Does Feminism Portend the Rise of a New Master Race?
Were you taken back by Supreme Court Justice Ruth Ginsburg’s recent admission that Roe v. Wade was decided because persons were worried about “populations that we don’t want to have too many of.”?
Ginsburg’s atavistic views can be traced back to the pioneering work of Margaret Sanger, the celebrated American feminist who later founded Planned Parenthood.
Beyond her feverish crusade to convince women to use birth control, Sanger was an unapologetic eugenicist. In her book The Pivot of Civilization she wrote, “More children from the fit, less from the unfit—that is the chief issue of birth control.”
In 1934 she wrote her infamous Code to Stop Overproduction of Children that advocated, “no woman should have a legal right to bear a child without a permit…no permit should be valid for more than one child.” (Think China’s One-Child Policy.)
Nor could there be any doubt about Sanger’s genocidal motivations. In 1926 she gave an impassioned speech at a New Jersey KKK rally and later established the euphemistically named “Negro Project.” Sanger would later confide to a friend, “We do not want word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population.”
But the long-standing feminist interest in promoting “good births” is not limited to race alone. Feminists regard women, especially white women, as a sort of uber-species, a superior breed of human-beings who are endowed with greater foresight, wisdom, and understanding.
One such advocate is Sally Miller Gearhart, author of The Future – If There is One – Is Female. Here’s Miller’s uniquely gendered solution to over-population: “The proportion of men must be reduced to and maintained at approximately 10% of the human race.” In commemoration of Miller’s accomplishments, a fund was later established in her name for the University of Oregon’s women’s studies program.
Valerie Solanas is another female supremacist. Author of the SCUM (Society for Cutting up Men) Manifesto, Solanas referred to men as a “biological accident” and called on women to “destroy the male sex.” Upon her death in 1988, Solanas was lionized by the president of the New York State chapter of the National Organization for Women as an “outstanding champion of women’s rights.”
Mary Daly, former professor at Boston College, was one of the early proponents of the “goddess movement,” which seeks to replace Christ-centered religion with a polytheistic pantheon that includes Earth Mother, Gaia, and other icons of womanist theology. In 2001 Daly wrote, “If life is to survive on this planet, there must be a decontamination of the Earth. I think this process will be accompanied by an evolutionary process that will result in a drastic reduction of the population of males.”
But in one of history’s supreme ironies, the feminist scheme to “decontaminate” the Earth by weeding out male undesirables backfired. It boomeranged largely due to feminists’ own doing. As a result of widespread availability of abortion services and the decision of millions of pregnant women to abort their fetuses on the basis of sex, the lives of millions of unborn girls in India, China, and elsewhere have been tragically snuffed out.
As Charles Dickens once wrote in A Tale of Two Cities: “Every revolution eventually turns on itself.”
But most gender supremacists are well-schooled in the methods of soft totalitarianism. They eschew the ham-fisted rhetoric of boot-jacked fascism in favor of kinder, gentler catch-phrases such as “female empowerment” and “gender consciousness-raising.”
So rather than engage in a “drastic reduction” of the male population, feminists now implement laws and policies that are designed to incrementally stigmatize and ultimately marginalize men.
Let’s start with NPR analyst Cokie Roberts’ recent comment, “Men are just lesser beings.” That misandrist attitude may be more widespread than persons like to admit.
Once a substantial minority of the populace comes to believe that men are “lesser beings,” it becomes easy to jigger policies that make it harder for men to get a fair shake.
Take Obama’s stimulus package – remember how the $787 billion was going to create “shovel-ready” jobs, rebuild the infrastructure, and restart the economy? As it turned out, the stimulus package will hire thousands of social workers, nurses, and teachers’ aides, allowing women to commandeer 42% of all the new positions, even though four out of five persons who lost their jobs in the recession were male.
Consider the millions of dollars spent for “women’s health” programs, even though men die 5 years sooner than women. And ponder the irony of colleges that sponsor “women’s studies” programs, while the number of men in higher education continues to dwindle.
So is it far-fetched to countenance the quest for a new Master Race based on neo-eugenic feminist ideology? Columnist Jonah Goldberg offers this terse, if sobering answer in his recent opus: “The white male is the Jew of liberal fascism.”
