The Neosecularist

I Said That? Yeah, I Said That!

Archive for the category “feminism”

Of Michelle Goldberg Part 11: Her Support of “Women’s Automony” Means Death To Millions Of Unborn Girls

They call it “gendercide”.  The deliberate killing of an unborn child based on its gender.  In the vast majority of cases that gender is female.  The House of Representatives tried, but failed, to pass a law that would have outlawed this type of abortion.  However, Democrats, virtually all of whom are pro-abortion on demand, blocked passage of the law.  Naturally, all pro-abortion liberal feminists are giddy with sadistic delight over this, including Michelle Goldberg who writes:

Sex-selective abortion is odious. Banning it means allowing the government to decide what constitutes a legitimate reason for a woman to terminate a pregnancy.”

In other words, so far as “woman’s autonomy” goes, and just how far Michelle Goldberg and all her liberal, pro-abortion feminist ilk are willing to go to preserve that “autonomy, Goldberg, like all pro-abortion liberal feminists, believes the killing of an unborn girl “constitutes a legitimate reason for a woman to terminate her pregnancy”.  Goldberg believes abortion on demand, for any reason a woman might dream up, during any time she is pregnant, including up until the very due date, the very moment the baby is about to pop its head out, (crowning) is acceptable enough time to still kill the child before it is legally and technically born.

Goldberg uses an excuse to deflect attention away from this heinous and despicable type of abortion by reminding us that most “gendercide” abortions occur in Asia, in China and India, and are not that common in America.

Reporting on sex-selective abortion in India, where feminists campaign against kanya bhronn hatya—literally, “the killing of young girls”—and patriarchs angrily assert their right to plan their families, I sometimes felt like I’d stepped through a looking glass. Clearly, the American anti-abortion movement would be happy to frame the debate in similar terms.”

We only frame the debate on abortion in one term – the killing of innocent life.  While Goldberg works to protect “woman’s autonomy” over her body by fighting for greater legal protections for woman and girls of all ages to have guaranteed rights to abortion whenever they want, we who are pro-life fight for greater legal protections for the unborn from those women and girls who would seek to end their pregnancies based upon the viscous lies of Michelle Goldberg, Planned Parenthood, NARAL, NOW, Cecile Richards, Terri O’Neill and Nancy Keenan, and all liberal pro-abortion feminists.  Their lies have caused the deaths of scores of millions of unborn children over the decades, and over 100 millions unborn girls.

These same undeniably callous and passionately misguided women who dare to claim there is a war on women being waged by the GOP and conservatives are the real terrorists waging a war on women by intentionally deceiving and misleading women and girls into believing that abortion is not the killing of an unborn child but just the removal of a blob of tissue, a “zygote”, a few cells, etc.  They would look us in the eyes and demand we yield to their insanity.  We dare to look back into their eyes and stand tall, stand proud, stand resolute in our courage and conviction that abortion takes the life of an unborn child and we will not back down.

Writes Goldberg:

It’s not surprising that anti-abortion activists see sex-selective abortion as their trump card. The issue puts feminists in a particularly difficult spot, turning reproductive choice into a tool of misogyny.”

Difficult spot?  Where is there a liberal pro-abortion feminist that has come out in support of banning “gendercide”?  If it was a “difficult spot”, if there was any amount of “difficulty” that put feminists in a “spot” that “difficulty” would have derived straight from their own conscience and every single feminist knows it.  In other words, the only way Michelle Goldberg or any liberal pro-abortion feminist could be put in a “difficult spot” is if their own conscience turned against their liberal feminist mindset.

Misogyny?  Michelle Goldberg supports the killing of unborn girls.  the GOP and conservatives support protecting unborn girls from being killed in the womb because they are girls in the womb.  Who is the real misogynist?

Of course, the real “difficult spot” Michelle Goldberg and her ilk have been put in is that they are forced by their own narrow-mindedness to support the killing of unborn girls because if just that one type of abortion is wrong, and they accept that it is wrong, such a move opens up the very real possibility of ending other types of specific abortion like abortion based on race and sexual orientation.

