Feminism destroys many aspects of society

Posted on May 15, 2008 by Walter H. Schneider

The range of feminism destroys many aspects of society it would have been worth keeping.  Although some time ago I had read a good portion of the article by Barbara Kay that is identified below, I did not get around until now to read all of it.

Please accept my apologies for not pointing you to it sooner. It makes little difference whether the apology is necessary because you read the article already or whether it is because you did not yet have a chance to read it.

Mercatornet
2008 04 04

Who’s oppressing who?

Barbara Kay
http://www.mercatornet.com/articles/whos_oppressing_who/

Barbara Kay’s article is “an excerpt from a speech given [in about the beginning of April 2008] to the McGill University Women’s Alumnae Association on the Impact of Feminism on Society.” Her article exposes modern feminism as an ideology that has had and still has a very detrimental, even deadly, wide-ranging impact on society; not just nationally but increasingly on a global level. Barbara Kay explained the nature of the destructive impact of feminism on families, on women, men (“If one sex wins, the other loses.”) and children, and on social, moral, economic and judiciary standards.

The article received 88 comments by people from all sectors of society and from all over the world. Those comments, too, are worth reading. They include things such as [more or less picked at random]:

  • A complaint by a fathers rights activist who expresses his anger about being a victim of feminism because he is a father. Incongruously, he didn’t say anything at all about the suffering that his children (for some of whom he deliberately ceased to be a father; which fact he naturally did not mention) have to go through on account of growing up without their father.
  • A comment by Kim that questions Barbara Kay’s journalistic integrity and objects to the whole article because the article identifies the Arabs’ hostility toward Israel as “anti-Semitism”.
    Kim stated: “Arabs cannot, by definition, be ‘antisemitic’ since the Semitic language family includes Arabic, Hebrew and Aramaic languages and the historical term ‘Semite’ refers to all those who consider themselves descendants of the Biblical Shem, ‘anti-Semitism’ should be likewise inclusive. ‘Anti-Semitism’ should be extended to include prejudice against Arabs or Anti-Arabism.”
    Well, aside from being fond of run-on sentences, Kim is obviously a feminist. Weak and false logic has always been the crumbling all-pervasive glue of feminism; which almost certainly explains why feminists make so extremely little logical sense. Whether or not Kim will concede the point, Arabs can be and are anti-Semitic, if they express their hatred of Jews in words and deeds – as surely as anyone can kill himself by accident or through suicide. However, going by Kim’s feminist logic, suicides could no more be real than anti-Semitism by Arabs against Jews can be.
  • A comment by a father who raised children in a long-term marriage expressed profound disturbance on account of the state-manipulation of families identified by Barbara Kay. It is encouraging that this father so late in life discovered the long-standing reality of feminism’s oppressive social engineering. Let’s hope that he now will do something about what disturbs him.
  • Then there is a profound comment by Yves Pageau, who stated that “In 1905 France voted a law declaring the separation between Churches and state. I wished we would do likewise by declaring separation between feminism and government. It would make things a lot easier for everyone including feminism.” He is of course absolutely correct. Feminism is a state-sponsored and -imposed religion, not the least on account of the atheism (and, moreover, paganism) with which it is so exceedingly strong intertwined.
  • Angelina Steenstra stated: “Having just read Ms Kay’s article I want to applaud and say thank you. Having been seduced by the feminist agenda and scarred, literally and figuratively by its false promises to the point of losing three children before birth to an abortion, abortifacient contraception [by definition, an abortifacient cannot be a contraceptive —WHS] and an ectopic pregnancy due to scar tissue from a sexually transmitted disease I am deeply grateful for this honest appraisal of the fruits of false feminism….”
  • Denis identified the ideological foundation of feminism as being Marxist, by stating, amongst other things, “The Marxists recognized the possibilities to use women as a way to expand Marxism throughout the culture. American women became useful idiots. The goal of the Marxists was the destruction of the West. To do this they needed to destabilize the relationships between males and females. They encouraged adversary and competition between men and women. They encouraged a promiscuous culture. America’s days as a great country will end. Those young and alive today will witness this….” Denis’ sentiments are born out by facts [to which he points in his comments —WHS]. If the feminist-communist connection is news to you, you may wish to look up some of the articles in this index.

The 88 comments contain a smattering of clearly feminist opinions (not surprisingly, quite a few are by feminist or homosexual men) that illuminate the extreme family-hostility of feminism. They provide an excellent profile, not only of the diversity of cultural views on the family and on the politics of sex, but also of the views of fathers-rights activists — of whom a few appear to be as self-centered as feminism is.

It must be hoped that in the end pro-family views in society will win over feminist extremism and over any other extremist cultural separatists. More articles like Barbara Kay’s Who’s oppressing who? will greatly help with that.

Barbara Kay’s article contains two relatively small flaws, although in absolute terms those flaws are not small at all. One of those is her omission of the Marxist ideological foundation of feminism. The other is an omission relating to children born to women late in life. The risks of such late births are serious for women, as Barbara Kay identified, but even more so for children. The risk that a child will be born with a chromosomal aberration increases with the age of the expectant mother. For Down’s syndrome alone, that risk ranges from one in 2000 live births by mothers in their twenties to one in 50 live births by mothers who are over 40. (Update 2008 05 17: More on Down’s syndrome and other chromosomal aberrations in More on feminism’s legacy re: liberation of women, The Australian, 2008 05 15)

#FeminismsLegacy #Feminism

See also:

(Visited 21 times, 1 visit(s) today)
This entry was posted in Education, Family, Feminism, Feminist Jurisprudence, Men's Issues, Propaganda Exposed, Social-Destruction Enterprise, The New World Order, Women's Violence. Bookmark the permalink.