Report: Feminism
American Pro-Life
Encyclopedia
CHAPTER
129. NEOFEMINISM: RELIGION OF DESPAIR
The
Definition of ‘Neofeminist.’
The
Central Paradox of Neofeminism.
How
the Neofeminist Agenda Advances in Government.
Transmogrification:
Feminist --- Neofeminist.
Targets
for Destruction: Marriage and the Family.
Target
for Destruction: Christianity.
The
Role of Witchcraft in Neofeminism.
The
Role of the Abortion Super-Right.
==============================
“I still believe in feminism, perhaps more than ever before:
But there was a rosy day of innocence when I believed in feminists.”
-- Dr. Phoebe Spinrad.[1]
Women
have been held down by men long enough! We demand free birth control and
unlimited access to free abortions. We demand to have any type of sexual
partner we desire. We demand an end to Church intrusion into our lives. And we
demand free day care, an end to the patriarchal family, and a total
reorganization of society and religion to satisfy our needs and our wants.
There
is a vast difference between a feminist and a Neofeminist, just as there is
huge philosophical gulf between an old-style liberal and a Neoliberal.
Like
pornography, a Neo(New)feminist is difficult to define -- but you’ll know one
when you see one. She’s the one wearing the “CHRISTIANS ARE ASSWIPES” T-shirt
while screaming that you’re judgmental. She’s the one calling you a woman-hater
-- yet she has a bumper sticker on her car that reads “IF WE CAN SEND A MAN TO
THE MOON, WHY CAN’T WE SEND THEM ALL THERE?”
While
she snivels about “gender discrimination” and “misogyny,” a Neofeminist refuses
to use the word “woman” because it is derived from the word “man.” She uses
instead the words “wimmin,” “wymyn, or “womyn” [sic, sic, sic]. Some
Neofeminists despise men so much that they dehumanize them with such
descriptions as “pentapods.”
Anyone
who personally knows a Neofeminist realizes why she is so desperately unhappy
and bitter. She is struggling pointlessly to become the very person she loathes
so passionately: A man .
For
her there can be no rest or peace. Neofeminis Hystericus is a driven creature.
It seems that much of the pointless and fruitless anger and unrest in this
society is caused by women who want to be men (and, to be fair, men who want to
be women).
In
summary, a Neofeminist is an illogical, emotional creature bursting with
contradictions, double-standards, and demands, all of which cause an unbearable
tension within her (or, occasionally, him).
For
a true feminist, injustice means that women and men are treated unequally. By
contrast, the injustice for the Neofeminist is being a woman.
It
is absolutely necessary for pro-family activists to grasp the true and
fundamental nature of Neofeminism.
We
must understand that the mentality of the Neofeminists is revolutionary in nature.
We must recognize that it has nothing to do with freedom because it is
fundamentally coercive. It is not accommodating; it is not compromising; it is
not egalitarian; it is not evolutionary.
The
purpose of revolution is to eradicate differences. Adherents to Marxism tried
to abolish class differences. Neofeminists are trying to eliminate all
distinctions between the genders. They are not seeking equality; they are
striving for identicality .
Neofeminism
is insatiable and it will never stop demanding. Man was created by God to be
satisfied only with knowing Him, and, since Neofeminists don’t believe in Him,
they are endlessly prodded on by the Devil. They are always restless, always
dissatisfied, and always demanding change, because they hope that change -- any
change at all -- may bring happiness.
But
it never does.
If
we think that the Neofeminists will be satisfied with abortion on demand, with
“gay rights,” with school-based clinics, with “Death with Dignity,” we are
kidding ourselves.
“A feminist is an evolutionary anachronism, a Darwinian blind alley. In biological terms, there is nothing that identifies a maladaptive pattern so quickly as a below-replacement level of reproduction; an immediate consequence of feminism is what appears to be an irreversible decline in the birth-rate. Nations pursue feminist policies at their peril.”-- Katarina Runske.[2]
Ironically,
the Neofeminist movement is doing far more to retard its own progress than all
of its imagined enemies on the feared ‘Right’ could ever hope to accomplish.
The
stumbling block to Neofeminist ‘progress’ is its organic inconsistency, which
the Neofeminists and Neoliberals claim is the greatest of all possible evils.
As long as the public can clearly perceive the blatant double standards
practiced by Neofeminists, women will certainly not make the progress they
desire, expect and deserve.
Incredibly,
the Neofeminists apparently are incapable of seeing the root cause of their
troubles. It is much easier and more Politically Correct to blame everything on
that old bugaboo “patriarchy.”
There
are several major inconsistencies that are central to the very spirit of the
Neofeminist movement. These inconsistencies cannot be excised without
destroying the essence and basic philosophy of the movement; the
inconsistencies are an integral, vital and inseparable feature of Neofeminist
thinking .
The
Neofeminist movement was created when traditional feminists began to apply
double standards to their thinking. Eventually, the movement came to rest on
these double standards and use them as its foundation. Therefore, if
Neofeminists jettisoned their inconsistencies, their movement would lose its
heart and die -- or revert back into a true feminist movement.
Just
a little thought reveals the glaring inconsistencies inherent in Neofeminist
thinking;[3]
·
Neofeminists rave that they are being oppressed by men, yet practice
the ultimate oppression against the preborn.
·
They charge that men discriminate against women, but approve of and
support sex-selection abortions -- most of which are directed against preborn
women precisely and only because they are female.
·
Neofeminists despise the concept of having men attach value (or a lack
thereof) to them, but do precisely that when they abort their “unwanted”
children. In fact, this concept is the foundation of much pro-abortion thinking
and is even the focus of one of the anti-lifer’s favorite slogans, “Every child
a wanted child!”
·
They resent being “owned” by the “patriarchy,” yet claim to own the
preborn because, as they say, the preborn baby is just part of a woman’s body.
·
Neofeminists claim that men do not recognize their personhood, yet do
not recognize the personhood of the preborn.
·
They rally to protest violence committed against women, but blithely
support even worse violence directed against the preborn. And, of course, they
applaud when pro-life women are beaten up and sexually molested by police and
prison guards, as described in Chapter 81 of Volume II, “Rescue Missions.”
·
Strangely, Neofeminists demand that they be allowed to run the world
--and these are the same women who hysterically claim that they will go insane,
kill themselves, or suffer permanent psychological damage if denied an
abortion. These are hardly the type of people most men (and women, for that
matter) want to entrust their lives to.
All
of these inconsistencies are deeply rooted in the unconscious psychological
protection mechanism commonly referred to as transference or negative
attribution. This concept is more fully described in Chapter 13 of Volume I.
Briefly,
Neofeminists recognize and despise in themselves certain negative personality
traits. Instead of working to try and improve themselves, it is much easier to
simply claim that everyone is just as messed up as they are. This way, everyone
is the same and the contrast between “good” people and “bad” people (the
Neofeminists) disappears.
Curiously,
Neofeminists complain bitterly that men seem to be uninterested in commitment
-- while they work diligently for no-fault divorce and revel in their newfound
freedom to “sleep around,” which is in turn enabled by contraception and
abortion, both of which every Neofeminist supports to the hilt.
Men
have been totally cut out of the most fundamental decision of all --whether or
not to have a child. It is no surprise that a man who has been forcibly
disenfranchised in such a manner feels like an unequal partner and therefore is
not particularly motivated to work as hard in a relationship.
Why
should he invest his time in an unequal relationship? The woman can kill his
child no matter how badly he wants to be a father. But if he does not want a
child and she does , he is out of luck. He will be forced to support that child
for eighteen years.
Neofeminists
are incredibly callous about the pain that men suffer from abortion.
Sociologist Arthur Shostak, who experienced the male side of pain over abortion
when his own lover went through one, said that “Abortion is one of the major
death experiences that men go through. It resurrects very important, very
primitive issues, memories, and feelings.” The response of the Neofeminists was
typically uncaring and self-centered. Louise Tyrer, vice president of medical
affairs at Planned Parenthood, replied that “It doesn’t matter how much men
scream and holler that they are being left out [of the abortion decision].
There are some things that they are never going to be able to experience fully.
I say ‘tough luck.’”[4]
Imagine
what would happen if a man said the same thing about women miscarrying!
Men
can’t excuse themselves from the responsibilities of parenthood. but women can,
merely by saying, “I don’t want that child,” “I’m not ready for that child,” or
“That child will ruin my career.” Yet women demand and use just such phrases to
justify the vast majority of their abortions (for a list of the actual reasons
cited by women for obtaining abortions, see Chapter 87 of Volume II,
“Statistics on Abortion”).
