therapeutic for you, but it is calamitous for those parties who actually earned they pay.
Regardless, in our land, discriminating against women is already illegal. The same can be said for paying them an unequal wage for equal work. This matters not to totalitarian statists, however. Rather than accredit disparities to differences in interest and desire, activists automatically attribute them to discrimination…a crime which often requires allegation alone as its proof.
Radical feminism, as it is practiced can be summed up by the phrase “the best defense is a good offense.” Their empowered hordes attack and attack in the hope that no one will notice that our society is already devoted to the welfare, transcendence, and exaltation of women. Their’s is a simple strategy but one that has worked alarmingly well. This is not surprising though when one considers that even arguing with a woman is deemed “unmanly” in some social circles. A “Real Man” is expected to defer to females even when a particular specimen is but a brutish, radical, and apish imitation of the average woman.
Are women oppressed? Of course not but pretending they are is a masterful diversion. Radical feminist gladiators are rude, shrill, and vile which has the effect of deterring most people from standing up to them. The average citizen figures: “If they’re that worked up over something then they’re probably right.” Only they’re never right. Their spiel—oppression, low self-esteem, anorexia, patriarchy, and the pay gap—is but one long lie after another.
Discrimination and oppression are presumed with no alternative hypotheses being offered. One exciting alternative hypothesis may well be that they’re all nuts. That they’re crazy is a far more legitimate explanation for their venomous assaults, paranoid fantasies, and possessing a personality which emits hate in the manner the rest of us emit carbon dioxide than is the presupposition that they’ve been disadvantaged in some way.
Third parties may rebuke me and conclude: “It takes two to tango.” Well, it certainly does take two to tango but it only takes one to be crazy. Policemen affirm this eventuality whenever they come across homeless schizophrenics yelling at passersby in the street. The last thing they ever do haul is innocent pedestrians in and attempt to mediate their “conflict.”
When a mentally ill person verbally assaults their healthy peers the police comprehend that no conflict exists so why do we assume that’s not the case with radical feminists? As with many other leftists, radical feminists have beliefs which are religiously based and not rooted in fact.
Despite America enriching them, promoting them, publishing them, and placing them in coveted governmental positions they have only revulsion for their own people and a heritage they deride as patriarchal. Of course, the United States is the furthest thing from a patriarchy and we know this to be true due to historical precedent. Were we to be living in a patriarchy women would be the enemy whereas here they are “empowered.”
Historically speaking, tyrannical governments have killed, imprisoned, banished or, at the very least, silenced whoever or whatever opposed them. They never funded ethnic studies departments as a means to advance the cause of their foes or enacted hiring quotas as a means to massage them. Rogue states don’t do those sorts of things and neither would radical feminists if they became our leaders…which is reason enough for why we must fight them.
Bernard Chapin is the author of Women: Theory and Practice and Escape from Gangsta Island and a series of video podcasts called “Chapin’s Inferno.” He can be contacted at veritaseducation@gmail.com. Visual presentation of this column HERE.
Rate this post:
(No Ratings Yet)
Loading ...
Stumble It!
Denis said,
Bernard, can you answer a question for me? First off, I do believe you are a fair individual. I have been blogging here at MND a long time and you know of me so you know that what I am asking is a reasonable question.
Why is it that Equity FEMINIST for you, is defined as “equal rights for every citizen and that equality of opportunity is non-negotiable”? Should’nt you be an Equity Masculist? (Okay-2 questions) Or better yet, take gender out of the title and call yourself someone who believes in equality and fairness for all. Afterall, I assume you are talking also about fairness for whites, blacks, asians, etc., Catholic, Jew, Protestant, rich, poor, middle-class, and so on.
How is it that females have gotten to the top of the food chain when labeling yourself a believer of equality? (okay-3 questions) How about just plain Equalist?
Any label that includes feminist gives some legitimacy to it’s historical roots. Women have never been oppressed in American. Or to be clear-women have never had it as hard as men; men as a group in this country have experienced more oppression than women as a group ever have. Women have always enjoyed a privileged status as a group. Men have never enjoyed such a privileged status. Women owe the advances that have improved their lives to MEN. Not feminists. Everything from washing machines, police departments, legal systems, hot running water, cold running water, door locks, autos, auto mechanics, malls, chocolate, and every major leap and advance in technology, science, medicine, legal systems, governing systems, government budgets, military protections, computers, fashion, on and on and on have all benefited women-and have been provided by soley, or almost exclusively by men.
