Did those garden-variety feminists just get used?

Sarah Perry writes of the so-called Women’s March: “Everything The Women’s March Movement Wants You To Believe About It Is A Lie; the worldwide event had very little to do with uniting and defending women—and everything to do with promoting a progressive, radicalized agenda.”

Of course it did.  How many un-thinking women were duped?  How many people actually believed the mainstream media (i.e. fake news) spin that this was a noble cause we should all get behind?  Ladies (and Gentlemen), it’s time to stop focusing so much on the feels and turn your brains on.

The intersectional feminism of the March wasn’t immediately visible. Straight, white women were tolerated, but certainly not exalted. The organizers wanted to make sure the march “[was] led or centered around women of color, or it will be a bunch of white women marching on Washington.”  As a result, some feminists couldn’t help but feel that the real agenda of equality had been hijacked in favor of an illiberal liberalism.

This is the kind of double-speak at which the Left is so adept: where differences are celebrated, but only if they’re the right ones; where partisan mitosis continues until the only causes left to champion are those of the transgender, bisexual, Muslim illegal immigrant trying to get a late-term abortion.

***

Among those participating in the historic March were those whose lack of information on its actual agenda had profiteered the Left and its monolithic, make-no-concessions narrative. With enough pink and some language on social justice, the organizers had rightly predicted women adhering to a basic definition of “feminism”—the theory of equality of the sexes, regardless of their views on Sharia or the unborn—would clog the Metro stations with their signs.

These women have come to learn that their diverse and disordered march had been coordinated in large part by a capitalist pro-abort [Cecile Richards of PP], an Islamic misogynist [Linda Sarsour], and one very rich man [George Soros].

Advertisements

Feminists: Down with female objectification (unless we’re objectifying ourselves)!

More proof (as though we need it) that the women of this country are seriously confused, at least the most vocal elements are.  The early women’s rights movement may have made sense, but ceased to do so a long time ago.  Just like the leftists, feminists have no consistency in what they preach and protest about, and apparently no ability to think with anything resembling logic and reason.  If they did, the “Women’s March” on DC would have seemed ridiculous.

And the celebrities and pop culture many of these women embrace would be seen as derogatory towards women.  They simultaneously condemn and celebrate two sides of one coin.  They shout to the world, especially men, “don’t objectify us, don’t define us by our body parts” while at the same time presenting themselves as sex objects and defining themselves by their body parts (except when “tolerance” insists that they accept “trans-women” — and not very convincing cross-dressers like Stephen Crowder!).

Victoria Cobb of the Family Foundation made these observations on the so-called “Women’s March:”

The thing about vulgarity is that for most people, the novelty wears off when we grow up.  The use of these words proves nothing except possibly that we lack the creativity and class to have conversations of substance and meaning.

I fear that much the same principle applied to those that attended the misnamed “March for Women.”  Given everyone appeared to be angry for different reasons and the march itself had no centralized purpose, it left a void that vulgarity filled.  Sign after sign used words and images that should make us cringe.   Rather than symbolizing some liberation of women, it should embarrass us.  Does it represent our gender to be unable to express our specific, legitimate concerns with this administration with civility?  I get that our new President hasn’t exactly set a high bar in this arena.  I just find it odd that those that dislike him so much gladly follow him into the gutter.

Rather than organizing an anti-Trump rally, organizers tried to make it the summation of what it is to be a woman.  The only problem with that plan is that in today’s gender-confused society, it’s very hard to describe what it is that makes one a woman.  If visuals in D.C. yesterday are any explanation, womanhood comes down to the existence of a uterus and the ability to kill the next generation of girls.  This left the march with conflicting messages because on the one hand, it is the uterus that defines “womanhood,” but on the other hand, even a uterus doesn’t guarantee your exclusive stake on a women’s locker room or shower room.

An even more recent example of their inconsistency: Women who protest female objectification and decry “rape culture” singing praises for the domination of women, glorification of rape and domestic abuse of women in films like 50 Shades Darker.  Mary Ann Kreitzer and Jamie Fuller tell us why “Love is Not Grey ” and why they “Won’t be Seeing Fifty Shades Darker and No Real Feminist Would”:

Tell us again, girls, how crude and misogynistic Donald Trump is as you slobber over the sick messages of these male domination/rape films? …  Haven’t we been there in the past? I thought we’d advanced from the all-women-are-sluts-who-really-want-to-be-raped era. Guess I was wrong. On the other hand, is it possible that liberal women like those at the Women’s March agree with the message? They were certainly lewd and crude and…well… slutty at the March.