That Michelle Goldberg supports the killing of unborn girls in the womb without reserve, also means she supports the killing of blacks in the womb because they are black, and the killing of gays in the womb because they will be born gay.  And there in lies the rub.  She must support killing blacks and gays in the womb, just as vehemently as she must support the killing of girls in the womb.  Any hesitation, no matter how slight, is indication that abortion, for even one specific reason, may be wrong and immoral when done for other specific reasons.

Can there be any doubt that Michelle Goldberg cringes over the thought of one girl being killed in the womb because of its gender?  Either she cringes, perhaps even weeps, or she has no heart, no conscience, at all.  And yet, Michelle Goldberg must go along with “gendercide”, supporting it and being unapologetic in her pursuit of abortion on demand, deflecting the issue as anti-woman, a war on women and misogynist.

For now, with the failure to pass “gendercide” in the House, a “woman’s autonomy” remains intact.  However, the war on unborn girls continues to be waged, taking a heavy toll and untold casualties all in the name of “pro-choice”.  Does the right to choose to kill an unborn girl in the womb. because it is a girl, in any way really preserve a “woman’s autonomy”?

Concludes Goldberg:

The lesson is clear. Anyone who is genuinely concerned about sex-selective abortion should be working to fight sexism, its underlying cause. Laws that seek to limit women’s autonomy and confine them to traditional roles have it precisely backward. Unless, of course, limiting women’s autonomy and confining them to traditional roles has been the goal all along.”

Fighting sexism by supporting abortion, and supporting the killing of unborn girls in the womb, is counterproductive.  Sexism, in itself, is why unborn girls are being killed in the womb in the first place.  For Goldberg to insinuate, to insist, that sexism will end when women have the right, and so long as they maintain that right, to kill their unborn girls in the womb without government interference would be laughable but for its tragic consequences.  Goldberg wants us to believe that sexism will end when women have the right to abortion, and the right to kill their unborn child for any reason at any time during her pregnancy – on demand, in privacy, without anyone trying to prevent her from going through with it.  Goldberg is deluding herself if she thinks we are that gullible.

We who are pro-life will continue to find ways to ban abortion, at the same time we work to educate woman and girls about the realities of abortion.  Michelle Goldberg expounds the lies of Planned Parenthood and Cecile Richards, NOW and Terry O’Neill and NARAL and Nancy Keenan.  These women support the killing of girls in the womb, blacks in the womb, gays in the womb any unborn child in the womb.  Either that is moral or that is immoral.  Either that is evil or that is benevolent.  Either that is right or that is wrong.  Either we – who are pro-life – have the courage to continue fighting to save the lives of unborn children or we stand aside and allow the slaughter to go on without stop.  We know where Michelle Goldberg is on this.  Where are we on this?

Meet The Anti “War On Women” Women

Foolish liberal feminists who wrongly and irrationally complain about a war on women ought to be prepared to meet their betters.  One group of conservatives is going to make it awful difficult for them to be taken as anything other than the joke that they are.  What makes this group of conservatives so special and unique?  They are all women.  Yes, that’s right.  Women!  Women standing up for conservative principles amidst the fog of war that is in actuality no war at all, but in the lurid, corrupt and feckle-encrusted minds of liberal feminists like Sandra Fluke, the National Organization of Women, Nancy Pelosi, Debbie Wasserman Shultz and the entire Democrat Party, all of whom are the real traitors to, and of, women.  Women will be represented in congress, and women will be a driving force in shaping policy.  But it will be conservative women, not mushy, emotional, nonsensical, wishy-washy feminists who demand the killing of unborn children be legally sanctioned by government and paid for by taxpayers.

Does that sound erratic and scatter-brained to you?  These conservative women are proof that the war on women is, and has been, a canard all along.  Nobody is being fooled by this charade but these feminists themselves who still think they have made any case at all against conservatism and so-called misogynists who oppose taxpayer-funded contraception and forcing religious institutions to pay for birth control, including that birth control used specifically in the act of sexual irresponsibility.

The National Organization of Women, which is the equivalent of an empty, discarded shell not even a crustacean would inhabit tried, and failed, to shut down Rush Limbaugh, has been telling American women for decades that men, and conservative men in particular, are anti-woman.  Yet, for all their pooh-poohing, there are more women (Rush Babes, as they are known) who support Limbaugh than support NOW.  If American women really felt there was a war on women, wouldn’t that be reversed?