Possibly related posts...
| More from Carey Roberts
Stumble It!
They may not “believe in it,” but they use it to their advantage nevertheless. They may go through most of their lives disapproving of feminist hate tactics but when they decide to divorce “game on” and they use all these hate tactics to maximum advantage.
Believe it or not most women don’t believe in all of feminism.
Mr.K
What I meant was that when enough men have been burned by feminist inspired laws and reduced to the level of mere serfs what reason have they to continue playing by the rules when the game is so obviously rigged against them?A man who has already been stripped of everything has nothing to lose,if you get enough of these men together then a savage and self reinforcing group dynamic can emerge,if this is then turned on the target group i.e.women or family court judges,then the results could be brutal(was Timothey McVeigh right to do what he did?of course not but it demonstrates what can happen when a group feels it has no other option).When a person or group believes wholeheartedly that the law and by extension the state is out to get them soley because of their gender regardless of what they have or have not done where is the incentive to restraint?Even the mildest dog will turn savage with the right persuasion.Your points about DV convicted men not being able to own legal firearms;how many illegal weapons are there in the US?A man reduced to living in his car doesnt care that the local police chief has been sacked for not locking up enough “abusers”he sees the world through the lens of his own experience and harsh treatment and responds accordingly.
andy,
In theory your scenario could happen or in Holywood movie. But in reality it’s unlikely. Local paper already publishes pictures, names and other information about men who have not paid their support or failed to appear in court so arrest warrant is issued turning them into real criminals.
Nearby Chief of Police was fired because officers below him did not follow mandatory arrest policy in DV cases. Also, in a nearby state the District Attorney fired an allegedly “excellent” deputy DA who had been arrested during DV call.
People convicted of DV are not permitted to get firearms. So police officers, sheriffs and other law enforcement agents such as FBI can’t keep their job.
Other people are apathetic because of propaganda by feminist “gender cleansing”
activist that men get what they deserve.
From 2005:
http://mensnewsdaily.com/2005/11/19/margaret-sanger-more-feminist-hate/
Margaret Sanger: More Feminist Hate
By Denis | Nov 19, 2005
Margaret Sanger (1883-1966) is the Founder of Planned Parenthood. An interesting overview of this gems political idealogy can be found here
Margaret on infants:
“The most merciful thing that a large family does to one of its infant members is to kill it.” Margaret Sanger, Women and the New Race (Eugenics Publ. Co., 1920, 1923)
Evil. Pure evil.
Margaret on immigrants, blacks, and the poor:
“immigrants and indigents:”…human weeds,’ ‘reckless breeders,’ ’spawning… human beings who never should have been born.” Margaret Sanger, Pivot of Civilization.
Spoken like a true elitist.
Margaret on the extermination of blacks:
“We do not want word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population,” she said, “if it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members.” Woman’s Body, Woman’s Right: A Social History of Birth Control in America, by Linda Gordon.
I knew feminists hated Blacks but I didn’t know anyone of them actually made a public statement.
Margaret on sterilization & racial purification:
Sanger believed that, for the purpose of racial “purification,” couples should be rewarded who chose sterilization. Birth Control in America, The Career of Margaret Sanger, by David Kennedy, p. 117, quoting a 1923 Sanger speech.
Spoken like a true Feminazi.
Margaret on the right of married couples to bear children:
“Couples should be required to submit applications to have a child, she wrote in her “Plan for Peace.” Birth Control Review, April 1932
Spoken like a true Marxist.
Margaret on the purpose of birth control:
The purpose in promoting birth control was “to create a race of thoroughbreds,” she wrote in the Birth Control Review, Nov. 1921 (p. 2)
Spoken like a true Feminazi.
The book “Women of the Klan – Racism and Gender in the 1920’s”
by Kathleen M. Blee (University of California Press, 1992ISBN 0-520-07876-4 (ppb.)) documents extensively the direct lineage between Modern Feminism and the Women’s Ku Klux Klan (WKKK).