There may have been good Nazi’s in the Nazi Germany era. e.g., those that did not believe in the attrocities of Naziism. But by calling themselves Nazi’s thay gave a measure of legitimacy to Naziism. We would not accept such a position as someone calling themself a Nazi today. Why should we accept it from feminists?
March 23, 2008 at 6:52 pm
amfortas said,
March 23, 2008 at 7:05 pm
donnieboy57 said,
at 59, i explain that i am not necessarily turning my back on life long friends, just culling the pack to a manageable level that allows me to interact with those i have in common beliefs with. they get it. they don’t like it, but they get it.
i get invited to less parties and back yard yak fests now….shucks.
March 24, 2008 at 5:41 am
amfortas said,
Crickey, I suntan browner than him and I’m not an Abo.
“The fact is I technically meet the definition of equity feminist” you say, Bernard.
You are a psychologist not a lawyer. Bugger the technicalities. They are there only to obscure Truth. Bernie, mate, Stop It. You are no more a feminist - of any shade - than you are a coconut.
March 24, 2008 at 8:53 am
PolishKnight said,
Bernard writes: ” The fact is I technically meet the definition of equity feminist. Like Christina Hoff Summers and Daphne Patai I too believe in equal rights for every citizen and that equality of opportunity is non-negotiable.”
PK puts on his pre-owned car hat: If you don’t mind, Bernard, I would like to attempt to negotiate the notion of inequal rights and opportunity with you.
For starters, children are citizens but they are not allowed to vote. Remember, you did say “every citizen.” So now, all of a sudden, we get into the Satanic realm of the details. Rights are absolute except for the exceptions.
If the term “children” sounds familiar, there’s the old fashioned term “women and children” which meant that women enjoyed special protection along with children that wasn’t available to men. It’s not just the feminists seeking to preserve and extend these privileges, but also most normal women. So we’re not only dealing with crazed, hateful loons on the street but also most people who also buy into their tinfoil-lined philosophy. The notion that women should get to be treated as helpless, entitled damsels-in-distress AND equals.
So ironically, other than people such as yourself and Christina Hoff Summers, few embrace equality. Most women and men either support chivalry, or it’s extension of patronized equality and victim status for women, but few will back up eliminating chivalry altogether. So the question becomes: Whose crazy? When you are the clear minority and hold onto a likeable, but clearly unsustained unfactual belief (not that theirs is much more rational), who are you to point fingers?
How can we pretend to believe that women will live up to equality when the vast majority either disown it outright and seek a traditionalist lifestyle whenever possible and the other half engages in a contradictory, Orwellian strategy of demanding equality through supremacy? If they either don’t want it outright, or are making a mockery of the concept, why are you defending it ironically like a chivalrous Don Quixote? That’s a question I think you need to ask for yourself including what you see in equality for women and why you don’t want to let it go.
I see plenty of reasons for letting equality go including individualist freedom. Communism was about forcing everyone to live the same way. Equal rights forced down everyone’s throats fails to consider the different obligations that everyone wants to accept. I don’t think even all men should have the right to vote. I think there ought to be history examinations, English speaking requirements, and basic duties as a citizen fulfilled including working at a non-government job (other than the military) and paying taxes. My wife agrees with this and doesn’t think ethnic Russians with more ties to Putin than Ukraine should be voting in her homeland either.
When I am at liberal parties and they inevitably pick a fight with me (knowing I’m just playing ball), I point out to the women around the BBQ that I offer them breadwinning men who won’t apologize for themselves or fall through. Men who will pay for dinner with no ulterior motives. The ability for them, as women, to be vulnerable and trust men without having to play victim games. It’s amazing how most women embrace this philosophy like a, well, Polish Knight rather than rejecting me as an evil villan. Ironically, it’s the ultra-liberal men who are aghast and walk away disgusted.
Anyways, are you interested in negotiating?
March 24, 2008 at 10:55 am
fourthwire said,
I use the term “feminazi” instead of “feminist” in my posts and everyday conversations (political correctness be damned!) specifically because of the logic in your quote below:
“There may have been good Nazi’s in the Nazi Germany era. e.g., those that did not believe in the attrocities of Naziism. But by calling themselves Nazi’s thay gave a measure of legitimacy to Naziism.”
I will not give legitimacy to a group of paranoid, hateful harpies whose war on men, boys, and families has continued for decades, unabated…….. paid for by my own tax dollars even as I am forced to accept fourth-class civil, criminal, social, and reproductive rights.
March 24, 2008 at 12:37 pm