The reality is, as it has always been, that women are far more pro-life and pro-family than liberal feminists give them credit for being.  But that doesn’t translate into the “barefoot and pregnant” definition liberal feminists have ascribed to being pro-life and pro-family.  It’s interesting to note that while conservative men are not at all fearful of a conservative women with an intelligent, independent mind of her own, liberal feminists are.  A woman’s mind that cannot be controlled, influenced and shaped by liberal feminist dogma is a mind that any liberal feminist fears.

Every other group in America is “coming out”.  Now it is time for conservative women to come out.  There are many millions of them, whose numbers are being underrepresented in the MSM.  Conservative men, who are secure in both their politics and their manhood, are looking for more conservative women to come out of the shadows and help them win back America from the grips of liberalism and to beat back those feminists who insist to be pro-life is to be a misogynist.

The values and morals held by conservative women are worth taking seriously.  The values and morals held by liberal women are worth taking out with the trash, seriously, including their biography of “Julia“.  But when you do take them out to the trash, don’t mix them in with the recycling.  Or – do you see anything in liberal feminism worth reusing?

Psychopath Sandra Fluke; Her Spoiled Little Brat Syndrome

Being 30 years old has not stopped Sandra Fluke from acting a lot like a spoiled little brat.  You know, the child that doesn’t get her way so she throws a tantrum until she does get her way; the child who always points her finger to another person and lays blame on them for an accident she committed herself; the child who will lie and lie and lie until she gets her way.  That’s Sandra Fluke!

Sandra Fluke enrolled into Georgetown University for one reason, by her own admission, solely to make her case as to why the religious university ought to provide contraception to its students, and why it ought to be provided for free.  Sandra was smart enough (psychopaths generally have a high intelligence level) to know that Georgetown would rebuke, rebuff and flat-out deny her “request”.

Enter the contraception mandate and Obamacare.  An opportunity came along for Sandra to put Georgetown’s thumbs to the screws, so to speak, by engrossing herself in a public forum to humiliate and embarrass the university in front of congress, in a way she believed would cause Georgetown to fold and buckle under an immense pressure from the students of Georgetown, from congress and from the American public.  This flagrant display was intended to be her masterpiece.  Why then, did it not go as planned?

What Sandra hadn’t counted on was the fact that conservatives in America are far more powerful, far more influential, far more organized than she ever gave us credit.  She also did not factor in that a majority of Americans oppose Obamacare, which includes the contraception mandate and forcing religious institutions to provide services and procedures that go against their moral and religious convictions.  (Psychopaths, while highly intelligent, are also exceedingly arrogant and full of themselves.  Too conceited to pay attention to, or look beyond, their own ego.)

This miscalculation, which has been a major backlash against Sandra, against Obamacare, against liberalism, has caused Sandra to become even more outspoken, and deeply entrenched in her own lie – that she is merely fighting for contraception for students who need it for health and medical issues like “ovarian cysts, hormonal imbalances, endometriosis”, which she reiterated at an event at Georgetown University.

But we are not talking about contraception for  “a lot of medical issues.”  That has never been the debate, and that has never been what Sandra herself has been fighting to achieve for female students at Georgetown.  Sandra has always been fighting for free contraception for use in promiscuous sex, which, sadly, many people engage in.  And while conservatives are not about to enter into a debate as to whether consenting adults, or even teenagers, ought to be prohibited by law from engaging in promiscuous sex (it’s futile and we recognize American citizens have the right have sex with whom they choose), we, as conservatives, are very willing to make certain that those men and women who do engage in sex, for the sake of sex, do so on their own dime and accept the consequences of that decision.

Sandra Fluke, among other liberals, opposes that.  She demands that, while consenting Americans of all ages have a fundamental right to have sex with whom they choose, they ought to have those choices subsidized by American taxpayers and institutions that provide healthcare and health related services, including religious institutions.  As conservatives, we obviously strongly and absolutely disagree with that.  In doing so, however, we are by no means attempting to say that women with health issues, clearly and specifically diagnosed by a professional and competent doctor, ought to unduly suffer because she cannot afford the cost of the medication she needs to help offset the pain and suffering.

But – is that really why these students/women are using contraception?  To offset enduring and persistence pain and suffering?  And, could there be some other medication they could take, other than contraception or birth control that helps alleviate and end the pain?