In
other words, men are expected to be mature and accept the consequences of their
actions, while women demand that they not be held to the same standards. They
don’t have to be because they possess that great ‘social eraser’ -- abortion.
This
is yet another world-class Neofeminist inconsistency -- they resist what they
call “mandatory motherhood,” but are perfectly happy to impose “mandatory
fatherhood” on men if the mood strikes them.
Unfortunately
for them, the Neofeminists cannot possibly succeed in their multiple missions.
Instead of weakening the “patriarchy,” they are unknowingly working hard to
strengthen the very system that “oppresses” them.
Neofeminists
strengthen their “oppressors” by corrupting and diluting the central principles
of true feminism. They do this by embracing what they say are typical
“patriarchal” faults -- treating equals unequally and allowing the strong to
oppress the weak. Nowhere is this more glaringly evident than with abortion.
As
long as Neofeminists continue to complain about “gender oppression” while
simultaneously oppressing others (the unborn) on a massive scale, they will
rightly be perceived as inconsistent hypocrites. Therefore, their support base
will continue to remain narrow and unfocused, and any “advances” will occur
purely as a result of motivating others (such as the court system) to do their
work for them.
And,
as anyone knows, it is hard to motivate people to work for a movement that is
basically hypocritical and, above all, self-centered.
“Liberty means responsibility, that is why most men dread it.”-- George Bernard Shaw.[5]
Neofeminists
entrenched in the higher levels of the Federal government have established a
very effective procedure for duping the Congress, the media, and the people
into believing that their bizarre activities are, as they allege, “mainstream.”
This
is accomplished by getting the government to foot the bill for
heavily-publicized conferences that “represent the views of all women,” then
stacking the conference committees with Neofeminists who go through the motions
of democratic action as they arrive at a preordained set of results, which are
then given even more press coverage and are eventually used by the government
to implement various expensive programs, usually at the expense of the family,
children, and personal freedom.
In
other words, such programs are used by government Neofeminists as phony ‘public
meetings’ on a large scale in order to create a bogus ‘consensus’ so that they
can spend government money to advance their agenda(s).
A
perfect example of this mega-chicanery was the 1978 Conference on the
International Women’s Year (IWY), described in the following paragraphs.
The
concept of an International Women’s Year was originally hatched in Bella
Abzug’s fevered mind in 1976. Abzug, in order to secure the $5,000,000 in
federal funds necessary to carry off the IWY conference, promised that the
conference would be “... an opportunity for every kind of woman, representing
every viewpoint, in every state of this nation to make a statement of her
concern.”[6]
Incredibly,
in the heat of desire for social revolution, Congress believed her and
appropriated the money.
This
first step out of the way, all that remained was to ‘stack the deck.’
Fortunately, this was done so blatantly and openly that it was obvious that the
results of the IWY were arrived at from only one direction.
On
March 29, 1977, President Carter appointed the 42 members of the IWY
Commission. Of these, 41 considered themselves to be hard-core pro-ERA
activists. Of the 200 members of the fifty state coordinating committees, not a
single woman was from any anti-ERA, pro-life, or pro-family group. When
pro-life or pro-family groups attempted to get involved in the process, they
were ruthlessly shut out on all fronts, and on occasion, even physically
assaulted.[6]
This
total censorship motivated Phyllis Schlafly, president of the Eagle Forum and
the leader in the fight against the Equal Right Amendment, to schedule a
simultaneous IWY conference to be held in the same city at the same time.
Bella
Abzug had promised that the IWY conference would “represent every viewpoint.”
It certainly did -- if the viewpoint happened to be that of a sex pervert,
abortionist, prostitute, or Communist.
Prominent
at the conference were;
·
The National Gay Task Force (NGTF);
·
Lesbians for Wages for Housework;
·
San Francisco Bisexual Center;
·
National Organization for Women (NOW);
·
Call Off Your Old Tired Ethics (COYOTE, a gaggle of prostitutes);
·
The Revolutionary Communist Party of the United States (RCP);
·
The Socialist Worker’s Party;
·
And more than thirty other homosexual, Communist, Socialist, and
prostitute groups.
In
case there was any doubt as to whether Jimmy Carter was aware of the idiocy
happening in Houston on a grand scale, his official representative and
Presidential Aide, Midge Constanza, said that “I get very emotional about this
[lesbian] issue because I feel very strongly that you should have the right to
love whomever you want to. I do.”[6]
Constanza
also bragged that her first official act as a member of the Rochester, New York
City Council was to appropriate public funds to clean up Susan B. Anthony’s
gravesite -- and then she claimed to have been Susan B. Anthony in her “first
life.”
The
President’s wife, First Lady Rosalynn Carter, was also prominent at the IWY
convention, as were former First Ladies Lady Bird Johnson and Betty Ford.
As
everyone expected, the ‘official’ IWY report, completely paid for by taxpayer
dollars, was a compendium of Neofeminist complaints and tired propaganda. The
report, arrogantly entitled What Women Want , was introduced by that paragon of
moderation, Gloria Steinem, who worried that the “anti-woman, right-wing
minority [might] turn it into a public battleground.” This was followed by 17
“personal statements,” every one written by radical feminists, including
confessed lesbians and the Press Information Officer of the National Abortion
Rights Action League. Not one pro-family, conservative woman was allowed to
make a “personal statement.”
The
remainder of the nearly 200 pages of drivel repeatedly attempted to tie
conservative women to the Ku Klux Klan and also tried to come off as fair by
describing the occasional instances where pro-life women managed to get a word
in edgewise (naturally, these events were used as opportunities to roundly
denounce the “anti-woman, anti-progress, anti-feminist women.” The document
demanded a network of federally funded “bias-free and non- sexist” daycare
centers, abortion until the moment of birth, and lesbian ‘rights.’[7]
The
IWY report also claimed that one in seven men are homosexuals and stated as
fact under the amusingly-entitled heading “Documentation” that 350,000 women
died or were butchered by illegal abortions annually before the Roe v. Wade
decision.
Naturally,
no footnotes supported this statement.
While
all 2,000 IWY delegates had all of their food, lodging, and travel expenses
footed by the taxpayer, more than ten times as many conservative women (all of
who paid their own way) crammed the Houston Astrodome for what was labeled the
“Pro-Family, Anti- IWY Coalition Conference.”
According
to three separate public opinion polls, this alternative conference better
represented the women of America that the ‘official’ IWY crowd. Additionally,
it was fully ten times bigger than the IWY conference. Despite these facts, it
was completely ignored by the media and by President Carter and his Neofeminist
allies in the government. As a postscript to the whole sordid charade, the
government finally stopped paying for the IWY’s overt propaganda campaign when
the overconfident Neofeminists stepped over the line by comparing the Mormon
Church to the Ku Klux Klan because it was allegedly “subversive” to IWY
goals.[6]
“Let’s forget about the mythical Jesus and look for encouragement, solace, and inspiration from real women ... Two thousand years of patriarchal rule under the shadow of the cross ought to be enough to turn women toward the feminist salvation of this world.”-- Annie Laurie Gaylor, “Feminist Salvation.”[8]
The
original feminist movement began in earnest in the 1850s. It annoyed a lot of
men, because men dominated every aspect of life and did not want to be
dislodged from their positions of power. Women were, for all practical matters,
second-class citizens, without the basic rights that must accrue to any human
being.
And
so, women began to fight for equality with imagination and endurance.
Abolitionist activist Sarah M. Grimke summarized the goal of the original
feminist movement neatly in 1837; “All I ask of our brethren is that they will
take their feet from off our necks and permit us to stand upright on that
ground which God designed us to occupy.”[9]
The
ultimate objective of the feminists was moral equivalency with men. Therefore,
since women are human beings as well as men, no thinking pro-life activist
should condemn any true feminist. After all, pro-lifers are seeking full moral
equality for the most helpless human beings of all -- the preborn.
Before
true feminism transformed itself into the muddled, self-centered, disorganized
Neofeminist movement, the humanity of the unborn was recognized by everyone,
even those few persons who lobbied for abortion rights. Unlike our latter-day
Neofeminists, the original feminists realized that they would never be rid of
their “oppressors” if they themselves oppressed others.
The
most famous feminists of the 19th Century and early 20th Century were nearly
unanimous in their condemnation of abortion; they included Sarah Grimke, Susan
B. Anthony, Elizabeth Cady Stanton, Matilda Gage, Mattie Brinkerhoff, Victoria
Woodhull (the first woman to run for President), Sarah Norton, and Emma
Goldman.