It is frequently stated, and therefore commonly believed, that Elizabeth Cady Stanton and the Suffragettes were the source of the women’s rights movement. “Women of the Klan” proves this to be untrue. Many of the Suffragettes, were also deeply involved in the WKKK until well after passage of the 19th amendment.
The WKKK became a very powerful controlling force both in the KKK as well as society itself. Women used various “informal networks” through churches, schools, neighborhoods, and various social groups. They formed “poison squads”, which were used to spread rumors, create sexual fears about black men, initiate “selective shopping” boycotts, and pass political information around.
Lynchings of Black men were common in the Old South. Most of these were instigated in defense of “white womanhood”. The author writes that the WKKK “dissolved a myriad of social, economic, and racial issues into powerful symbols of womanhood and sexual virtue”. Lulu Markwell, a President of the WKKK wrote, “It is the duty of the American mother to stamp out vice and immorality.” This overblown sexual imagery galvanized millions of American men to rise to the mindless protection of the purity of Protestant white woman. A Black man simply needed to be accused of rape, or of somehow spoiling white womanhoods sexual virtue and he would be hung. White men commited acts of evil in the name of evil White women.
The KKK came to believe that womanhood represented “all that is best, and noblest, and highest in life”, wherein “No race, or society, or country can rise higher than its womanhood”. Sounds alot like today’s (and yesterday’s) feminists.
The famous 1960’s feminist mantra, “No will man say that in the hand of woman rests the necessity of rocking a cradle only. She has within her hand the power to rule the world”, was actually published by the WKKK in Evansville, Indiana in the late 1880’s.
America is living in a sickening point in history. America is suffocating in sexist policies which openly and unconstitutionally discriminate against a father’s fundamental right to be in the family, to be a property owner, and to raise his children. For all men and for all fathers (White & Black) these are dark days reminiscent of Jim Crow.
It is time for Black men and Black women, and White men (and good White women) to make peace with each other. Much evil was commited by White men to Blacks in those days. This evil was done in the name of evil White women. Al Sharpton & Jesse Jackson need to hear from us that the true battle to be waged is not between us, but rather by all of us against our common enemy:
The Feminists.
Carey Robertsm
Your quote is accuate about feminist plan
“So rather than engage in a “drastic reduction” of the male population, feminists now implement laws and policies that are designed to incrementally stigmatize and ultimately marginalize men”. Perhaps they want women as “master gender”.
Some 30 years lawamers have heard taxpayer funded feminist front organizations introducing and testifying before state and federal lawmakers. Maybe handful or none male advocates came to testify, or if they did, they were ignored and ridiculed. It’s not only who can afford the best lawyer in family court (maybe in criminal court). The laws from ex parte orders, to restraining orders, use and possession of family home. mandatory arrest in DV call to police, if the wife refuses to testify she is intimidated and the prosecutor goes on without her. Also, personnel in court offices is stacked against men so the case is assigned to judge’s docket who will most likely to be harsh on men.
To describe and analyse a problem is not the same as solving it. I read so many articles like yours. They certainly have power but I am left with the feeling that they can not do what they hope to do and that is effect change. I have a lot of reasons for saying this. I will just explain one of them. Whatever it is that we are in the grip of I can only see it ending, or reversing, if it overreaches itself and falls of its own accord. Sadly this might mean that everything in you article that you predict will have to actually happen before it can be prevented. Yes this is a contradiction. I do however believe it to be so. If I have a strategy for resisting it would be to push feminism forwards as fast as possible into a state where it destroys itself and perhaps everything else as well.
Those who think that feminism has a;already destroyed itself and is collapsing are I fear hugely mistaken. Your article is right the process is only now at the beginning and the true hell is both unimaginable and yet ti come.
Dr Roberts, Sir, you have become pleasingly grumpy in your old age
Your writings have taken on a hard and uncompromisingly honest and to-the-point message. You are telling it like it really is.
You might have little idea of what good you are doing. But by the Lord Harry your voice carries.
I will do my best to amplify it.
The problem with rigging the laws against men is that if enough of them feel sufficiantly descriminated against then they will simply disregard the law.For years feminists have been screaming about what brute beasts men are,if they turn enough men into outlaws then they will truly see just how savage men can be when they really want to be.