Here is the problem with that.  Sandra specifically targeted Georgetown University.  She enrolled in it, and paid the cost of tuition and all expenses included, which was over $40,000/year.  Why did she have to enroll and spend that much money simply to shed light on a compelling issue that affects not only female students at Georgetown, but millions of American women?  And – why Georgetown?  In other words, if all Sandra was trying to do was find a solution to how women with otherwise less of an economical means could pay for contraception and birth control and have it provided for them for legitimate and specific health issues – why the elaborate scheme of enrolling in Georgetown?  Why the long-about rouse of thinking she had to be a student of Georgetown in order to be heard?

Obviously Sandra had an ulterior motive.  It had to be a religious college, for one; and it had to be a prestigious one so that when it caved under public pressure (per Sandra’s plan) the smaller, less prestigious, less noteworthy religious colleges would feel compelled to cave as well.  And not only religious colleges, but all religious institutions that provide healthcare.  Sandra delved into this complex strategy to discredit religion itself.  What else makes sense?  That part of her plan failed.

And what do psychopaths usually do when a part of their plan fails?  They dig in deeper.  Sandra is no exception.  That is why she is back at Georgetown still insisting the college needs to provide contraception and birth control to students because:

Most students don’t realize that contraception coverage will not be on their insurance when they arrive at Georgetown.  We’re used to having contraception readily available.”

This is an another incredible statement coming from Sandra.  What she is saying is that “most students” are not researching Georgetown University as thoroughly as they ought to before they decide to send in an application for enrollment.  Is that really true?  Also puzzling, and damnably so, is the fact that if a student can afford the high cost of enrollment, why then could they not afford the small pittance of the price for birth control and contraception without having to beg for it to be subsidized by the university?  And why, if Sandra is only urging for birth control and contraception for “medical issues” is she not insisting, publicly, that she would accept Georgetown University’s prohibition on these when used only for sex?

Sandra is demanding Georgetown provide birth control and contraception, free of charge to all students, regardless of why they actually want it.  How does that make sense?  And who picks up the cost if Georgetown is forced to acquiesce?  Wouldn’t that have to be passed on to all Georgetown students in the form of higher tuition and other costs associated with being  a student as Georgetown?

Said Fluke:

“Prevention of pregnancy is a public health need.  When we’re talking about public policy, we need to look at reality, rather than [Church] ideology.”

In other words, Sandra is not really advocating for birth control and contraception for “medical issues” at all.  That is a cover story for her real intentions.  Sandra really is, and always has been, advocating for women to engage in promiscuous sex (all part of the women’s liberation movement and liberal feminism) and for “prevention of pregnancy” that often results in that sex, i.e. – abortion.  And she is demanding the cost for the “prevention of pregnancy” be picked up by Georgetown, which she has known long before she actually enrolled, opposed such a policy.  Sandra knew, long before she enrolled at Georgetown, that it is a religious college with a strong commitment to its religion.  Sandra sought to break that strong bond.  She is still trying.

Sandra has never once denounced the use of birth control and contraception for non “medical issues”.  If she was challenged directly to take a position; if Sandra was challenged to assert whether or not she is merely in favor of Georgetown University having a better health plan and coverage for those students who actually and legitimately are suffering from real “medical issues” like “ovarian cysts, hormonal imbalances, endometriosis” – would Sandra be willing to concede Georgetown’s right in prohibiting birth control and contraception for all other “issues”, like promiscuous sex and to end an unwanted pregnancy?  Knowing that, is where we can begin to unravel the mystery that is the psychopath, Sandra Fluke.  But only if we press her to answer the right questions.

A “War On Women”? Then Let It Be An Armageddon! And Let These Women Feel Our Intense Wrath Reign Hellfire And Damnation Down Upon Them…

Sharpen your wits and your tongues – liberals insist there is a war on women.  On the one hand it’s absurd, but the more we (conservatives) attest to its absurdity, the louder liberals cry “war on women”.  They own the MSM and so have the ability, through their puppet stations and wide variety of media outlets, to drown out the opposition – which is us.  (That market, by the way, has been diminishing for many years.)  On the other hand, liberals are emphatic in their insistence that a “war on women” truly exists, and is being waged on women, by conservatives, specifically.  Who are we, then, to quibble over trivialities?