Some
of their quotes on abortion are shown in Figure 129-1.
|
“I deplore the horrible crime of child-murder. We want prevention, not merely punishment. We must reach the root of the evil. It [abortion] is practiced by those whose inmost souls revolt from the dreadful deed. All the articles on this subject that I have read have been from men. They denounce women as alone guilty, and never include man in any plans for the remedy ... No matter what the motive, love or ease, or a desire to save from suffering the unborn innocent, the woman is awfully guilty who commits the deed, but, oh! thrice guilty is he who drove her to the desperation which impelled her to the crime.”-- Susan B. Anthony. The Revolution , July 8, 1869. |
|
“Abortion is to be classed, as with the killing of newborns, as infanticide ... There must be a remedy even for such a crying evil as this [abortion]. But where shall it be found, at least where to begin, if not in the complete enfranchisement and elevation of women?”-- Elizabeth Cady Stanton. The Revolution , February 5 and March 12, 1868. |
|
“When we consider that women are treated as property, it is degrading to women that we should treat our children as property to be disposed of as we see fit.”-- Elizabeth Cady Stanton. October 16, 1873 letter to Julia Ward Howe as recorded in Howe’s diary at the Harvard University Library. |
|
“This subject [abortion] lies deeper down into woman’s wrongs than any other ... The crime of abortion is not one in which the guilt lies solely or even chiefly with the woman ... I hesitate not to assert that most of this crime of ‘child murder,’ ‘abortion,’ ‘infanticide,’ lies at the door of the male sex.”-- Matilda Gage, The Revolution , April 9, 1868, pages 215 and 216. |
|
“As law and custom give to the husband the absolute control of the wife’s person, who if forced to outrage the holiest instincts of her being in order to maintain even a semblance of that freedom which by nature belongs to every human soul. When a man steals to satisfy hunger, we may safely conclude that there is something wrong in society -- so when a woman destroys the life of her unborn child, it is an evidence that either by education or circumstances she has been greatly wronged.”-- Mattie Brinkerhoff, The Revolution , September 2, 1869, pages 138 and 139. |
|
“The rights of children as individuals begin while yet they remain the foetus.”-- Victoria Woodhull, Woodhull’s and Clafin’s Weekly , December 24, 1870, page 6. |
|
“Child-murderers [abortionists] practice their profession without let or hindrance, and open infant butcheries are unquestioned ... Society has come to believe it an impertinence in children to be born at all ... throughout the entire city there are few landlords who do not stipulate for childless couples. This partially explains why people in cities might not want children, but is totally inadequate as a reason for the murder of them, and it cannot be considered at all in relation to the fast increasing crime of foeticide throughout the country, where space is ample ... Is there no remedy for all this ante-natal child murder? Perhaps there will come a time when an unmarried mother will not be despised because of her motherhood, and when the right of the unborn to be born will not be denied or interfered with.”-- Sarah Norton, Woodhull’s and Clafin’s Weekly , November 19, 1870. |
|
“Men must no longer insult all womanhood by saying that freedom means the degradation of woman. Every woman knows that if she were free, she would never bear an unwished-for child, nor think of murdering one before its birth.”-- Victoria Woodhull, Wheeling [West Virginia] Evening Standard , November 17, 1875. |
|
“The custom of procuring abortions has reached such appalling proportions in America as to be beyond belief ... So great is the misery of the working classes that seventeen abortions are committed in every one hundred pregnancies.”-- Emma Goldman. MotherEarth , 1911. |
|
“Men tend to take abortion lightly; they fail to realize the values involved. The woman who has recourse to abortion is disowning feminine values, her values ... Women learn to believe no longer in what men say ... the one thing they are sure of is this rifled and bleeding womb, these shreds of crimson life, this child that is not there.”-- Simone de Beauvoir. The Second Sex , 1949. |
There
are still feminists who have followed the road blazed by their sisters more
than a century ago. They have banded together in a group called “Feminists for
Life of America,” which was founded in 1972 by two women who were thrown out of
the National Organization for Women because they had committed the cardinal sin
of being pro-life. Annual membership is $10, and includes a subscription to
FFLA’s quarterly newsletter Sisterlife .
The
group’s address and telephone number are listed below.
Feminists for Life of America
811 East 47th Street
Kansas City, Missouri 64110
Telephone: (816) 753-2130.
Even
as the early feminists spoke out against abortion, they were beginning to lose
their focus. Many of the original feminists began to identify the Church and
the family as the source of their perceived “oppression,” and this attitude
gradually formed the roots of the modern Neofeminist movement.
The
tone of feminist rhetoric began to change from protective to destructive; from
inclusive to exclusive; from all-centered to self-centered.
Rosemary
Radford Ruether describes how early feminists hailed the worship of the “Mother
Goddess” as “the golden age of human society that was overthrown by the
regressive influence of patriarchal religion, which displaced an earlier era of
women’s power.” These “spiritual” feminists “sought to revive the ancient
matriarchal culture and religion, with its female symbols of the divine, as the
more appropriate vehicle for female empowerment.”[10]
Matilda
Joslyn Gage was “convinced that the Christian Church was the prime source of
the oppression of women.”[10]
Elizabeth
Cady Stanton said in her Woman’s Bible that “The emancipation of women is
impossible, unless the Bible is understood from a feminist perspective and
repudiated as revelation.”[11]
More
than a century ago, James Cardinal Gibbons of Baltimore accurately recognized
the beginnings of the Neofeminist movement as a “moral sham,” a “pious fraud,”
and one of the “Socialist schemes which are so often undertaken ostensibly in
the name of religion and morality, but which are subversive of morality and
order, which are the offspring of fanaticism, and serve as a mask to hide the
most debasing passions.”[12]
The
vast differences between the philosophies of the true feminists and the
Neofeminists were best described by Margaret Sanger, founder of the American
Birth Control League (later Planned Parenthood). Her credo of women’s rights,
as stated in her book Woman and the New Race , was “to live ... to love ... to
be lazy ... to be an unmarried mother ... to create ... to destroy.”
In
other words, the religion of a Neofeminist is total freedom. She (or sometimes
he) wants the freedom to do anything s/he pleases without having any
consequences attached to it. S/he wants to be just like a small child again --
indulged and coddled by society, while s/he throws temper tantrums, has free
and easy sex, and kills.
For
a number of years, Sanger and a small band of revolutionaries worked outside
the original feminist movement as they struggled with limited success to
destroy the old social and moral orders. Then the Neofeminists essentially took
over the feminist movement in the early 1960s.
The
two books that heralded the birth of the new movement were Simone de Beauvoir’s
The Second Sex , published in France in 1949, and Betty Friedan’s The Feminine
Mystique , published in the United States in 1963.
Eventually,
Susan B. Anthony’s push for economic and social reform movement was entirely
subverted and replaced with the outright revolutionary rhetoric of Neofeminism.
Abortion
is not really about the right to choose, or about so-called “reproductive
freedom.” It is more about a woman’s right to conform or to capitulate to a
male’s idea of the perfect female -- a sterile woman of childbearing age.
Society in general -- and most men -- reject women when they are pregnant. The
Roe v. Wade decision was not a great leap forward for women’s rights. It was a
smashing victory for men! The Neofeminists are unthinkingly kowtowing to this
mindset by rejecting the very concept of pregnancy.
Therefore,
women who agree to conform to the male ideals of a world made by and run by men
are not at all free. They have only conformed themselves perfectly to the
desires of the hated “patriarchy.” They are warmly embracing and, indeed,
slaving for that which they claim to deeply despise.
And
this is precisely why the Neofeminist movement cannot possibly prevail for
long.
If
the Neofeminists were thinking clearly, they would recognize just why there is
so little authentic backlash from the male-dominated power structure. It is
because the Neofeminists are essentially conforming to the wishes of this same
power structure . The shrill noises the Neofeminists make encourage other women
to conform as well, and expends energy that would otherwise be used to bring
about actual and meaningful change.
Perhaps
this is why Neofeminist groups like the National Organization for Women and the
National Abortion Rights Action League are so richly funded by old-money,
male-dominated foundations.
“Male hostility to women is a constant; all men hate all women some of the time; some men hate all women all of the time; some men hate some women all of the time. Unfortunately, women cannot bring themselves to hate men, possibly because they carry them in their wombs from time to time.”-- Germaine Greer.[13]
One
of the absolutely classic identifying marks of a Neofeminist is her smoldering
and unalterable hatred of men. This misandry colors everything that the average
Neofeminist does and thinks; it is a mental and spiritual poison that she
cannot escape. Those men who consider themselves part of the Neofeminist
movement either have profound guilt feelings brought on by an inability to
properly examine the situation or are in the movement so that they can sexually
exploit the Neofeminists (which is apparently a remarkably easy thing to do).
The
twisted transformation of the original feminist movement by Neofeminists is
documented by Lawrence Lader, an abortion pioneer who was a friend to both
Margaret Sanger and Betty Friedan. In his book Abortion II: Making the
Revolution , he summarizes the beginnings of the Neofeminist movement.
This
interesting book reveals him to be a brainwashed lap dog as he parrots the
standard Neofeminist line without claiming a single original thought for
himself. The exceptional shallowness of his logic shows him essentially to be
the model of an “ideal male” for the modern Neofeminist: A tabula rasa ,
obediently allowing itself to be molded into the desired shape or mode of
thinking, as shown in quotes from his book.
“The
publication of Friedan’s Feminine Mystique in 1963, and the founding of the
National Organization for Women in 1966 marked the dividing line between the
old feminism of rights and the new feminism of liberation --Friedan and
Neofeminism erupted on a wave of technology. For it was the technology of
contraception, the birth control Pill, that make possible the radicalization of
women. Only when technology -- and abortion is a crucial step in this process
-- allowed women to free themselves from the prison of incessant childbearing
could they grapple with the possibility of achieving themselves on every plane.
By bringing NOW, and eventually Women’s Lib into the abortion campaign, Friedan
ensured that the struggle for feminine revolution was solidly rooted in the one
base that could turn theory into reality -- a woman’s control over her own body
and procreation. It was the surge and fever of Neofeminism that paved the way
for the abortion movement. Each was essential to the other, and neither could
have advanced without the other.
“No
woman can call herself free who does not own and control her own body. Ms.
Sanger taught me this ... Until then I had never grasped the implications of
this principle. Whatever the original feminists demanded for women, or Betty
Friedan and the Neofeminists today, whether equality before the law, in
education, business, and professions ... all of these things were meaningless
unless a woman controlled her own procreation. No woman could achieve these
other freedoms without the basic freedom of birth control ... I was convinced
that abortion must be completely legalized as a backup, emergency measure to
contraception ... the biggest step was to demand legalization as an inalienable
right of women, protected by the Constitution’s Bill of Rights” [emphasis
added].[14]
Lader,
as shown in the above quote, was one of the first persons to use the word
“Neofeminist.”
The
largest selection of garden-variety Neofeminists may be found in the National
Organization for Women (NOW), which pushes for a wide radical agenda, including
abortion, homosexuality, ‘peace and justice,’ and many other favorite causes of
the far Left.
However,
some Neofeminists have criticized the National Organization for Women because
it is “too conservative” or “too bourgeois in its approach!”
These
ultra-extreme Neofeminists originally formed organizations with names like
WENCH (Womyn with Enough Nerve to Create Havoc) and WITCH (Women’s
International Terrorist Conspiracy from Hell). WITCH operated ‘covens’ in
cities all over the country, and the meaning of their group name acronym
changed depending upon the type of “direct action” the group was involved in at
the moment; “Women Incensed by Telephone Company Harassment” when protesting
working conditions at Ma Bell, or “Women Infuriated at Taking Care of Hoodlums”
on Mother’s Day. Other titles included Women Interested in Toppling Consumption
Holidays and Women Inspired to Commit Herstory.[15]
Another
far-out group was entitled SCUM (Society for Cutting Up Men). The SCUM
Manifesto argued that men were not only solely responsible for the sorry state
of the world, but should also all be killed. To this end, SCUM President
Valerie Solanis shot Andy Warhol on June 3, 1968.[15]
At
least her choice of targets was well-reasoned.
Solanis’
feverish mind hatched a passage that summarized the irrational hatred of
Neofeminists for all men. This ‘plan’ was eventually entitled “The SCUM
Manifesto” and was given the widest possible airing in the very popular
Sisterhood is Powerful , a book that some Neofeminist politicians and judges
now swear on in place of the Bible.
An
excerpt from this lunatic statement is printed below.
|
“Life in this society being, at best, an utter bore and no aspect of society being at all relevant to women, there remains to civic-minded, responsible, thrill-seeking females only to overthrow the government, eliminate the money system, institute complete automation, and destroy the male sex. |
|
“It is now technically possible to reproduce without the aid of males (or, for that matter, females) and to produce only females. We must begin immediately to do so. The male is a biological accident: The Y (male) gene is an incomplete X (female) gene, that is, has an incomplete set of chromosomes. In other words, the male is an incomplete female, a walking abortion, aborted at the gene stage ... |
|
“The male ... has made of the world a shitpile. He is responsible for war, prostitution, mental illness, fear, cowardice, timidity, humility, insecurity, prevention of privacy, conformity, religion, prejudice, secrecy, censorship, suppression of knowledge and ideas, distrust, ugliness, hate and violence, disease and death [many more listed]. |
|
“A small handful of SCUM can take over the country within a year by systematically fucking up the system, selectively destroying property, and murder. |
|
“SCUM will kill all men who are not in the Men’s Auxiliary of SCUM. Men in the Men’s Auxiliary are those men who are working diligently to eliminate themselves ... |
|
“[After the SCUM revolution], the few remaining men can exist out their puny days dropped out on drugs or strutting around in drag or passively watching the high-powered female in action, fulfilling themselves as spectators, vicarious livers or breeding in the cow pastures with the toadies, or they can go off to the nearest friendly neighborhood suicide center where they will be quietly, quickly, and painlessly gassed to death.” |
Reference. Valerie Solanis. “Excerpts from the SCUM (Society for Cutting Up Men) Manifesto.” Sisterhood is Powerful (Robin Morgan, editor). New York: Vintage Books, 1970. Pages 514 to 519.
Some
of the maddest Neofeminist ravings against “bourgeois” groups like NOW may be
found, not unexpectedly, in Communist and Socialist/Marxist publications like
Women and Revolution . These denouncements are invariably accompanied by the
mandatory string of slogans;
“And
their [Democratic Party’s] main arm for carrying out this electoral plan is the
organized bourgeois feminist groups like NOW and NARAL (National Abortion
Rights Action League), which are firmly tied to the Democratic Party. The
bourgeois feminists are the self-conscious expression of a layer of educated,
largely white, middle-class professionals who seek to forge their niche in
bourgeois politics.”
“Free
abortion on demand! Down with “squeal rules” -- abortion rights for teens! Drop
the ban on RU 486! Free 24-hour childcare! Billions for AIDS research! Free
quality health care for all!”[16]
Men
in general are by no means the only target of these bitter, hateful females.
One of the many extreme Neofeminists, Ti- Grace Atkinson, not only agitated for
the destruction of marriage, but of love as well!
She
told one interviewer that “Love has to be destroyed. It’s an illusion that
people care for each other. Friendship is reciprocal, love isn’t.”[17] Atkinson
also said that “Love is the victim’s response to the rapist.”[5]
Another
New York-based group, named simply The Feminists, wrote that “[Women are a
political class] separated out from humanity and thus denied their humanity.
While men performed this expulsion, it is the male role or the role of the
Oppressor that must be annihilated -- not necessarily those individuals who
presently claim the role ... the sex roles themselves must be destroyed. If any
part of these role definitions is left, the disease of oppression remains and
will reassert itself again in new, or the same old, variations throughout
society.”[15]
The
Feminists group was comical in the extreme degree of its clashing and
inconsistent philosophies. For example, while condemning men and attempting to
maintain the facade of true “radical feminism,” it promulgated a policy
statement that read: “We have a membership quota: That no more than one-third
of our membership can be participants in either a formal (with legal contract)
or informal (e.g., living with a man) instance of the institution of marriage.”
While
tolerating the institution of marriage, they simultaneously picketed the New
York City Marriage License Bureau in September of 1969, to demand the
abolishment of marriage as “demeaning and oppressive to women.”[15]
Figures
129-2, 129-3, and 129-4 list some of the extreme statements against marriage
and the family, mothers and pregnancy, and even love that have been made by
modern Neofeminists.
|
“The first condition for the liberation of the wife is to bring the whole female sex back into public industry and that this in turn demands the abolition of the monogamous family as the economic unit of society.”-- Friedrich Engels. The Origin of the Family, Private Property, and the State . |
|
“Only titanic social upheaval, with a revolutionary scope unprecedented in human history, can turn the imperialist male supremacist system upside down, restore humanity to economic democracy, and then begin to reconstruct the contours of sexual politics after 5000 years of deformity and counterrevolution ... The mandate for revolutionary feminists is to transform the birthplace of sexism -- the private property system --into its opposite and only enemy: Socialism, the graveyard of sexism. The bourgeois father of male supremacy must be overthrown and replaced by the matriarchal democracy of socialist economics and a human culture ... Therefore, real equality for women demands not only the death of capitalism and all systems of private property, but the corresponding eradication of the state-enforced bourgeois monogamous family, the mechanism that perpetuates oppression. |
|
“In the institution of the nuclear family, the children are at the bottom of the hierarchy, with no legal rights, no control over their lives. Society itself must assume responsibility for its young in order to socialize them, allow parents a greater degree of personal liberty and guarantee children freedom from the oppression of the nuclear family.”-- Radical Women Pre-Conference Discussion Bulletin. “Draft Radical Women Manifesto: Theory, Program and Structure.” San Francisco: Radical Women National Office, December 15, 1989. 49 pages. Pages 13 and 27. |
|
“Within the institution of marriage a woman is legally required to perform sexually for her husband at his command ... Male society has sold us the idea of marriage. In the past we women have been afraid to admit that marriage wasn’t all it was cracked up to be because it meant we had failed. Now we know it is the institution that has failed us and we must work to destroy it. The end of the institution of marriage is a necessary condition for the liberation of women. Therefore it is important for us to encourage women to leave their husbands and not to live individually with men ... The nuclear family must be replaced with a new form of family where individuals live and work together to help to meet the needs of all people in the society. [emphasis in original].-- The Document: Declaration of Feminism . Originally distributed in June of 1971 by Nancy Lehmann and Helen Sullinger of Post Office Box 7064, Powderhorn Station, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55407. |
|
“The present female liberation movement, like the movements for black liberation and national liberation, has begun to identify strongly with Marxist class analysis ... Our analysis of women as an exploited caste is not new. Marx and Engels, as well as other nineteenth-century socialist and communist theorists analyzed the position of the female sex in just such a way. Engels identified with family as the basic unit of capitalist society, and of female oppression. The family unit is a decadent, energy-absorbing, destructive, wasteful institution for everyone except the ruling class ... The modern individual family is founded on the open or concealed domestic slavery of the wife, and modern society is a mass composed of these individual families as its molecules. And within the family, he [the man] is the bourgeois and the wife represents the proletariat.”-- Robin Morgan (editor). Sisterhood is Powerful . New York: Vintage Books, 1970, page 486. |
|
“The family is the key institution for the determination and perpetuation of women’s subordination, the place where oppression is most excruciatingly experienced ... Marriage, with its legal obligations, institutionalized male authority and compulsory heterosexuality, is incompatible with sexual freedom.”-- Mica Niva. “From Utopia to Scientific Feminism?” Quoted in Lynne Segal. What is to Be Done About the Family? Penguin Books/Socialist Society, 1983, pages 66 and 69. |
|
“Since marriage constitutes slavery for women, it is clear that the women’s movement must concentrate on attacking this institution. Freedom for women cannot be won without the abolition of marriage.”-- Sheila Cronan, at the 1988 Houston National Organization for Women (NOW) Conference for Women. |
|
“Marriage makes you legally half a person, and what man wants to live with half a person? ... I can’t mate in captivity.”-- Gloria Steinem, 1971 and 1984 Newsweek Magazine interviews. Summarized in Douglas Johnson. “Rep. Chris Smith Targeted By Planned Parenthood, Steinem.” National Right to Life News , April 10, 1986, page 6. |
|
“In order to raise children with equality, we must take them away from families and communally raise them.”-- Dr. MaryJo Bane, Assistant Professor of Education at Wellesley College, quoted in David Kupelian and Mark Masters. “The New McCarthyism.” New Dimensions Magazine, July 1990, pages 20 to 29. |
|
“Women are a political class separated out from humanity and thus denied their humanity. While men performed this expulsion, it is the male role or the role of the Oppressor that must be annihilated -- not necessarily those individuals who presently claim the role ... the sex roles themselves must be destroyed. If any part of these role definitions is left, the disease of oppression remains and will reassert itself again in new, or the same old, variations throughout society ... We have a membership quota: that no more than one-third of our membership can be participants in either a formal (with legal contract) or informal (e.g., living with a man) instance of the institution of marriage.”-- Judith Hole and Ellen Levine. Rebirth of Feminism . New York: Quadrangle Books, 1971. |
|
“The little nuclear family is a paradigm that just doesn’t work. It doesn’t work for white people or for black people. Why we are hanging on to it, I don’t know.”-- Novelist Toni Morrison, quoted in Time Magazine, May 22, 1989. |
|
“The marriage bed is the most degenerative influence in modern society.”-- Margaret Sanger, Woman and the New Race . |
|
“What are the possible consequences of tipping the balance of power in favor of women? A redefinition of sexual roles, the breakdown of the traditional system of child rearing, new value and reward systems for men and women, new foundations for sexual relationships, expanding technologies to fill the domestic void, political distributions that reflect the shift in women’s power and ultimately perhaps a revision of our capitalist system.”-- Elizabeth Nickles and Laura Ashcraft. The Coming Matriarchy: How Women Will Gain the Balance of Power . |
|
“Pregnancy is barbaric. Pregnancy is the temporary deformation of the body of the individual for the sake of the species ... Moreover, childbirth hurts. And it isn’t good for you. Childbirth is at best necessary and tolerable. It is not fun. Like shitting a pumpkin ... But-look-you-get-a-reward, says the School: A-baby-all-your-own-to-fuck-up-as-you-please.”-- Shulamith Firestone. The Dialectic of Sex . Bantam Books, 1973, pages 198 and 199. |
|
“A popular medical dictionary defines “disease” as “literally, the lack of ease,” venereal disease as “one usually transmitted through sexual intercourse.” It’s obvious, therefore, that unwanted pregnancy is the most common venereal disease ... This disease is associated with immense suffering. Seeking to be cured of this disease, women from time have risked pain, mutilation, and death in numbers that really stagger the imagination.”-- Barbara H. Roberts, M.D. “Abortion Laws Murder Women.” Essay in a Women’s National Abortion Action Coalition booklet entitled “Abortion is a Woman’s Right: March on Washington, DC and San Francisco, November 20 [1972].” |
|
“It is still possible for weak, stupid, lazy, unambitious and otherwise lesser equipped individuals to remain and make their way within domestic work, both as housewives and as servants. As for the rest, prostitution is always available.”-- Nobel Prize winners Alva and Gunnar Myrdal. Crisis in the Population Question . 1930, page 249. |
|
“A woman who stays at home, caring for children and the house, leads an extremely sterile existence. This kind of woman leads a parasitic existence that can aptly be described as “legalized prostitution” ... The time has not only come, it is past due, when marriage and motherhood as a life’s goal should be cut out of the training of the female child ... The day has come when motherhood should be the lot and privilege of a select minority.”-- Robin Morgan (editor). Sisterhood is Powerful . New York: Vintage Books, 1970, page 246. |
|
“The menial housewife programmed into a cheap source of breeding and domestic labor should be relegated to the ashheap of Puritan morality.”-- Larry Lader. “The Abortion Revolution.” The Humanist , May/June 1973, page 4. |
|
“We must destroy love ... Love promotes vulnerability, dependence, possessiveness, susceptibility to pain, and prevents the full development of woman’s human potential by directing all her energies outward in the interests of others.”-- Women’s Liberation, Notes From the Second Year , page 117. |
|
“Love has to be destroyed. It’s an illusion that people care for each other. Friendship is reciprocal, love isn’t.”-- Ti-Grace Atkinson, Quoted in Samuel L. Blumenfeld. The Retreat From Motherhood . New Rochelle, New York: Arlington House. 1975, 222 pages, page 58. |
|
“Love is the victim’s response to the rapist.”-- Ti-Grace Atkinson, quoted in Quotes are from Jonathon Green. The Cynic’s Lexicon . New York: St. Martin’s Press. 1984, 220 pages, $18.95. |
|
“I think that what women are conditioned socially to experience as love is a form of annihilation of self ... Feminism stresses the indistinguishability of prostitution, marriage and sexual harassment. Compare victims reports of rape with women’s reports of sex. They look a lot alike ... In this light the major distinction between intercourse (normal) and rape (abnormal) is that the normal happens so often that one cannot see anything wrong with it.”-- Catharine MacKinnon, professor of law at the University of Michigan, quoted by Christina Sommers. “Hard-Line Feminists Guilty of Ms.-Representation.” Wall Street Journal , November 7, 1991, page A14. |
|
“Heterosexual relationships are by their very nature oppressive to women in a male-dominated society ... The man is expected to be aggressive, strong, virile, self-centered, and a good fucker while the woman is expected to be self-sacrificing, passive, docile, weak, and responsive to men’s initiatives. These roles ensure the oppression of women by men in a heterosexual relationship.” [emphasis in original].-- The Document: Declaration of Feminism . Originally distributed in June of 1971 by Nancy Lehmann and Helen Sullinger of Post Office Box 7064, Powderhorn Station, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55407. |
The
Neofeminist’s seething hatred of men even put off their original male allies in
other extreme Left-wing radical organizations.
