Feminists – narrow interests, sad people

Harriet-HarmanRadical feminists are basically low quality people who cannot cope, sad cases taking it out on others, primarily men but also other women who stand up to their bullying.

In the case of Erin Pizzey, it involved death threats from feminists – no one wants to hear the truth when it runs counter to the Narrative and large political interests are at stake – ditto with Christy O who ran a series on feminism on youtube.

Feminists are characterized by:

1.  Victimhood.
2.  Self-entitlement.
3.  Viciousness in the way they conduct themselves.
4.  Something traumatic or wrong in their heads, often stemming from events in their past.   5.  They’re basically ne’er-do-well troublemakers who’d choose another leftist cause if feminism weren’t available.

Naturally they accuse their detractors of their own failings.   The first three characteristics have been well documented but the last two do not get the publicity they deserve.   Let’s look at three modern day feminists and then at some historical specimens.

1.  Harriet Harman.  A look at the picture top left is sufficient to deal with that.   Naturally, she sees the loss of press freedom and free speech as a good thing, as a cultural marxist.

2.  Suzanne Moore.  Graunwatch [courtesy Wiggia]:

Usually a major promoter of victim feminism, in which women are presented as helpless damsels at the mercy of those big bad wolves, men, Moore now is suggesting that like ‘minor celebrities’, women are likely to be attacked on social media because they are perceived as wielding power.

Later:

These statements from La Moore are all over the place and probably don’t warrant much analysis. But I think it’s worth highlighting that, using a complete lack of understanding of how percentages work!, Moore is blaming the medium in which she has been relentlessly promoting herself for a number of years, for the fact she is currently receiving rather a lot of criticism for some of her more nasty views.

3.  Amanda Marcotte.   Foulmouthed bigot of questionable hygiene, you wouldn’t touch her with a barge pole of course:

Seems that everyone but the Edwards campaign has tracked Marcotte’s foul-mouthed nutroots diatribes. Or perhaps the Edwards team is well aware of her lunatic blogging and can’t wait for her to unleash her unbridled anger on their spiffy website to give him a gritty, “progressive” edge.

Whatever the case, Walter Olson, K.C. Johnson, LieStoppers, and Jon Ham all caught Marcotte trying to cover the unhinged tracks at her old blog.

She puts the “low” into lowlife.

Here are some historical cases from Janet Shaw-Crouse [herself on the feminazi hitlist]:

4.   Betty Friedan – Friedan, the mother of the feminist movement, gave us The Feminine Mystique — she called it the “problem that has no name.”  That problem — according to Friedan — is that women are victims.  Being female means having delusions and false values and being forced to find fulfillment and identity through husbands and children.  Friedan worked nine hours a day — declaring that being a wife and mother was “not going to interfere with what I regarded as my real life.”  Even her friends describe Friedan as difficult, ill-tempered, disagreeable, ego-driven, rude, nasty, self-serving, and imperious.  Unhappily married for 21 years, her three children had to undergo therapy to deal with what was called “the emotional fallout.”  She died in 2006.

5.  Gloria Steinem – Steinem was the beauty queen of the feminist movement.  Steinem, a Phi Beta Kappa graduate, was engaged to her college boyfriend.  After breaking up with him and discovering that she was pregnant, she had an abortion.  She remained childless.  Later, Steinem founded Ms. Magazine and coined two phrases — “reproductive freedom” and “pro-choice” — bringing a brilliant sense of marketing to a movement that glossed over the realities of promiscuity and abortion and propelled so-called “sexual freedom” into the mainstream.  Steinem famously declared that a woman needs a man like a fish needs a bicycle.  She remained single until her ’60s — when she married a divorced man with grown children, David Bale (father of Christian Bale) who died of lymphoma just three years into their marriage.

6.  Germaine Greer – Known as the diva of feminism, Germaine Greer wrote two books: The Female Eunuch, which kick-started her fame, and The Whole Woman, which basically repudiates everything Greer said previously.  Known for her bawdy diatribes, Greer preached that sexual liberation is the path to fulfillment.  Greer has had “several” abortions, leaving her unable to have children.  Greer was married once for three weeks.  She bragged that she cheated seven times during that marriage.  More recently, and evidently desperate for attention, she stooped to becoming an apologist for female genital mutilation.  At age 60, she mused: “The finest time in your life was when you fell asleep in someone’s arms and woke up in the same position eight hours later.  Sleeping in someone’s arms is the prize.”  But the fruit of her personal philosophy and lifestyle is that in her old age, she sleeps alone.

Of all of them, Greer is perhaps the most vile and grotesque, though she has great competition.