Liberals have defined this “war on women” as a war intentionally designed to either remove by degrees and increments, by huge chunks or eliminate altogether in one fell swoop, the legal right women now have with regards to, as liberals call it, reproductive health decisions.  (Conservatives understand the myriad code words, phrases and lingo liberals use.)

What liberals are really saying when they claim a “war on women” exists is that conservatives are trying, and often succeeding at unprecedented levels liberals never thought could be possible, to make illegal what is now legal, and has been legal since 1973.  Namely, the legal right to have an abortion.  Abortion – also known as the killing of unborn children.  That is what all this hub-bub and hullabaloo is all about.  Women – liberal women – want to retain the right to kill unborn children at will and in privacy.  And damn anyone that tells them they can’t do that!

Abortion is only a legal right, and only intact as long as there is a majority support for it in legislatures which, and by legislators who, are elected to pass and abolish laws.  But no law is set in stone, even liberals know that.  And it’s interesting to note that liberals, with the exception of abortion, reject the notion any law is “set in stone”, including, and especially pertaining to, our Constitution.  Nothing is untouchable, so far as liberals are concerned, except abortion.  “Separate but equal” was set law for many decades, longer than Roe vs. Wade has been around.  That was overturned, rightly, of course.  But Roe vs. Wade, of which liberals and feminists just celebrated the 39th anniversary, contest is set in stone.  Can anyone name any other law liberals attest is also set in stone?

Now, we – those of us who are pro-life – have but two options:

One – we can acquiesce to liberals; we can accept that abortion is set law, well established, well grounded, stare decisis; we can remove our vocal and physical presence and simply walk away; we can tie our hands behind our backs and turn a blind eye; we can ignore what we know is happening behind closed doors in privacy, roughly one million times a year across America; we can abandon morality, ethics, common decency and common sense and sensibility; we can make all the pretend excuses we want for our silence, to replace and to fill the vast void, the nothingness left from our absence.  Liberals would love that.

Two – we can grow some courage, stand up and fight.  We can meet liberals on the battlefield and make war with them, crush them, annihilate them, bury them underneath the weight of their own fallacies, their own hyperbole, their own arrogance, their own hubris!

We are not at war with women to take away their right to:  vote, work, get an education, read and write, walk in public without a male escort; marry whom they choose.  We are not at war with women to make them:  less equal to men in any sense of Constitutional law, the dominion of men in any sense of the definition, “barefoot and pregnant”, homemakers and housewives, miserable.

But we are at “war with women” if, and because, liberals have defined this “war on women” as a war against abortion, and to end abortion in America.  In that sense – liberals are absolutely right, damn right, about there being a “war on women”.  Who are we, pro-lifers, to deny that war does not exist?  Who are we to reject that “war on women”?  Hold your head high and embrace it!  Revel in it!  Relish it!  Embroil yourself in it!  Fight!

Gangs Aren’t The Only Ones Glamorizing Murder, Or Proud Of Themselves For Murdering

Some people are more prone to murder than others.  Gang members, having grown up living in and around a circle of violence, probably all their lives, see death and the killing of others for the sake of their gangs as normal as eating and breathing.  We – we who actually are as normal as eating and breathing – look upon the actions of gang members with derision, disgust and outrage.  We tend to support laws that make it hard for gang members to operate.  And we certainly support laws that punish gang members when they do commit crimes, especially violent crimes like murder.  We certainly do not look upon murder by gang members as justification for the lifestyle they lead.  Nor do we look upon murder by gang members, who murder rival gang members, as justification for having crossed into one another’s “territory”.  In fact – do we ever look upon murder committed by gang members with understanding, compassion, empathy, sympathy or justification?  Do we ever seek to protect the “rights” of gang members to kill one another?  Do we ever attempt to grant “rights” for gang members to kill one another?  If not – why?