For
instance, when the Neofeminists whined about their lack of leadership in
Stokely Carmichael’s Student Non-Violent Coordinating Committee (SNCC), he
laughed at them and said that “The only position for women in the SNCC is
prone.”[18] In reply to a question on the place of women in his movement,
Eldridge Cleaver said “Women? I guess they ought to exercise Pussy Power.”[19]
Even Abbie Hoffman said that “The only alliance I would make with the Women’s
Liberation Movement is in bed.”[19]
While
they loudly denounce gross stereotyping by men, Neofeminists apparently feel
free to indulge in the practice themselves. The Neofems may develop such hatred
of men by reading True Detective Stories and the crime sections of the local
newspapers, and then commiserating with other female misanthropes. In this
manner, misandry gradually becomes moral insight.
The
incredibly bigoted statements made by man-despising women would never be
tolerated by the same women if they were uttered by men and directed against
women .
Imagine
the uproar that would occur if a man wrote to a large newspaper and stated
baldly that “the only part of a woman which is worth a man’s time can be bought
on any street corner.” To begin with, such a letter would never be printed; if
it was, Neofeminist groups would picket the writer’s house and demand the
resignation of the entire editorial board!
But
not an eyebrow was raised when a woman wrote to a Chicago daily and said that
“the part of a man which is worth an intelligent woman’s time can be bought in
a simple business transaction.” Everyone ignored Goldie Hawn’s statement on the
cover of the Spring 1991 People Magazine; “I wouldn’t be a man if my life
depended on it!” Nobody peeped when a cooking article in the New Yorker talked
about “the denazification of the American male.” Neofeminists applauded the
television advertisement for Stay-Put shoulder pads that said, “They’re like a
good man: A little bold, a little square, around when you need them ... They
never lose their shape. Which is more than you can say for most men.”[20]
Nobody in the audience breathed a word when Joan Rivers blurted, “Women are so
superior!” or when Margaret Thatcher made her memorable little statement that
“In politics, if you want anything said, ask a man; if you want anything done,
ask a woman.” Many professional men have been irritated by the popular wall
hanging that says “Whatever women do they must do twice as well as men to be
thought half as good. Luckily, this is not difficult.”
Try
to imagine what would happen to the poor office drone who reversed the genders
in this poster!
On
one episode of “Roseanne,” the title character, when informed that a wife had
killed her husband by stabbing him 37 times, replied “I admire her restraint.”
Now switch the genders, and imagine how the National Organization for Women
would react!
Other
Neofeminists have written in their books and journals that “All men are
rapists. They rape us with their eyes, their laws, and their codes” (Marilyn
French). “Men are locked in the conquistador mind, the rapist mentality” (Sonja
Johnson). “Men’s affairs, from what I can tell, are dominated by aggression and
alcohol” (Barbara Tuchman).[21]
One
of the shrillest early Neofeminists, Dr. Barbara Roberts, asserted that “The
reason so many uteruses [sic] get perforated is that men are rough. They are
trained to be rough when they are little boys. As adolescents and adults they
are taught that “he-man” are rough on women. You know, “chicks” are all
masochists and the more you beat them, the more they like it. So, they fuck you
rough, if they are a gynecologist [sic] they examine you rough, and they abort
you rough ... “[22]
Perhaps
these Neofeminist man-haters (misandrists) are best identified by their
T-shirts and picket signs. Some of the slogans seen at the April 1989 “March
for Death” in Washington, D.C., include those shown in Figure 129-5.
Neofeminists
can also be identified by lesbian graffiti, spraypainted in particular on
billboards. Some of these slogans are also shown in Figure 129-5.
|
IF YOU’RE ANTI-CHOICE, KEEP IT IN YOUR PANTS! |
|
STAMP OUT DOMESTIC VIOLENCE -- JUMP ON HIS BALLS! |
|
IF ABORTION BECOMES ILLEGAL, MASS VASECTOMIES SHOULD BE REQUIRED |
|
MAKE WOMEN HAPPY -- LOCK A MAN UP TODAY! |
|
MARY SHOULD HAVE HAD AN ABORTION |
|
FUCK THE CHURCH! |
|
6:00 PM CURFEW ON MEN -- WOMYN CONTROL THE STREETS |
|
SEX FOR FUN |
|
IF THEY CAN PUT A MAN ON THE MOON, WHY CAN’T THEY PUT THEM ALL THERE?!! |
|
WE’VE BEEN OPPRESSED BY YOUR BASTARD SON LONG ENOUGH |
|
THE MALE CONTRACEPTIVE THAT WOMEN PREFER -- CASTRATION! |
|
LESBIANISM -- WHY SETTLE FOR LESS? |
|
IF ABORTION IS A CRIME, WHY ISN’T FUCKING A FELONY? |
|
ISN’T YOUR GOD A MISOGYNIST? (spraypainted on church walls) |
|
CHRISTIANS ARE ASSWIPES |
|
KEEP YOUR ROSARIES OFF MY OVARIES |
|
SMASH THE PATRIARCHY! |
Reference: Jill Posener. Louder Than Words . London: Pandora, 1986.
It
is interesting to note in Neofeminist literature the vastly different
descriptions of identical qualities depending upon the person’s gender. A few
examples of such common usage are shown below.
|
IF A WOMAN IS: |
A MAN IS: |
|
Aggressive |
Overbearing, obnoxious |
|
Angry |
Hateful |
|
Assertive |
Oppressive |
|
Casual, carefree |
A slob |
|
Discerning |
Judgmental |
|
‘Expressing rage’ |
Having a testosterone fit |
|
Knowledgeable |
A braggart |
|
Indignant |
Bitter |
|
Self-actualizing |
Self-serving |
|
Self-confident |
Arrogant |
|
A sexual being |
Predatory, a rapist |
|
Understanding |
A brown-noser |
Perhaps
the Neofeminists would see “pervasive sexism” decline if they were not such
blatant and committed sexists themselves!
Neofeminists
even run a Jerkline at (708) 868-5909. This is a hotline where angry and bitter
women can call and gripe to each other about how wormlike they believe men are.
Complainants can leave a message on a recorder called “The Jerkachine.”
Almost
as misandrist as the “Jerkline” is “The First Wives Club Consumer Contest,”
which urges women to write in and describe “... just what a cad your ex-husband
was.” The contest is described on the jacket of Olivia Goldsmith’s novel The
First Wives Club . The competition had as its first prize a $1,500 gift
certificate to the jewelers Cartier. There were nearly 200 entries.[23]
If
this all sounds like good clean Neofeminist fun, imagine the uproar that the
National Organization for Women would make if a group of men set up a
“Bitchline” and a “Bitchachine!”
If
a certain group of women strives to be free of all limits, particularly those
placed upon sexual behavior, and if they despise men, the natural recourse is
for them to turn to the sexual perversion of homosexuality, or “lesbianism.”
Female
sexual perversions are the logical way for Neofeminists to “escape” men. As
Martha Shelley writes, “Lesbianism is one road to freedom --freedom from
oppression by men.”[24]
The
original Declaration of Feminism betrays the fact that Neofeminists have no
idea what a normal marriage is all about; “Heterosexual relationships are by
their very nature oppressive to women in a male-dominated society ... The man
is expected to be aggressive, strong, virile, self-centered, and a good fucker
while the woman is expected to be self-sacrificing, passive, docile, weak, and
responsive to men’s initiatives. These roles ensure the oppression of women by
men in a heterosexual relationship” [emphasis in original].[25]
So
deep is their hatred of men that these homosexual Neofeminists do not even
extend the hand of friendship to other sexual perverts if they happen to be
male. The following rambling quote by lesbian playwright Carolyn Gage lays bare
the fact that the lesbian hatred of men transcends even the consideration of
the benefits they could reap by allying with sodomites;
“Don’t
forget that gay men hate women even more than straight men do. And they
celebrate issues that lesbian women abhor, such as this man-boy love theme. To
me, that’s child abuse, part of the abusive male crap. When you split
lesbianism from feminism, it guts the women’s movement.
The
lesbian movement offers the only vision left in the world. Absolutely every
other movement shot its wad with Hiroshima ... I hate men. That’s like asking
if I hate Nazism and like individual Nazis. If yo hate Nazism, you hate all
Nazis. So I hate all men ... Men are different from women; they have this
testosterone problem. They’re a different species. And they always drag women
down.