***

I won’t be going to see the new Fifty Shades of Grey movie and here’s why. We as women have spent the last 50+ years fighting to be seen as more than sex objects. We have demanded equality to men in the work place. We’ve fought to have our partners stand by our side at home and pitch in around the house. We’ve dug ourselves out from this idea that women should be the sole caretakers of our children. We want to be equal to men in all ways (well not me- we aren’t equal- women fill the gaps that men can’t and vice versa – but that’s a whole different discussion).

Why, then, are women clambering to see Fifty Shades Darker? What does that say when we promote a movie that not only objectifies women, but creates this idea that every woman fantasizes about being dominated?
***
Before you rush out to see Fifty Shades Darker this Valentine’s Day, consider this: we as a country were outraged at the idea of a presidential candidate making crass and inappropriate comments about women. We as a country (well some of us anyway) supported a march on the capital protesting rape and domestic violence on women. We as a country have fought for women to be on the same level as men in the work place, in society, and at home. Why, then, would any of us want to see a movie that does nothing more than demote women to sex objects and elevate men into a place of dominance over us?

Don’t forget ladies: if the fictional Christian Grey assaults a young woman in highly demeaning ways, that’s cool, but if Donald Trump is caught on tape more than a decade ago making a demeaning comment about women, that calls for months (years?) of outrage and condemnation.  The best way to combat “jerks like Trump?”  Definitely go see 50 Shades Darker and be vulgar and slutty in public.  Yep, that will definitely put a stop to men viewing women as worthless except as sex objects.

Another Sensible Feminist?

She’s demonstrated she can think and see reality as it is (at least in part).  Which probably means she won’t be a feminist for long.

How did this actually get published in Huffington Post?  I guess the editors weren’t really paying attention; they must not have even read the title: “When I Became A Mother, Feminism Let Me Down: We are functioning in a society that pretends women don’t grow up to become mothers” by Samantha Johnson

I am also a mother, and when it it came to preparing for motherhood, feminism let me down.

From the beginning, we tell young girls they can do anything they want to do, they can be anyone they want to be. They are given access to great education, encouraged to further their studies and attain higher degrees. We push them to push themselves, to break boundaries, to achieve what seems impossible, to break through corporate glass ceilings and professional roadblocks.

We tell them they can have it all. And they can.

Until they have a baby.

In the fight to ensure equality, as we preach to girls that they can — and should — do anything a boy can do, we are failing to prepare women for one of the greatest challenges so many of them will face; motherhood. We are teaching our young people that there is no value in motherhood and that homemaking is an outdated, misogynistic concept. We do this through the promotion of professional progression as a marker of success, while completely devaluing the contribution of parents in the home.

We then wonder why, when these girls become women who turn into mothers, they suffer from depression, anxiety and struggle to find a sense of self or identity. Are we truly helping women get ahead, or are we instead setting them up for a future of self doubt and a sense of failure?

For many women, their journey will naturally lead them to a period of stay in the home, caring for children. Whether that time is only a few months, or for several decades, they need to be prepared. They need to be given the skills they need to succeed and they need to be taught that their work is valuable.

We need to stop acting as though when we provide women with these traditional skills, we are taking away their power. Teaching women to care for children and a home empowers them. It prepares them for a path that may lie ahead. What really takes away their power, is telling them that doing so is worthless.

Feminism, it’s time to catch up. Our women deserve better.

Let’s tell them they can be anything they want — including a Mum, and let’s start telling them just how important that is.

An Unlikely Alliance

Finally at least one feminist group has woken up to the insanity of supporting the “rights” of “trans-people” to use the bathroom of their choice.  Girl Power on Girls’ Showers:

If you think a partnership between PETA and the red-meat eaters of America would be odd, try this one on for size: the Women’s Liberation Front (WoLF) and the Family Policy Alliance. That’s right. If there’s one thing President Obama’s outrageous bathroom mandate has accomplished, it’s bringing together all kinds of unlikely viewpoints. Feminists and Christians aren’t exactly natural allies, but when it comes to protecting the safety and privacy of America’s girls, count them as comrades. The idea that men and boys should be able to walk right into girls’ locker rooms, showers, and restrooms is so offensive that the two sides are teaming up to topple the Obama policy.