If gang members must kill one another to survive in their own world; if gang members must kill one another to show superiority and who is in, and who has, “control”; if gang members must kill or risk being killed themselves (a sort of self-defense); if gang members must kill one another to preserve the integrity and the “health” of their gangs; if gang members killing one another is mostly a “private” affair between one gang and another; if gang members killing one another is only hurting themselves, and that is the decision they “choose” to live by – then why are any of us so overly concerned whether or not gangs members are killing one another?  Why do we waste time, energy and taxes dollars trying to stop gangs from operating by arresting them, putting them on trial and then in jail?  Why do we pass all types of restrictive legislation that makes it harder to be in a gang, and to make committing a crime while in a gang, especially murder, more harsh, more difficult, more painful?  And – why, when one gang member kills another gang member, do we call that, of all things – murder?  Isn’t that a bit hypocritical, all things considered?

All things like the fact that there are millions of people who have committed murder, who have never been in a gang, and who have the full support of many millions more people, including politicians, judges, entire courts millions of people who will never be arrested, prosecuted or serve one day in jail for having committed murder.  And – many of whom who would not only not hesitate to commit murder again, but would openly brag about it, defend it, celebrate it!  After-all – they too have grown up surrounded by a culture that supports what is otherwise, morally and ethically, at least, murder, even if they, just as gang members, don’t see it that way.

What is the real difference between gang members who commit murder on a street corner or in a back alley and these people who commit murder in a place located near a street corner, and sometimes also in a back alley?

Why I Am Also A Feminist

(A response to “Why I am A feminist“)

I’m also a feminist.

No one needs to shave off any unnecessary body hair, engage in sex with men or women, or at all, to be a feminist.  Whether or not one wears a bra is not an issue (although from a conservative standpoint a well-fitting bra which doesn’t interfere with mobility or health is appropriate).

Liberals, and liberal women, do not own the title to feminism.  Nor do they control the ideas for which feminism is based.  Feminism does not come in one package, nor is it distributed by one manufacturer.  Feminism is also built upon the premise that women deserve, and have the right, to be treated equally, as guaranteed by the Constitution, and to not ever be treated by men as unequal in that respect.  So why then, do liberal feminists feel they need more laws in place to protect their rights that are already guaranteed?  Is it that some women, liberal feminists, will not be satisfied until they have more rights them men?

These are some ideas of what feminism means to me:

  • Women and men must value manhood and womanhood equally, whether it is built into the law or not; and not wait for, or rely on, such silly laws to be passed before equal value is applied.
  • Men respecting women enough not to devalue them by engaging in sex with women outside of marriage.  Women respecting themselves enough not to give into the lusts of men who only want to have sex with them.
  • Women controlling their own bodies by remaining celibate until marriage.  And men doing the same.
  • Instilling the value of abstinence until married in schools, and equal respect for the opposite sex.
  • Women standing together to protect their bodies and control their bodies from being violated by men.
  • Men standing with women on this issue.
  • Men and women realizing the importance of equally caring for children enough to put aside petty arguments as to which one, the man or the woman, will stay at home to raise the children while the other is at work.
  • But also, women realizing the heightened importance of women staying at home raising children in their early years, even if that means giving up a job for the time being.
  • Men accepting that women are not objects, sexually or otherwise.  Women accepting that sex does not liberate or free them, or make them equal to, or with, men any more than sex liberates men.  And that having sex with multiple partners, whether you are a man or a woman, cheapens yourself and your gender.
  • Men accepting that having sex with women outside marriage hurts both men and women.
  • Men accepting that should a child be created out of wedlock it is his responsibility to marry the woman and provide monetary support for her, her pregnancy, and the child if she chooses to keep the child.  Women accepting that if a child is created out of wedlock it is her responsibility to carry the child full term and give birth to it, and marry the man if she will not give the child up for adoption so that the child is not deprived of life.

Today, we have indeed reached a critical point where it is becoming harder and harder to distinguish between what is meant by respect for women, and what it means to be a true feminist, and whether the two are compatible.  There are no “rights” that are being infringed upon or being taken away from any woman in America that in any way cheapens women, disrespects women, relegates women to second class citizens or makes them any less equal to men under the U.S. Constitution.  Men and women are different, of course.  But that they are in no way makes one gender superior over another, where life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness are concerned, or where the Constitution guarantees the same rights to all Americans regardless of gender.

