Feminism became popular beginning in 1963 by appealing to the best within Americans.  It appealed to women’s desire for independence and achievement, and men’s desire to see them succeed.  Americans naively, like a baby with a lollipop, allowed it to enter their lives.

But the real motive behind second wave feminism was corrupt in nature.  And feminists continue to lose their pretty packaging, revealing themselves for the beasts they are, and in fact, always were.

Let us look at feminist behavior, and see if we can determine their motives and goals. 

If promoting strong females were your goal, as feminist’s claim is their goal, would you not look for popular examples of successful females, so girls could look up to and strive to emulate them?  Condoleeza Rice comes to mind as a strong role model for young girls. 

Miss Rice entered college at 15, graduated cum laude at 19, and then went on to earn Master’s and PhD degrees.  She is a concert pianist.  She knows several different languages.  She served as a provost at Stanford University, and currently serves as the National Security Advisor in the most powerful country in the world, during one of its most trying times. 

She personifies excellence.  Watching her speak has always been awe-inspiring.  She can command an audience and speak with authority.  The fact that she is a black woman is insignificant, but if adds to her glory, then so be it. 

In fact, out of the absolute circus made after the 9-11 attacks, with Colin Powell begging for peaceful resolutions (after terrorists attacked American civilian land), it was Condoleeza who provided the enduring, but lonely voice in favor of America.  Being in that thicket, no doubt, was grating.  Imagine being the only person willing to defend doing the right, but dangerous thing, and to be the only female surrounded by men, doing so.  Condoleeza Rice can be considered the 21^st century’s Joan of Arc – a true individualist and a true hero. 

So, here we have a black, successful woman.  Double whammied, you would think she would be the feminist poster girl.  Do they support her?  No. It is no mystery that feminists do not support the Republican Rice.  In fact, despite their alleged goal of seeing a female President of the United States, they will tell you, in united thuggish solidarity that despite Rice’s phenomenal credentials, they would never vote for her if she ran. 

Why?  Some may say its because she is a Republican.  But it’s much more than that – it’s because Condoleeza is a strong woman.  She defies all their complaints of a racist, sexist America.  She doesn’t buy into their victim mentalities.  Condoleeza Rice, a woman who embraces justice, ambition independence, is to feminists what sunlight is to Dracula. 

Does this sound like a group who supports the success of women?

Who do feminists support?  Andrea Yates.

Allegedly consumed with confusion, unable to differentiate between perception and reality, in June of 2001, Andrea Yates methodically murdered all 5 of her children. She drowned them, one by one, in her bathtub. 

Arguably one of the worst crimes any individual can commit, the feminist organization NOW came to Andrea Yates’s defense.  Claiming postpartum depression led her to kill all five of her children, feminists begged for mercy and a punishment of life in rehabilitation, not prison.

The argument of postpartum depression in the Yates’s case is questionable at best.  It is estimated that one in one thousand women suffer postpartum depression.  Four million mothers gave birth to children in 2001.  Of the 4,000 women with postpartum depression, 3,999 of them managed not to kill their children that year.  In fact, in the past 75 years of women giving birth, only an arguable handful of women with postpartum depression have had the same fate. 

Feminists are not interested in watching women shine to the greatness of Condoleeza Rice; they are interested, literally, in allowing women to get away with murder.

Feminist’s support of Yates, and their reason for supporting her, reveal their souls.  The feminist organization NOW did not do any activist work for postpartum sufferers before, or after, the Yates case.  They are not genuinely interested in this medical condition, which is not, by any stretch of the imagination, a condition that presupposes a woman to killing her children. 

No, the murder set off little bells in them.  Bells of which are sympathetic to women who cannot differentiate between perception and reality; who are consumed with mental illness; who cannot make moral decisions; who cannot live their lives like rational adults – because it reminds them of them. 

Rosie O’Donnell said of Andrea Yates that (paraphrase), “When you’ve been on the edge you know what it’s like to fall over.”  Really Rosie.  The edge of murdering all five of your children? 

These are the type of women who fill up feminist ranks. 

Feminism is protectionism.  Feminism is based upon the concept of giving women complete impunity – to be allowed to do whatever they want, with no punishments and all the benefits.  They operate off the premise that women are chaotic, irrational creatures who need things given to them, as opposed to earning them. 

The political battle is not between left and right, but between tribalism and individualism, which translates politically into statism versus freedom.  It is a battle between people who want protection, based on what group they are in (protectionsim) versus those willing to live their lives as independent adults (freedom).  Whether they stand by minorities, women, or American workers, protectionists seek to attain value automatically as opposed to receiving value based on their talent and ambition.  The only way to protect oneself is to use the government.  Feminist’s protected class just happens to be women. 

The very concept of “women’s rights” is anathema to individualism.  What exactly are “women’s rights,” and why are they any more or less than “individual rights?”  What right do they want?  To be able to kill their children?

To claim an entire class of women has inherent “rights” is in and of itself class warfare rhetoric.  It necessarily means women’s rights at the expense of men’s rights. 

Notice what they’ve fought for.  Women can choose to have an abortion, while men have no say in the matter, but must pay child support if she decides to keep the baby.  Women’s right to have a job, at the expense the more qualified man, i.e. affirmative action.  Women’s right to have education catered to them, at the expense of boys, who are suffering in feminized learning environments in which they cannot succeed. 

