Cristina Odone, in the Telegraph, wrote:

I’m sick of the feminisation of politics. If it means having to meet Dave’s mum, Gordon’s auntie and Nick’s granny, give me macho politics any time.  Politicians once needed to prove their trustworthiness, efficiency, authority. Apparently these days they need an emotional hinterland to appeal to voters.

Don’t get me wrong, Samantha Cameron, like Sarah Brown, looks nice, bright and down-to-earth. But does she know how to plug the deficit? How to cure the NHS? How to ensure children leave primary schools knowing their ABCs and that 2 plus 2 makes four?

Sarah Brown is an indefatigable and admirable charity worker, but does she keep her husband from lying about Army cuts? Or give him a reality check – “No, Gordon, you are not an asset for Labour, you are a liability”? Or perhaps feminising politics means satisfying middle-class mums, as Labour’s latest campaign strategists believe.

This will sound strange coming from a Feminazi-detester but show-wives who stay in the background and keep their mouths shut are not really what we should be fighting for.  What we need to fight for is the right of women to be women again.  The damage done to the interests and welfare of women in the last few decades is immeasurable – they’ve largely alienated men instead of bringing them on board and it’s just one assault of misandry after another.

Women still not poisoned with these false constructs just want men to get on with the business of being real men and to recognize the abilities and talents of their better halves.  That’s all.  Everyone knows, in his/her own heart that a man succeeds best with a good woman behind him and it’s so for a woman too.  She can flourish if there’s someone behind her supporting, helping, offering that shoulder, standing up for her and the best one for that, historically, is a man.

All I’m saying is that we aren’t two different species – we’re two halves of the same species and the symbiotic relationship between those two halves can be deliciously intoxicating if it’s allowed to develop, free of false constructs by Marxist Feminazis and their token male hangers-on.

Women, on the other hand, who go in to bat for both women and men at the same time are worth all the gold in the world:

The feminist manifesto is:

The feminist principle of leadership means embracing and sharing the skills and knowledge of individual women, and providing opportunities for all women to develop their leadership potential. As feminist organizations, we invest power and trust in our leaders with the expectation they will draw upon feminist practices and processes in our efforts toward equality and inclusion.

Equality and inclusion are lovely, fuzzy buzzwords that sound great so let’s get behind the people uttering them, eh?   But as women worldwide are recognizing, from the mouths of Feminazis comes only empty, socialist rhetoric, disguising itself as support for women.  “Embracing and sharing the skills and knowledge of individual women?”  BS in the extreme.  What they mean is sitting round indoctrinating themselves about why men are so awful to them while real women go out and do it for themselves, unfettered by the mind-numbing narrow-mindedness of Feminazis.

But don’t take my word for it. Linda Lichter puts it nicely *:

At least a decade before the siege of political correctness, I was silenced by the unconscious but relentless intimidation of female friends and colleagues who are educated, self-sufficient, and eager consumers of the latest feminist books.  I am supposed to owe the authors of those books unqualified gratitude for all the hard-won rights the Titanic women never enjoyed.

I would add another [thing here]: that emotional and physical esteem for women is central, not tangential, to manhood. The British statesman Lord Chesterfield, a favorite source of Victorian etiquette writers, believed everyday deference was due to all women because it provided their only shield against men’s superior physical strength.

He added, “no provocation whatsoever can justify any man in not being civil to every woman; and the greatest man would justly be reckoned a brute if he were not civil to the meanest woman.”

Kelly Mac wrote:

Namely, where were all the “good” women when feminism started? Why didn’t the women who knew they were not being abused do something to stop the misinformation that spread like wildfire? Aren’t these women just as deserving of men’s contempt as the hardcore feminists who started it all?

Ruth Malhotra gets down to specifics:

The notion of victimhood, that “women are oppressed and exploited,” evokes strong anti-male sentiment.

Many influential feminists demonstrate extreme animosity towards marriage and family life, even likening the institution of marriage to that prostitution.

In Feminism: An Agenda, radical feminist author Andrea Dworkin declared that the home was a dangerous place stating, “Like prostitution, marriage is an institution that is extremely oppressive and dangerous for women.”

The feminist agenda is offensive to women. With Eve Ensler and her contemporary cheerleaders in the feminist movement, initiatives such as the “Vagina Monologues” have become a central part of Women’s Awareness Month programming on campuses around the country.

The “Vagina Monologues,” often promoted as a wonderfully inspiring event to empower women, is, in reality, nothing more than an atrociously written anti-male tirade, portraying women as pathetic sexual objects who will forever be victims. Such programs are not only blatantly offensive towards women but are vile and vulgar.

Elizabeth Fox-Genovese:

It has not been easy to acknowledge that feminism has promoted the unraveling of the most binding and important social bonds. Not easy, but unavoidable. Like countless other women who cherish improvement in the situation of women in the United States and throughout the world, I was initially quick to embrace feminism as the best way to secure our “rights” and our dignity as persons. Like countless others, I was seriously misled.

In practice, the sexual liberation of women has realized men’s most predatory sexual fantasies. As women shook themselves free from the norms and conventions of sexual conduct, men did the same.

There can be no doubt that women’s situation has demanded improvement — and continues to do so throughout much of the world. But the emphasis upon individual rights at the expense of mutual responsibility and service is not the way to secure it.

Worse, it is destroying the fabric of our society as a whole because it is severing the most fundamental social bonds. Binding ties constrain women, but they constrain men as well.

As Danielle Crittenden has noted, the family “has never been about the promotion of rights but the surrender of them — by both the man and the woman”.

Another golden girl who has her own way of saying things:

Up to their same old tricks, the Feminazis trot out this dictum:

Feminism is the radical notion that women are people.

… and then proceed to alienate the other half of “people” by urging women to hate men.  In fact, it does the precise, diametric opposite of its dictum.  To be honest, their dictum is:

Feminism is the radical notion that women are a separate species, in isolation and dedicated to irrevocably separate the sexes so that they are more easily controlled by the State.

And the new type of young woman it’s produced is low, really low.  Kelly Mac writes:

It’s about the fact that dating today has become nothing but a series of pick-ups and one-night-stands (thank you sexual revolution).

It’s the new vulgarity in young women, societally enforced, which upsets me. I don’t know if they are trying to shock [and girls are emotionally maturing much later these days, babies or no babies]; it’s the lack of graciousness in John Edwards’ two harpies, for example [here's one of their political comments, courtesy of Michelle Malkin]; it’s the desire to be some sort of hard nut hoe for the boys – who knows?

If we’re still around as a species many years from now, history is going to severely admonish the insanity of the Feminazis and those behind them because by then, sanity might have reestablished itself and the sane will write the history.

*  A number of links in this article seem to have gone to link heaven, one lady has moved her entire blog across etc. so you’ll have to either believe me or not that what I’ve quoted above they actually said.

Filed under: Life issues & people, Politics & economics