Robin Morgan, one of the founders of "Ms. Magazine" was quoted as saying that marriage is "a slavery-like practice."[1]
Holy Smoke! Slavery, yet!
If only my mom could have found this out before she spent 37 years with The Tyrannical Oppressor.
Which is to say, . . . er, my dad. Born in the dark ages of the 19th century, no less.
George Orwell once observed that "There are some ideas so preposterous that only an intellectual could believe them."[2] Ms. Morgan's conclusion that "we can't destroy the inequities between men and women until we destroy marriage" would be one of those truly preposterous ideas that feminists in the last century lapped up with a spoon. In this one too, no doubt.
Point to abuses of some jackasses; ignore the multitudes of marriage that protect women and nurture children; and then segue into the proposition that marriage is a form of slavery, the remedy for which is destruction of the institution itself.
To be replaced with what the source below does not make clear. (No fault of Ms. O'Beirne, we have no doubt.)
Perhaps the unmitigated disaster of single motherhood was the replacement summum bonum Ms. Morgan had in mind. Does anyone now not know what a recipe for crime and social chaos that was? What was there to recommend it at the time (1970)?
Millenia of human experience were to be tossed aside if some nitwit feminist had her way. Alas, a nitwit feminist with a megaphone for her ideas like "Ms. Magazine."
Conservatism (Col. B. Bunny variety) counsels minuscule course corrections as the desired device for reform.
The left, however, ever infatuated with its surface intellectual accomplishments, favors the "52-card pickup" reform device, with a poll of the survivors to see if they like the results.
If wacko ideas like the total destruction of marriage strike you as really cool, wait till you see what happens when ideas such as (a) unrestricted immigration and (b) the worthlessness of western civiliation play out in practice.
The Colonel can hardly wait.
Notes
[1] The Sisterhood, Defrocked. Kate O'Beirne provides a reality check for anyone who thinks "feminist" means "pro-woman." By Melanie Kirkpatrick, Wall Street Journal, 1/12/06.
[2] Note its corollaryr, the Yiddish expression "Send a fool to close the window and he'll close them all over town."
A blog about Islamic intolerance and fanaticism; socialism; communism; government stupidity; and lying weasels everywhere, hopefully couched in vibrant and literate English and foreign words that make us look good.
4 comments:
Looks like she wants to be crowned the new Gloria Steinem. Yikes, that’s what women need. They’ve screwed up our roles so much that women who want to stay home to raise their kids have to live with guilt for not working outside the home and working moms have to live with the guilt of being away from their kids. Yeah, let’s see what else we can destroy.
I’m sure you already know this Colonel, but one of the specific targets of Communism is to tear apart the family unit and castrate the male figure so he is no longer considered the head of the household.
Communist Castration! Not only a good idea, but a GREAT name for a Punk band.
My wife is a "career woman" and yet not a feminist. I am not sure where this puts her, but it seems to me that she is already equal. She makes far above average wages and more than many men I know.
Is the feminist's goal to not only become equal, but to become more than equal? If so how is that philosophy any different than any other philosophy of domination?
Weird
It's a common rhetorical device to talk about groups as monoliths, and then point to a single extreme argument from somebody who is considered part of that group to discredit everything about the whole group. I'm left-of-center politically, but I've never quoted David Duke to make a point about what Republicans believe or Pat Robertson's kooky version of Pentecostalism to make assumptions about Christianity as a whole.
The left and the right are very good at throwing around epithets at each other. I'm as sick of being mocked and misrepresented by people on the far right of the spectrum of views as I am sick of being hamstrung by people who have rediculous views on the outer banks of liberal thought.
Feminism is NOT pathetic and destructive. Do you think that? All of it? The mainstream of feminism is the simple premise that people are equal, and deserve to be treated as such. How could any patriotic American not believe that? I think the expansion of equality of opportunity is the great noble undertaking of this nation. You got a problem with THAT?
I didn't know that about that particular goal of communism, Christi. Since communists believed in the new man, the new economy, the new science, and the new dawn of a glorious day, I don't know why they would have considered anything inherited from the past to have any value.
Weird, I think that's a major aspect of feminism, domination. Not to mention emasculation. Boys aren't just boys, they're humans with behavior problems that need to be medicated.
Probably I'm a little too polemical there but I don't know why (activist) women would be be any different from members of other groups who consider them themselves disadvantaged. "Why stop at mere equality?"
EB, you're right about rhetorical devices but they do serve a useful purpose. Once used they can be scrutinized for how representative they are of the group singled out.
Whether Robin Morgan is representative of feminists everywhere is not conclusively proven by me here. However, she did help found a major women's magazine and I am going to go out on a limb by saying that it probably preached a message of total independence from the male of the species. I suspect, though I cannot prove offhand, that her views were enthusiastically received by all principals involved in the publication of that magazine.
In the end, my post will resonate or not resonate with my readers depending on their own experience and study. As one friend of mine who works for a major federal agency remarked to me one time, "If you think that the glass ceiling is bad, wait till you encounter the concrete ceiling." This, I submit, would be a result enthusiastically applauded by most feminists. As will be the case of the male officer who used bad language in front of a female cadet and who will now be court martialed because she was offended by it. How the feminists will relish that one.
No, I have no problem with the expansion of equal opportunity. But that issue is not a wholly owned subsidiary of feminists. One need not be a feminist to support expansion. You cannot read this blog, for example, and not know that I have nothing but contempt for the abominable treatment of women in most Islamic societies and communities and I am certainly no feminist.
Feminism is something much more than this.
It is my underlying belief that feminists stand for a much more comprehensive, radical restructuring of the relations between men and women that goes far beyond the issue of simple equality. As I say, I haven't proved this proposition here, but I bet you that practically all people who call themselves conservatives will agree that Robin Morgan is very likely a believer in that kind of feminism.
I found three quotes of hers:
• Don't accept rides from strange men -- and remember that all men are strange as hell.
• [A] legitimate revolution must be led by, made by those who have been most oppressed: black, brown, yellow, red, and white women —- with men relating to that the best they can.
• I feel that "man-hating" is an honorable and viable political act, that the oppressed have a right to class-hatred against the class that is oppressing them.
I'll bet any one of these ideas (men are strange, revolution, hatred of men) would bring the house down at the next NOW convention.
Post a Comment