Whatever is for women is accepted; whatever is for men is rejected.  When I was at Penn State University, a feminist group through a “Cuntfest,” in which a lesbian stripper exposed her breasts on stage.  After a lawmaker fought against this event, a huge campus debate erupted, and feminists screamed quite loudly that they had a free speech right to have strippers on campus (and funded for them).  That same year, Penn State got a Hooters.  Those same feminist groups worked to stop Hooters from establishing a business.  Pornography is Ok, but only if it’s for women. 

Double standards permeate feminist thought.  They are quick to argue that men and women should be held to the same standards, always.  Well, unless it involves physical requirements to become firefighters.  Then the bar should be lowered for women. 

In the early 70s feminists fought against the idea that a woman was too emotional and consumed with hormones to become President of the United States.  But hormones seem to be a valid excuse to murder your 5 children. 

This is what political protectionism is.  Everything is always in favor of the protected class, in this case – women. 

You might say “but I am a feminist and I do not support those things.”  Ah, the cleverness of feminists.  They never explicitly define what ‘feminist’ stands for, as to keep popularity.  Anyone, from libertarians to Marxists thus can be ‘feminists,’ since it has no definition.  Meanwhile, these under-handed things have been the only practical effects of feminism.  Those who cling to the label ‘feminist’ have only served as enablers. 

Does this type of culture seem conducive to producing strong women?  One in which women are always coddled and given complete impunity? No, this protectionism has successfully rendered women unsuccessful.  How can a woman pursue excellence, when she is told by virtue of her femaleness, she is automatically right and good?

The characteristics needed for success are universal.  It doesn’t matter if you are a man or a woman – a commitment to excellence, reason, discipline, enterprise etc. are necessary to do great things. 

In the two opposite sides of statism and freedom, it is the people who believe in freedom who will aspire to greatness.  Not desiring protectionism, they thus develop talent and value.  Feminists, who don’t believe in being great, stifle a woman’s intellectual, moral, and economic development.

Can you name any great woman who was produced from feminist culture?  By great, I mean a woman who painted a great painting; invented a great invention; led a great nation.  I don’t mean women who are nothing but political mouthpieces or got where they are at through their husbands. 

Feminist culture is not producing great women.  In fact, the below is about the only thing you will hear from them about successful women.  In Christine Stolba’s Lying in a Room of One’s Own, she examined 5 women’s studies textbooks.  This is what one of the textbooks said: 

“The movement suffers when successful women disavow women’s struggles, fail to encourage and admire other women, and are not proud of our female heritage.  We have all seen women of great accomplishments disavow women’s causes, as though they themselves were not women.  Florence Nightingale, Helene Deutsch, Golda Meir, and Margaret Thatcher are all examples of women who turned from other women.” 

A female heritage?  Women have a common bond throughout all other women?    I suppose someone forgot to initiate me. 

How can a woman succeed under this kind of suffocation?  She can’t.  This is the reason, I propose, why most great women are found on the right side of the political spectrum, which is the only place which has a vestige of people who still support freedom, although it is a very small vestige.  (And if feminists want to see a female President, they had better get used to the idea that she will be a Republican, because if she is to go through with it, she is going to have to be tough, of which Democrat women are not.)  

Successful women have always existed and prospered, despite feminist’s enthusiastic desire to dismiss them in history books or scoff at them for not supporting their ‘sisters.’  Malvina Hoffman, Maria Montessori, and Ayn Rand are some I personally look up to.  These women contributed major and valuable things to society, and all were around well before the malicious feminist movement.  (But you will never hear that from feminists, as they are quick to create dependency in girls, by telling them without the feminist movement, they would never be able to succeed).

In fact, all three of my examples were around during, or were heavily influenced by the Second Renaissance.  The Second Renaissance, a time when reason, excellence and achievement were celebrated – thus produced excellent, achieved people, of either gender. 

Our feminist culture, a time which says women are invincible, is producing needy, dependent, chaotic women, incapable of making the most simple of decisions, like choosing not to kill their children.  Feminism has only worked to take women backwards. 

Many argue that the feminist movement did not start out as socialist.  They believe the original feminists of the 70s had good intentions, only desiring equality, nothing more.

Well, it is true that most unassuming Americans probably thought feminism was about equality.  The leaders, however, had a different agenda.  Betty Friedan, who wrote the book The Feminist Mystique, published in 1963, is credited with starting the women’s liberation movement.  Her book started the entire revolution of women who wanted more than simple lives as housewives.  Betty Friedan was a member of the Communist Party of the United States of America. 

Feminism rode in on the boat of strong women, but that boat was infested rats – communist rats.  They may have won the public over by presenting the image of the strong woman, but from the very beginning they had the intent of ushering socialism into America on the back of chivalry and “women’s rights.”  They had no interest in watching women succeed; they were interested, primarily, in removing women from the wife/mother role. 

More recent feminist activism, from the Cuntfest at Penn State to supporting Andrea Yates are not a product of radicals who stole feminism, but a product of a movement that cannot cover its true nature anymore. 

All rational people should reject such irrational notions as “women’s rights,” or rather – feminism.  Collectivism and individualism cannot exist in the same place. 

And if someone ever asks you if you are a feminist, tell them no, and tell them it is because you support watching women succeed. 

Amber Pawlik