Do Feminists Represent ‘Women’? No

After a spate of sex attacks in Brooklyn (New York City), police warned women against wearing short skirts. Because the attacker was said to be targeting women in short skirts.

And get this – the feminists in Brooklyn got angry about the police warning(?!)

"I think that women should be able to wear whatever they want," said one feminist. "I don't think that they should be held responsible in any way for the actions of criminals."

This quote is utterly preposterous. Because guess what, honey – criminals don’t care what you think or do, even if you went to Yale.

Unless you have a gun. Then they will leave you alone.

Meanwhile rational, conservative women certainly did not complain. Because they know what self-preservation is.

But when ‘women’ want to kill their unborn children through abortion anytime, anywhere, there is no protest from the feminists. When ‘women’ destroy themselves with sexually-transmitted diseases from promiscuous behavior encouraged by feminism, that is no problem. When ‘women’ sink into feminist rage and anti-man, anti-children, anti-God and anti-family anger, that is OK.

These are the kinds of thinking have been undermining America since the birth of the feminist movement. Because you just can’t win with radicals.

Indeed the hysterical, irrational woman is a historical caricature. And it must be embarrassing to bring that stereotype to life every time you speak.

In the final analysis feminism is a negative force for most women except for the elites at the top like Hillary Clinton and Michelle Obama. Because, in another significant example, it is a statistical fact that single women and single mothers – products of modern-day feminism – are much more likely to be poor and even to be the victims of crime than married women because there is no man or manly rationality protecting them.

Do feminists care about these poverty and crime statistics?

No. Because if they acknowledged the numbers they would have to admit to two of the myriad failings of feminism. And they can never, ever do that.

Look at this Connecticut school killer Adam Lanza. His ‘single mom’ actually gave him guns and showed him how to shoot even though he had severe mental problems.

But we are never supposed to question the integrity of the almighty Single Mother. No. They can handle their kids and everything else, no problem, say the feminists.

Sure, some can. But most cannot.

Another feminist furor emerged in 2012 when a Harvard professor named Elizabeth Warren was running as a Democrat for the US Senate in Massachusetts, challenging incumbent Republican US senator Scott Brown.

It is well known that the handsome Brown modeled in skimpy attire in Cosmopolitan magazine when he was a young man, in order to get money for his education.

Warren claimed that she had paid for her own college and had worked her way through. “I kept my clothes on,” she said.

In an interview Brown said jokingly about Warren’s comment: “Thank God!”

Awesome. Very funny. Good for Brown.

Well, of course the perpetually indignant feminists got furious about Brown’s comment, saying that he was insulting Warren.

Which shows why our society today is suffering under the thumb of sourpuss feminism, the same kind that maligns the police for trying to protect women in Brooklyn in the case of a sex predator.

Because these feminists are the caricature of women throughout the ages. This is precisely why women were kept out of public affairs for the last 5,000 years.

Yet if conservative women had been the historical norm – without the nagging, the rage, the irrationality, the emotion, and the hatred of men – women would have been an equal part of history with men. Consider the late, great Margaret Thatcher or Sarah Palin or Michele Bachmann as examples of decent, rational conservative women.

Indeed women have been cartooned throughout history. Here are just four of thousands of quotes:

Wrote the novelist Robert Louis Stevenson: “Marriage is a step so grave and decisive that it attracts light-headed, variable men by its very awfulness.”

Francis Beaumont: “There is no other purgatory but a woman.”

Jonathan Swift: “The reason why so few marriages are happy is because young ladies spend their time in making nets, not in making cages.”

Songwriter and novelist Samuel Lover wrote, “Now women are mostly troublesome cattle to deal with…”

Wow. Kaboom. Imagine that that type of commentary was commonplace and you have a pretty sad view of women. But it was hysterical feminist types who created this stereotype and ruined it for all women.

Even former House speaker Nancy Pelosi got into the Massachusetts fray saying that the comment showed “how clueless senator Brown is”.

Yet repeatedly we see how clueless and off-putting feminists are. No wonder Bill Clinton was constantly on the prowl for women, with Hillary at home.

Massachusetts Democrats, who are ruining a once-great state with one-party control, said in a statement:

"Senator Brown's comments are the kind of thing you would expect to hear in a frat house, not a race for U.S. Senate. Scott Brown's comments send a terrible message that even accomplished women who are held in the highest esteem can be laughingly dismissed based on their looks."

Actually any guy in a frat house could run America better than Obama, the Democrats and the feminists. Just look at the number of skilled and educated people who are fleeing ultra-liberal Massachusetts every year and you see the truth.

(Please bookmark this website. And please click the Google button (g+1) at the top of this page and recommend this site to all of your friends. Let’s make the #1 conservative site by word of mouth. Thank you, Nikitas)

This entry was posted in Current Events (More than 1,500 previous editorials!) and tagged , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.