Straight
women have such awful lives, such awful experiences with men, that I think it’s
more appropriate to ask them, “Why are you straight?” How can any woman want to
be straight? Why is it considered natural to sleep with the enemy?”[26]
There
is no more ridiculous gaggle of human beings on the face of the earth than
Neofeminists.
They
are shrill. They are obnoxious. They are dumb. And their appearance is usually
the kind of grist that cartoonists dream of (if cartoonists were not so
politically correct). Christians, of course, are nice enough not to ridicule
the 250-pound ‘women’ with bright purple hair, clothing that would shame a bum,
and body odor bad enough to interfere with local television reception -- or
their parasitic male hangers-on, those pitiful little whiny and timid creatures
who stand meekly by while their masters command the show.
Of
course, Neofeminists are especially fond of ridiculing pro-lifers with groups
like the “Church Ladies’ Sewing Circle and Terrorist Society” and “Ladies
Against Women,” but when pro-lifers have a little fun at the expense of the
pro-aborts, they put on their most indignant air and “strongly protest
anti-choice stereotyping.”
Perhaps
it is time for a small group of talented pro-life artists and actors to
assemble a show that pokes fun at Neofeminists in general and pro-aborts in
particular. Then we would see how far free speech rights can go in this
country.
If
this group made its performances obnoxious and extreme enough, it might even
get a grant from the National Endowment for the Arts!
As mentioned
above, there is a startling similarity between the philosophies of the
Communists and the Neofeminists. Their attitudes towards abortion,
homosexuality, “peace and justice,” “American imperialism,” and every other
social issue coincide perfectly.
Nowhere
is this more apparent than in their attitude towards the “traditional” family.
The
overbearing concern of Marx, Engels and other Socialist/Communist thinkers
regarding the family was obviously not “female liberation,” but the transfer of
the control of future generations from parents to the State. The Communists are
acutely aware that the values of parents are efficiently passed on to the
children, and so, in Communist-controlled cultures, the State takes the place
of the parent.
The
Communist Party supports the family only if it can be made to efficiently
inculcate good Socialist principles in its children.
The
following passages regarding life after the longed-for Revolution nicely sum up
the Communist attitude towards the family.
“The right to abortion will be guaranteed ... As far as the policy toward the family, it will be recognized for what it is: not some holy or sacred institution to be preserved for all time ... not only will the family be a secondary form for determining children’s upbringing, but its influence in promoting conservatism among its members, especially the women and children, will be actively combatted. While the parents will still have significant responsibility for their children, this does not mean they are “theirs,” and there will be struggle to prevent parents from imposing old values, and conservative, non-revolutionary thinking generally on the children.”-- Revolutionary Communist Party, USA, New Programme . Page 78, “The Proletariat, Upon Seizing Power, Will Immediately Take Up the Transformation of Society.”
“Socialism should make it possible to regulate the reproduction of human beings. We should be able to produce human beings under a quota system, just as we produce bicycles and tons of steel.”-- Vice Premier Chan Muhua, Head of China’s Family Planning Board, 1979.
The
primary goal of the most radical Neofeminists is the total overthrow and
destruction of “the system.” This “system,” they say, is “incurably
patriarchal” and even “phallocentrist.” Neofeminists embrace the Communist
theory that the easiest path to reform is to completely raze society to the
ground and then construct a perfect Socialist replacement. Therefore,
Revolution (always with a capital “R”) is the only possible answer.
This
common link of revolutionary thinking shows why there are so many intimate ties
between Neofeminism and Communism.
One
of the typical groups that expounds Neofeminist/Communist thinking is “Radical
Women,” which are generally considered by Neofeminists to be the true
revolutionaries of the movement. The group is not so extreme as to render
itself useless or ridiculous, but it does have the guts to tell the truth about
its objectives and not hide behind a thick curtain of obfuscation and Newspeak.
In other words, members of Radical Women insist on “telling it like it is,”
even though they may frequently bore their audiences half to death with
torrents of Trotskyite drivel.
At
Radical Women’s 1990 conference in Santa Monica, California, entitled “The
Third Wave of Feminism: A Candidly Revolutionary Approach,” keynote speaker and
Seattle labor leader Phyllis Hutchinson said that “Capitalism doesn’t work,
never has, never will. Not for women, not for the working majority. Now, the profit
system is crumbling, and the third wave of feminism is here to help wash it
away for keeps.”[27]
The
very first paragraph of the 27-page Radical Women’s “Manifesto,” adopted at
this conference, asserts that “Socialism is the goal, and feminism the means of
getting there. They are inseparable because the entire profit structure of
capitalism depends on the cheap and unpaid labor of women and people of color.
Also because sex inequality, like racism, is a fundamental social prop of the
system.”
This
general theme is reflected in the constant references to a “Feminist-Socialist
Revolution” in the original Declaration of Feminism ; “Women, having spent
their lives in servitude and in meeting others [sic] human needs, will be the
first to understand the need for a socialist revolution ... While we must not
minimize the social and class differences among us, the existence of a common
domain gives us hope and sustains us in our struggle toward a
Feminist-Socialist Revolution ... Feminism rests on the belief that it is up to
women to rescue the planet from the deeds of patriarchy and that women will
join hands to build a Feminist-Socialist Revolution ... The whole idea of
nations is crazy” [emphasis in original].[25]
In
summary, the Neofeminists believe that they have no real ability to advance or
to better themselves as long as they are being “held down” by the men who run
the “system.” This principle not only applies on a macro scale (i.e., men in
society as a whole and in large government institutions), but on a micro scale
as well (such as in marriage and in small businesses).
This
gives some idea of the scale of the gargantuan task the Neofeminists have set
for themselves. They quite simply want to recast society in their own image --
at every level.
This
mindset is precisely identical to that of the “Black rejectionists” who
maintain that they cannot possibly succeed in a system that is racist clear
through, and who also call for the complete dismantling of all existing
“authority structures.”
The
elimination of the nuclear family and childbearing and the establishment of a
Marxist Utopia is a recurring theme in Neofeminist ‘literature,’ as shown in
Figure 129-2.
These
quotes are, of course, merely restatements of the Neoliberal view that all
change is good, that culture and society are infinitely malleable (never mind
‘reactionary’ tradition or common sense), and, since the great bugaboo
Patriarchy set everything up wrong from the start, everything should, will ,
and must be changed.
Under
the proposed “New Matriarchy,” women would not even have the choice to stay
home and raise children. As the “Mother of the Neofeminist Movement,” Simone de
Beauvoir, puts it, “too many women would make the choice to stay at home and care
for their children.”[2] And, as Neofeminist author Vivian Gornick insisted in
the April 25, 1981 University of Illinois Daily Illini , “Being a housewife is
an illegitimate profession ... the choice to serve and be protected and plan
towards being a family-maker is a choice that shouldn’t be . The heart of
radical feminism is to change that.”[28]
So
much for “pro-choice!”
The
incandescent Neofeminist rhetoric betrays the inexorable desire to destroy any
and all parental influence, and highlights the inbred loathing of childbearing.
If parents are prohibited from inculcating their values into their children,
the State (always with a capital “S”), has total control of them and can fill
their little heads with good Communist and Marxist theory.
Some
naive pro-life activists truly believe that abortion is all that the
Neofeminists want. Nothing could be further from the truth. The Neofeminists
correctly recognize that the traditional family is the final means by which values
are passed on to children. The other three great teachers of morality -- the
law, the schools, and the Church -- have been effectively neutralized.
Therefore,
if marriage and the family can be controlled or eliminated, the warped ethics
of Neofeminism can be force-fed to our impressionable children. The quotes
shown in Figure 129-2 are by Neofeminists who are members of groups that
purport to represent “women’s rights.” Notice how Marxist Newspeak and Newthink
dominates the Neofeminist philosophy.
The
primary reason that the Neofeminists want to destroy the family and marriage
is, of course, because they want everyone else to fail at (or at least be
terrified of) marriage and childbearing, just like them.
They
ignore any facts that do not support their philosophy: That a child living with
only one parent is 20 times more likely to grow up in poverty than a child with
both parents; that a child with both parents is healthier in both mind and
body; that children living with only one parent are three times as likely to
need psychiatric help as those living with both parents; that children of
single parents are four times as likely to run afoul of the law than children
with both parents; and that adults who are married and smoke a pack of
cigarettes every day are healthier than single non-smoking adults.[29]
The
Neofeminists, like the Communists, know that if they can warp the values of our
children, they have won the war. And so, our teenagers are deluged with drivel
that is broadcast over television stations or attractively packaged and
displayed on supermarket shelves. Current magazines aimed at teenaged girls
have little to say about traditional morality and ethics; instead, they relentlessly
pound into our kid’s minds the desire for material ‘things’ and unlimited free
sex.