On the other side, Janet writes:

In stark contrast, consider two female leaders from the “Religious Right” who chose a different path from those of Gloria Steinem, Betty Freidan, and Germaine Greer.  Their circumstances were not all that different, nor were their inner drives any less compelling.  Today’s young women need to hear from those who have shown that you can just about have it all, provided you have a true understanding of “all.”

1.  Beverly LaHaye – The founder of the nation’s largest public policy women’s organization has been honored with literally dozens of accolades (several Woman of the Year awards, Religious Freedom Award, Thomas Jefferson Award, an award from the U.S. House of Representatives for her service to the country, and the list goes on and on).  She is the author or coauthor of more than a dozen books, including several bestsellers.  She hosted an award-winning radio talk show and was interviewed on all the major television and radio outlets.  All that work, though, is secondary to her work with her husband in conducting family life seminars around the world and to her own family of four adult children, grandchildren, and great-grandchildren.  Mrs. LaHaye has both professional accomplishments and a rich, fulfilling family life.

2.  Phyllis Schafley -  Mrs. Schafley is a lawyer by training and is admitted to the practice of law in two states, in Washington, D.C., and at the U.S. Supreme Court.  A Phi Beta Kappa graduate, she earned an M.A. from Harvard and a J.D. from Washington University Law School.  Her writing, which exposed the flaws and fallacies inherent in the Equal Rights Amendment, was instrumental in its defeat, and she wrote A Choice Not an Echo, which became a bestselling playbook for the conservative movement.  Her personal life is also full of excellence: she was married for 44 years before her husband died, and they parented six children, all outstanding professional adults.

Naturally, these are well adjusted people who try to counter the ordure of feminism but it’s an uphill battle.

9 Responses to “Feminists – narrow interests, sad people”

  1. James, On Harman. You said “A look at the picture top left is sufficient to deal with that”

    Now that is an unfair approach and lazy.

    You could have chosen to demolish her with logic and facts.’Women-only shortlists’ for example, how can banning a guy from becoming an MP – because he is a man be right, or fair?. Constituents should be able to pick who is the best.

    It is a cop out to pick a less than flattering picture (and I am sure we all have those) and use that to put her down. Putting her down because of how she looks, or for some fleeting face she made.

    She could look stunning and sexy, or like the back side of a donkey and it would not really be relevant here would it?


  2. Excellent comments, all round.


  3. I think we’re way past “fair” and “not fair” with that one. I think we’re into trying and incarcerating.
    James Higham recently posted…The IsraelitesMy Profile


  4. Come on James you sidestep my point. Who you are making comments about in not really elevant, it is how.

    I was pointing out you seemed to be arguing that because of how an indivitual looked, like a fleeting “funny” face you seemed to judge them.

    Like saying beauty=good, beastly=beastly bad. I know people used to believe that.

    You might as well argue that David Beckham must be right and wise and clever (and I am not saying he dosn’t have wisdom… or other good points, but that it has nothing much to do with his looks if he does), or Sephen Hawking is not worth listening to because of how he looks (and that would be crazy).

    And the thing is, you could easly give good and real reasons like I did.

    Unless you were making a joke and then a little smile sign would be good. and you could just say It was a joke in your reply, but you didn’t either time.


  5. Moggsy, you obviously don’t read – I gave a clear answer. We’re not going to be sidetracked by irrelevances. The issue was the feminists, not some picture of them.
    James Higham recently posted…White smoke – the truthMy Profile


  6. An effective if abrupt way of avoiding my point James. Personally I would have thought it would be less effort to have addressed it. Never mind.


  7. Moggsy, Mz Harman is almost pure evil. What she looks like matters little and even if she did manage to appear as a ravishing beauty it would not alter the shape and colour of her soul. People are better ‘known’ by their words and actions, I am sure you will agree. Anyone with sound comprehension can see Harman’s soul. She is the regional Princess of Lies and your ‘Hail Mary pass’ is better used elsewhere with a better woman.


  8. Amfortas, I am not sure I can reliably read souls, but I absolutely agree with you 100%.

    That is exactly what I was trying to argue. I am certainly not defending Harmon (with ‘Hail Mary’? or any pass at all) as you can see, just she happens to be the “all hunch backs are evil” picture. I would make just the same argument about a dopey looking picture of Hitler or Stalin. It wouldnt mean I was defending them either.

    All I was saying was it would be sound to condemn anyone for what they do, but not for how they look, in english too. Sometimes I get the impression no one reads what I actually write.

    I just think it is important that arguments and illustrations should be sound, especially when there is no reason why they cant be. Not much else I can say.


  9. We are on the same page, Moggsy. James too. But the illustrations are just so apt.