However, is the sole reason for, and definition of, feminism to protect a woman’s right to abortion, which is what liberal feminists are decrying, in response to the pro-life movement, as a “war on women”?  America has never gotten over Roe vs. Wade, nor will it.  But, when it is overturned, will its supporters get over that ruling?  Abortion is nothing remotely related to the struggles of suffrage (women’s right to vote) or interracial marriage.  Abortion has always been the taking of innocent life from the womb.  Hence, the reason why millions of women, who are pro-life, reject the mantra of liberal feminism while at the same time they embrace the idea of feminism.

On the other hand, why are Sarah Palin and Michele Bachmann, both of whom are very strong, independent women so vilified by other women who call themselves feminists?  And why do some men refer to these, and other conservative women, as c***s?  And, although now women are beginning to speak out, why did it take Rush Limbaugh Calling Sandra Fluke a slut to energize women into demanding their own male supporters stop the misogynist attacks against women?  Why is it that if you are a strong and independent conservative woman, somehow that makes you a traitor to all women, in the eyes of feminists?

Is being a feminist all about having sex, as much sex as you want, with as many partners as you want?  Is being a feminist all about fighting for access, free if possible, to birth control and contraception so one might engage in sex?  Is being a feminist all about fighting for the right to retain access to the types of birth control and contraception that end an unintended pregnancy should that be the result of said sex?  For men – is respecting women all about having premarital sex with women, and respecting her right to kill the child you both creating accidentally?  For women – is respect for yourself all about your right to kill your unborn child so you can continue to engage in sex with men and not have to worry about leaving your place of work to raise a child?  Is that what is meant by women’s “liberation”, “independence”, “freedom” and “control”?  How does behavior which is out of “control” make women more in “control” of themselves and their bodies?

Obviously there is more to being a feminist than that.  Many feminists truly hate men, and would like to seem men as the gender relegated to second class citizenship, or eliminated altogether.

Men absolutely ought to stand up for women’s rights.  Such as a woman’s right to say “no” to sex.  However, what are “women’s rights” if they are not the rights already guaranteed in the Constitution?  That men would have such disrespect for women by using them for their own sexual pleasure, and then standing up for a woman’s right to terminate a pregnancy so she can go on engaging in that type of behavior does nothing to provide women with the knowledge she is truly equal to men.  What it does do is get men, and women, off the parenthood hook.  In the meantime, and unborn child has lost its life for the cause of feminism and “women’s rights”.

Women’s rights are indeed not just a woman’s issue.  But if abortion, if access to birth control and contraception (the latter of which no conservative objects denying to women), if fighting for that to remain a “woman’s right” is what feminism is centered around, how does that help to end rape, discrimination in the workplace, repression and the real war on women, and where real violence is being waged against women, throughout Islamic strongholds around the world?

If respect for women by being pro-abstinence and pro-life is not a feminist cause or issue, or concern; if “liberation” and “freedom” are only centered around sex and forcing taxpayers to pay for either preventing an unintended pregnancy or for the abortion if that is what results; if feminists define “controlling” their own bodies not by restraining men or themselves but by engaging in behavior characterized with being more out of control and dangerous; if feminism must be, and can only be, defined by being pro-abortion; if pro-woman can only be defined as men supporting a woman’s right to abortion – there may indeed at the end of all that be equally.  But that equality comes at the expensive of equally cheapening and degrading both men and women and lowering the overall standards, value and quality of life itself.

I am not a feminist, nor would I ever accept as being a feminist the notion that taking pride in women means taking the woman you knocked up to the nearest abortion clinic.

I am a feminist because I respect human life, including women.  I am a feminist because I accept that women don’t deserve to have any man force themselves on any woman.  I am a feminist because I accept that women have a right to their bodies, to their virginity, to wait until they are married before they give themselves away.  I am a feminist because I accept that women are not mere objects of sexual delight and pleasure, but are fully capable and functional human beings with the ability to be as smart and as intellectual as men.  I am a feminist because I accept that men do not have a right to control or dominate, to repress or oppress, to enslave or subjugate, to beat, torture or kill women for any reason.  I am a feminist because I accept that women play an integral and most necessary role in society.  I am a feminist because I accept equal rights for men and women are guaranteed through the U.S. Constitution, not through how many opportunities women have in engaging in sex with men, or whether the sex women have is evenly, equally distributed with how many times men are having sex with women.

That is the feminism I stand, and stand up, for.  Will you do the same?

Post Navigation

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 61 other followers

%d bloggers like this: