Feminists Psychoanalyze Themselves Again

Labels: » » » »



Cass Sunstein is a stupid man, but now I feel bad because I suspect some over the top stuff going on in Samantha's bed. yuck. the polygamy bit of threw me for a curve ball. I had no idea.

Funny that the husband of Samantha Power

(aka let's invade Israel) was involved.

that is creepy. Trying to legalize polygamy? I never would of thought feminists hated themselves that much. What comes to mind is the movie "Ice Storm" by Ang Lee

Posted via web from noahdavidsimon's posterous

If our government cannot define marriage as the union of one man and one woman, it follows that there can be no law against the union of a man and several women, which is totally demeaning and harmful to women.

The very first Platform adopted by the Republican Party, in 1856, condemned polygamy and slavery as the "twin relics of barbarism." Always a stalwart defender of traditional marriage, the 2008 Republican Platform calls for "a constitutional amendment that fully protects marriage as a union of a man and a woman, so that judges cannot make other arrangements equivalent to it." It's vitally important that the Republican Party continue to be the standard-bearer for traditional marriage.

We thought our nation had definitely settled the polygamy issue a century and a half ago, but it recently raised its ugly head. The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) is on record as supporting polygamy. The ACLU's feminist president, Nadine Strossen, stated in a speech at Yale University in June 2005 that the ACLU defends "the right of individuals to engage in polygamy." And on October 15, 2006, in a high-profile debate against Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, Strossen stated that the ACLU supports the right to polygamy.


Speaking to the Federalist Society on November 18, 2006, the ACLU's executive director, Anthony Romero, confirmed his organization's support of polygamy.


The massive immigration that the United States has accepted in recent years includes large numbers of immigrants from Third World countries that practice polygamy and marriage to children and close relatives. We wonder if polygamists have been allowed to immigrate and if they are continuing these customs in U.S. neighborhoods.


President Obama's nominee for a commissioner of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), a lesbian law-school professor named Chai R. Feldblum, signed a radical manifesto that endorsed polygamous households (i.e., "in which there is more than one conjugal partner"). Signed in 2006, this manifesto, entitled "Beyond Same-Sex Marriage: A New Strategic Vision for All Our Families & Relationships," argues that traditional marriage "should not be legally and economically privileged above all others." The American people obviously think otherwise, and current laws reflect our wishes.


Feldblum is not the only pro-polygamy Obama appointee. His Regulatory Czar, Cass Sunstein, wrote a book in 2008 called Nudge: Improving Decisions About Health, Wealth and Happiness in which he urged that "the word marriage would no longer appear in any laws, and marriage licenses would no longer be offered or recognized by any level of government."


Sunstein argues that traditional marriage discriminates against single people by imposing "serious economic and material disadvantages." He asks, "Why not leave people's relationships to their own choices, subject to the judgments of private organizations, religious and otherwise?"


Sunstein also suggests "routine removal" of human organs because "the state owns the rights to body parts of people who are dead or in certain hopeless conditions, and it can remove their organs without asking anyone's permission."


In Socialist Canada, which has already approved same-sex marriage, polygamy has suddenly become a live issue. In a current lawsuit, British Columbia's Supreme Court is being asked to decide if polygamy should remain illegal.


Traditional marriage is essential to a stable society. We should maintain government's proper role in defining it and protecting it.


via eagleforum.org


The feminists have been strikingly successfull;
women are now half the labor force,
and 40% of women are essential family breadwinners.
In the current recession, the majority of workers
laid off have been men (especially from construction and
manufacturing). Jobs where women predominate have not
been much affected.Even so, the feminists demanded that the Obama
Administration give half the Stimulus jobs to women rather than
to the shovel-ready work that was the reason for passing
the Stimulus funds. Whatever the feminists demand from the Democrats they get,
and the Stimulus money was directed to jobs
in education, health care, and social services. The feminists'
tactics to divert Stimulus jobs to women were described in
the July 2009 Phyllis Schlafly Report.

So what are the feminists complaining about? Now
that women are half the work force, they want workforce rules
to be changed to be more female-friendly. (These are the
same feminists who have been saying for years that there is no
difference between male and female.) Feminists demand that the taxpayers provide high-quality daycare and paid family leave, that new laws prohibit employers from ordering women to
work overtime (as men are often required to do), and probably that
men should be forced to assume half the household and
baby-care duties.

The feminists are still crying about President Richard
Nixon vetoing a federal program to make daycare a
middle-class entitlement. But Nixon's action was popular then and still
is, because the majority of Americans don't want their tax
dollars to pay for babysitters for other people's children.

No doubt this will come as a shock to the feminists,
but Time Magazine reports that "a majority of both men and
women still say it is best for children to have a father working and
a mother at home."






Women's percentage in the labor force keeps rising


because of who is going to college and who drops out.


Thirty years ago, the ratio of males to females on college


campuses was 60-40; now it's 40-60, and women receive the majority


of college degrees.






But the feminists are griping because women


students choose humanities majors that lead to lesser paid jobs


than male students, who in larger numbers choose math,


science and engineering. The feminists want government to


remedy this gender difference by bribing women with taxpayers'


money to make other choices. (Feminists claim that there are no


gender differences, but they demand government intervention


to override women's choices.)






The feminists push hard for what they call


"Title-Nining," using Title IX, which bans sex discrimination in schools


and colleges, to force equal numbers of women in all athletic programs. Since this misuse of Title IX was initiated by


radical feminists in Jimmy Carter's Education Department, the


feminists have forced colleges to eliminate thousands of


men's teams, including many championship teams and more


than 450 wrestling teams. Now the feminists are Title-Nining


science and math departments. Using phony charges of


gender bias, they are directing millions of dollars of federal and


university money to override women's choices in


order to increase the number of women in math and science at


the expense of men.






Joanne Lipman, who has held several of the biggest


jobs in publishing but still whines that "progress for women


has stalled," nevertheless makes a couple of sensible comments.


She writes that feminists defined "progress for women


too narrowly; we've focused primarily on numbers at the


expense of attitudes."






She's right about that. Attitude is the problem with


feminists; as long as they believe they are victims of an


oppressive patriarchy, they will never be successful. Women won't


be happy as long as they believe the false slogan (repeated


in most of these current articles) that women make only 77


cents on the dollar compared to men. The Equal Pay Law


was passed in 1963, but requires equal pay only


for equal work, and women in the labor force don't work nearly as


many hours per week as men do, and women voluntarily


choose jobs that pay less.






Lipman also urges feminists to "have a sense of


humor." That's a very constructive proposal. When I tell a joke


during my college lectures, I can identify the feminists by the


students who are not laughing.






Only one sentence in all these feminist articles


confronts the fundamental reason why today's women are not as


happy as women were in 1972. Time Magazine wrote: "Among


the most dramatic changes in the past generation is the


detachment of marriage and motherhood."






That's what the feminist movement did to America.


All those impressive statistics about women holding


well-paying jobs and receiving college degrees will not produce


happy women as long as 39% of children are born to


unmarried mothers who lack a loving husband.






And one more glaring point: the lack of grandchildren


isn't mentioned in these exposés of women's unhappiness. In


rejecting marriage, most feminists also rejected the


grandchildren who could have provided a significant measure


of women's happiness.






Feminists Are Still Unhappy






All this self-psychoanalyzing of women's attitudes appears to have been triggered by a study released earlier this year


by the National Bureau of Economic Research and published in the American Economic Journal. Called "The Paradox


of Declining Female Happiness," this report concluded that women's happiness has measurably declined since 1970.


Since this study covers the same time period as the rise of the


so-called women's liberation movement, the feminists


recognized it as a challenge to the goals and alleged achievements


of their movement.






The authors, University of Pennsylvania


economists Betsey Stevenson and Justin Wolfers, advanced a theory


that the women's liberation movement "raised women's


expectations" (sold them a bill of goods), making them feel


inadequate when they fail to have it all. The authors also presented


a second theory that the demands on women who are


both mothers and jobholders in the labor force are overwhelming.






A more realistic explanation is that the feminist


movement taught women to see themselves as victims of an


oppressive patriarchy in which their true worth will never


be recognized and any success is beyond their reach. If you


believe you can never succeed because you are a helpless


victim of mean men, you are probably correct.






Feminist organizations such as the National


Organization for Women held consciousness-raising sessions where


they exchanged tales of how badly some man had treated


them. Grievances are like flowers; if you water them, they will


grow, and self-imposed victimhood is not a recipe for happiness.






Another explanation for women's unhappiness could


be the increase in easy divorce and illegitimacy (39% of


American births are now born to single moms), which means


that millions of women are raising kids without a husband and


therefore expect Big Brother government to substitute as





provider. The 2008 election returns showed that 70% of


unmarried women


voted for Barack Obama, perhaps hoping to be





beneficiaries of his "spread the wealth around" policies.






In the pre-1970 era, when surveys showed women


with higher levels of happiness, most men held jobs that


enabled their wives to be fulltime homemakers. At the same time,


the private enterprise system produced many products that


make household work and kiddie care easier (such as dryers,


dishwashers, and paper diapers).






Betty Friedan started the feminist movement in the





late 1960s with her book The Feminine




Mystique, which created the myth that suburban housewives were suffering from




"a sense of dissatisfaction" with their alleged-to-be-boring


lives. To liberate women from the home that Friedan labeled


"a comfortable concentration camp," the feminist


movement worked tirelessly to make the fulltime homemaker


dissatisfied with her role.






Economic need plays no role in the feminist


argument that women should seek labor-force jobs. Feminists


encourage wives to leave the home because marriage is


allegedly archaic and oppressive to women. A job in the labor force


is upheld as so much more fulfilling than tending babies and


preparing dinner for a hard-working husband.






Women's Studies courses require students to accept as an article of faith the silly notion that gender differences


are not natural or biological but are social constructs created


by the patriarchy and ancient stereotypes. This leads


feminists to seek legislative corrections for problems that don't exist.









A former editor of the Ladies' Home




Journal, Myrna Blyth, wrote in her book, Spin Sisters: How the Women


of the Media Sell Unhappiness and Liberalism to the


Women of America, that the anorexic blondes on television are




every day selling the falsehood that women's lives are full of


misery and threats from men. Bernard Goldberg calls the


mainstream media "one of America's most pro-feminist institutions."






According to feminist ideology, the only


gender-specific characteristic is that men are naturally batterers who


make all women victims. On that theory, the feminists conned


Congress into passing the Violence Against Women Act (note


the sex discriminatory title), which includes a handout of a


billion dollars a year to finance the feminists' political, legislative


and judicial goals.






The feminists whine endlessly using their favorite


word "choice" in matters of abortion, but they reject choice in


gender roles. The Big Mama of feminist studies, Simone


de Beauvoir, said, "We don't believe that any woman should


have this choice. No woman should be authorized to stay at


home to raise her children . . . precisely because if there is such


a choice, too many women will make that one."






The feminists have carried on a long-running campaign


to make husbands and fathers irrelevant and unnecessary


except to provide a paycheck. Most divorces are initiated


by women. More women than men request same-sex


marriage licenses in Massachusetts so that, with two


affirmative-action jobs plus in vitro fertilization, they can create a


"family" without husbands or fathers.






Despite the false messages of the colleges and the


media, most American women are smart enough to reject


the label feminist, and only 20% of mothers say they want


full-time work in the labor force. Women suffering from


unhappiness should look into how women are treated in the rest of


the world, and then maybe American women would realize


they are the most fortunate people on earth.






Feminist Attack on Marriage










While the gay lobby gets most of the blame for the


assault on the institution of marriage, the modern feminist


movement has always been virulently and effectively anti-marriage.


When the movement marched onto the stage of the


culture war in the late 1960s and early 1970s, they called


themselves the women's liberation movement. The buzz word was


liberation, which specifically meant liberation from home,


husband, family and children.






Harvard Professor Harvey Mansfield's book


entitled Manliness includes a most informative chapter called


"Womanly Nihilism." Mansfield rightly concludes that the


20th-century feminist intellectuals, such as Simone de


Beauvoir, Betty Friedan, Kate Millett and Germaine Greer, wanted


independence not only from men, but from morality and


from human nature and motherhood.






The feminists' first legislative triumph was to change


the divorce laws of all 50 states to unilateral divorce,


i.e., allowing one spouse to walk out of marriage without the consent


of the other spouse, and without having to allege any fault


or reason to sever the marriage contract. Big media eagerly


cooperated to promote the notion that we have moved into


an era of "serial" (rather than lifetime) marriages. "Ozzie


and Harriet," a then-popular sitcom featuring a traditional


family, became a favorite epithet for feminists to scoff at


traditional marriage and the role of the fulltime homemaker.






The feminists' second victory was


Roe v. Wade. Abortion has always been central to the feminist movement


(proving there is no connection with the movement for


women's right to vote, whose leaders were very anti-abortion).






Their third victory (a Gloria Steinem favorite) was


getting President Jimmy Carter to pluralize the name of


his White House Conference on Families in order to


popularize the notion that non-traditional families should be


recognized and included.






The anti-marriage feminists stormed state capitols to


repeal the laws designed to respect morality and preserve


marriage, such as the laws against adultery, fornication,


sodomy, and alienation of affection.






The only goal they failed to achieve was ratification


of the Equal Rights Amendment (ERA).






Meanwhile, beginning with Lyndon Johnson's Great


Society in the late 1960s, the welfare system was working


hard to dismantle marriage by channeling taxpayers' money


only to mothers, thereby making the husband and father


irrelevant and unnecessary to the family's economic well-being.


Widespread illegitimacy and single moms were the predictable


result, producing the matriarchy that the feminists sought.






Feminist solidarity with the gay rights movement was


cemented at the International Women's Year (IWY)


Conference in Houston in 1977, following impassioned


emotional entreaties by Betty Friedan and Eleanor Smeal. IWY


resolutions proclaimed the feminists' attack not only on


traditional marriage, but also on motherhood. Feminists view


society's expectation that mothers should care for their own


children as oppressive discrimination against women.






Marriage: One Man, One Woman










The institution of marriage as the union of one man


and one woman has been fundamental to America ever since


the founding of our nation. When the famous French


commentator Alexis de Tocqueville traveled the United States in


the early-19th century, he recognized the fact that respect


for marriage is very American. He wrote: "There is certainly no country in the world where the tie of marriage is more


respected than in America, or where conjugal happiness is


more highly or worthily appreciated."






Not only do American laws specifically recognize


marriage as the union of one man and one woman, but


many laws legislate special benefits to the institution of


marriage. The Government Accountability Office (GAO)


identified more than 1,000 federal laws that are based on the


definition of marriage in its traditional meaning, including the


tax laws that permit married couples the advantage of filing


joint income tax returns and the Social Security benefits


awarded to fulltime homemakers.






Attacks on the definition of marriage as the union of


one man and one woman come from the gay lobby seeking


social recognition of their lifestyle, from the feminist movement


that opposes what they call the patriarchy (that supposedly


makes women second-class citizens), and also from some


libertarians who believe marriage should be merely a private


affair and/or a religious contract, and that the terms of this


union should be none of the government's business. These


libertarians want to deny government the right to define


marriage, set its standards, or issue marriage licenses.






Government's Role in Marriage






Government has and should have a very important role


in defining who may get a license to marry. In America, it is


and should be a criminal offense to marry more than one person


at a time, or marry a child, or a close relative, even though


such practices are common in some foreign countries.


via eagleforum.org

Translate