On Fox News’s “Tucker Carlson Show,” WoLF Board Chair Kara Dansky explained how objectionable the idea is. “We think that ‘women and girls’ are a meaningful category worthy of civil rights protection. If we define sex, under Title IX, to mean gender identity, what we’re essentially says is that ‘woman and girl’ can mean anyone who self-identifies as ‘woman and girl,’ which makes the category ‘women and girls’ meaningless…” Then, in a bit of irony, Dansky went on to talk about the unreasonable labels LGBT activists put on them for defecting. “We’re called transphobic bigots because we ask questions about gender identity,” Dansky said. “We’re asking questions and we’re standing up for women and girls. And that seems to be not permitted.” Welcome to our world! Without the facts and biology stacked against them, liberals have to resort to distractions and name-calling.

What do you call a “conspiracy theory” when it starts to look like the truth?

Several years ago I might have thought this seemed far-fetched, but it’s hard to ignore the mounting evidence.  Steve Jalsevac outlines the “surprising real reason for the hate against Donald Trump,” tying many entities and movements together as a concerted effort to destroy what’s left of Western Civilization and Christianity.  Is he right?  What do you think?

Can Trump and his administration endure this near satanic, on-going assault? Many prayed for him during the election and he astonishingly prevailed. It is clear, despite the president’s personal flaws, that he is doing many right things. He would not be so intensely hated by all these people if he were not.

Even more prayers are needed to protect, guide and inspire Trump and his administration to stay the course and serve the Will of God. Prayers are needed for his continued conversion – especially on the homosexual/transgender rights issues.

There is also great need to pray for the physical safety of President Trump and his leadership team.

The election of Donald Trump has caused the decades-old war that has been waged on what is left of Christian civilization to be suddenly revealed for the ugly and evil war that it has been all along. Until now the war has been very one-sided, with the one-world progressives generally being the only ones fighting, as the relatively passive Christians and their non-Christian allies have given naive, timid and disorganized resistance.

The election of Donald Trump has suddenly brought everything into the open that was already underway. It has forced a necessary climax in this world-wide culture war.

This is good. But the “good” must now respond by finally starting to earnestly wage a defensive war to completely defeat the one-worlders. It is time to wake up to the reality of our collective and individual responsibilities in this international conflict between good and evil.

It is not possible to overstate the gravity of the situation.

Keep in mind that in 1976 (showing how long this has been on-going) Pope John Paul II, as then Cardinal Karol Wojtyla, warned,

“We are now standing in the face of the greatest historical confrontation humanity has ever experienced. I do not think that the wide circle of the American Society, or the whole wide circle of the Christian Community realize this fully. We are now facing the final confrontation between the Church and the anti-church, between the gospel and the anti-gospel, between Christ and the Antichrist.”
Donald Trump did not start the conflict. He has merely brought it all out into the open for us to respond to.

If only American Catholics would take this to heart.

Finally a reasonable voice in the sea of hysterics over Trump’s immigration policy: Why Catholics Need to Take a Deep Breath Over Trump’s Migrant Ban

“Yes, every country has the right to control its borders, who comes and who goes,”  [Pope] Francis said, “and those countries at risk —from terrorism or such things— have even more right to control them more.”

In a remarkably apt passage of his Summa Theologica, Aquinas noted that the Jewish people of Old Testament times did not admit visitors from all nations equally, since those peoples closer to them were more quickly integrated into the population than those who were not as close.

Some hostile peoples were not admitted at all into Israel due to their historical antagonism toward the Jewish nation and the threat they posed to Israel’s security.

Immigration policy can take a variety of forms, and Catholic teaching has never sought to canonize a particular arrangement as the best or only one. The underlying moral principles guiding such policies are an openness to the stranger and the foreigner, balanced by attention to the common good of the nation, its ability to fully integrate immigrants into its culture and in a special way the security and safety of its citizens.

Whether President Trump’s executive order is the best prudential decision in contemporary circumstances is a matter of legitimate debate. Should the number of temporarily banned nations be seven or five or twelve? Is a three-month moratorium the ideal time frame to get America’s leaky vetting procedures shipshape? These and many other questions can and should be asked and people of good will may disagree on the answers.

But this is a far cry from treating the executive order as an evil or reprehensible act. Such summary judgments have absolutely no basis in Catholic teaching and merely reinforce prejudices against Catholic prelates as too quick to make pronouncements that overextend their competence and expertise. They also risk appearing to proceed from personal or partisan concerns rather than the good of the nation.

The President’s first duty is to protect the citizens of the country. Doing so responsibly can entail sacrifices and demands courage and prudence. If Catholic leaders wish to disagree with the way President Trump carries this out, they should do so respectfully, appealing to principles of Catholic teaching and the natural law, and not through innuendo, accusation and insult.