As
one example, the magazine Seventeen reaches more than two million teenaged
girls per month. In one four-year period, the magazine featured only one
article on marriage, and this was written by a bitter 18-year old girl whose
parents had been divorced. Her article appeared in the July 1971 issue, and her
message was “Is motherhood really fulfilling? I have seen many cases where it
is not. I baby-sit for several young mothers in my neighborhood. For some,
motherhood is creative, but for most it tends to be intellectually stifling and
routine. As child after child appears, once cheerful and lively women become
increasingly bitter, exhausted and resentful of lost career opportunities. They
complain, “If I have to change one more diaper today, I am going to go stark
raving mad!” “
This
is the only message about marriage that these teenage girls saw in this
magazine over a period of four years. Readers are led to believe that all other
professions are exciting and worthy, and that motherhood is unglamorous,
undesirable, and unfulfilling.
This
is not surprising to those familiar with the Neofeminist mindset. Neofeminism
is intrinsically a depressed, angry, bitter outlook. A Neofeminist can see only
the dark side of things.
People
who are anti-marriage rely very heavily on slogans and unthinking jingoism,
just as the pro-abortionists do. The classic Neofeminist anti-marriage and
anti-child slogan is “I don’t see what is fulfilling about swishing a dirty
diaper around in a toilet bowl!”
How
many times have you heard this whining nonsense? This is a slogan used by a
pessimistic person who couldn’t care less about the many joys that children
have to offer.
According
to Neofeminist logic, if you haven’t experienced something, you can’t express
any opinions about it. For example, (pro-life) men cannot speak or even think
about abortion because they cannot get pregnant. And the Pope can’t talk about
artificial birth control because he doesn’t use it. So what gives these bitter,
sterile, never-married women the right to speak about the family?
“Political institutions such as religion, because they are based on philosophies of hierarchical orders and reinforce male oppression of females, must be destroyed ... Each stage [of the Neofeminist revolution] takes into account the interrelationship of all the institutions and therefore calls for simultaneous attacks on all of them.”-- Women’s Liberation, Notes From the Second Year , page 118.
If
it would wake up and take action, the Christian Church would be the strongest
enemy of the anti-life forces today, as it has been in ages past. The
Communists and the Neofeminists realize this. They also know that they can
never hope to win a face-to-face confrontation with the Church. Therefore, they
must burrow away at its structure like termites in the hope of destroying it
from within.
This
is the classic strategy of infiltration and subversion, which is more
thoroughly described in Chapter 10 of Volume I.
Subversion
is the purpose of groups that loudly proclaim their loyalty to the Church while
totally disregarding its teachings and leading many others away from it. Such
groups include the ‘Religious’ Coalition for Abortion Rights, ‘Catholics’ for a
Free Choice, and Woman-Church.
The
Neofeminists claim that they want to “rejuvenate,” “reform,” and “renew” the
Church -- but their primary objective is to tear down what they call “the
patriarchy,” and reconstruct it in their own image, with a paganistic Goddess
at the center. As Neofeminist ‘theologian’ Rosemary Ruether asks; “The
Crucified Woman: Is she only a victim, or can women bring forth redemption from
their sufferings on the cross of patriarchy? ... no token accommodations will
satisfy us. What is required is total reconstruction of God, Christ, human
nature, and society.”[30]
If
the Neofeminists succeed in this mission, their greatest ‘oppressor’ will not
only be defeated; it will simply cease to exist.
Specific
Examples of the Tactics. Some of the tactics employed by the Neofeminist
‘spiritualists’ are quite ingenious and can warp Church teachings in some
extraordinarily bizarre ways. This should come as no surprise to those who
believe in the great cunning of Satan and his minions.
Like
the homosexuals, the Neofeminists have cloaked themselves with a permanent
“victim status,” thereby casting anyone who opposes them in any as misogynists
(woman-haters) and ogres. For a detailed examination of this effective tactic,
see Chapter 9 of Volume I.
The
Neofeminists pack study groups and committees and simply censor the
conservative viewpoint. This results in influential documents that are nothing
more than laundry-lists of whining Neofeminist complaints.
A
recent example of this silliness was the National Council of Catholic Bishop’s
disastrous pastoral letter “Partners in the Mystery of Redemption.” The letter
is heavily dominated by the writings of a collection of Neofeminists sniveling
about the impossibility of living without abortion, artificial birth control,
neutering, and homosexuality. The letter also lists the manifold “sins” against
women: Prostitution, rape, adultery, abandonment, pornography, exploitation,
and other undefined violence.
The
document concludes by demanding that the Catholic Church apologize for the “sin
of sexism” (whether this is a mortal or venial sin is not revealed).
Naturally,
the Neofeminists demand that the Church -- and men in particular -- must
shoulder the full blame for all of these “sins” -- even for two-party sins like
adultery and prostitution!
The
document gave these misandrist women a platform from which to condemn marriage
and the teaching authority of the Catholic Church, and faithful lay people were
deeply sickened to see their bishops grovel in the face of such idiocy.
Neofeminists
infiltrate church-run institutions of higher learning and then infect students
with their pro-abortion and anti-life mentality. When they are uncovered or
opposed in any way, they snivel about “academic freedom” and threaten to file
lawsuits if any action is taken against them. Colleges run by the Catholic
Church are especially susceptible to this tactic, because administrators are
frightened of tarnishing their brassy images by being labeled “Neanderthals.”
For
example, at supposedly Catholic Boston College, Mary Daly, a radical feminist
and lesbian activist, was refused promotion to full professor in 1989. She
teaches ‘Neofeminist Ethics’ (an outstanding oxymoron), and has written books
denouncing the Catholic Church as an organization that legitimizes male
dominance over women. Daly, who has condemned the entire Christian “symbol
system,” snarls that; “I’m sick of the Church. Christianity is the most
woman-hating religion imaginable. The word ‘Jesus’ is a drug, a hook to
dependency on male images ... To get unhooked is to realize that Christianity
is not the only access to spiritual life.”
Daly,
a mediocre intelligence gone seriously awry, accurately describes herself as a
“Positively Revolting Hag” on the jacket of her Webster’s New Intergalactic
Wickedary of the English Language , which consists of more than three hundred
pages of unintelligible and utterly useless gibberish.
There
are many examples of infiltration and subversion by Neofeminists working to
achieve concrete changes in the Church. As the properly “Modernized” products
of the newly-Neoliberal Catholic and Protestant seminaries took their seats as
pastors or church bureaucrats, they naturally banded together to enact their
personal agendas.
This
was no overt or organized conspiracy; just as conservatives work together, so
do Neoliberal/ Neofeminist clergy. However, the Neoliberals have a vast
advantage. They are on the side of “freedom” and “tolerance,” a message that
has always been more appealing to man’s fallen nature than self-discipline.
An
absolutely classic example of infiltration and subversion took place recently
in a mainline Protestant church. Neofeminists managed to pack the 18-member
National Worship Committee of the Presbyterian Church, USA, and proceeded to
make sweeping changes in the liturgy without once consulting the 2.9 million
person membership to see what its opinions were.
This
Committee took a huge step towards enacting the Neofeminist agenda by striking
at the very heart of the Church: Its manner of worship.
Therefore,
in order to avoid being perceived as “sexist,” the Presbyterian Church
jettisoned the great traditional hymns “God Rest Ye Merry, Gentlemen,” “Faith
of Our Fathers,” and “Once to Every Man and Nation.” They did not want to seem
“militaristic,” so they got rid of “Onward, Christian Soldiers” and the “Battle
Hymn of the Republic.” And, in order to avoid offending the handicapped, they
discarded “Stand, Up, Stand Up for Jesus!”
Of
course, the Church is not the only institution that is susceptible to this
strategy. It seems that Neofeminist meddling in the secular world leads to even
more spectacularly silly results than it does in the Church.
The
female majority on the Sacramento, California City Council recently proved
that, like men, they can grapple with the toughest social issues of them all.
They
courageously sponsored the “Manhole Terminology Change Contest” to seek a new
name for those thousands of awful, sexist MAN holes we see on our streets every
day. After reviewing such inspired entries as “Person-Access Chamber,” they
settled upon “maintenance hole,” and decreed that all of Sacramento’s official
maps and documents would reflect this change in terminology. The cost of these
changes was not specified (although it would certainly run into the hundreds of
thousands of dollars), but those many Sacramento citizens grievously offended and
injured by the ingrained sexism of the city maintenance department may now
breathe much easier, knowing that their City Council knows its rights from a
hole in the ground.
Presumably
the Sacramento City Council is using one of those aggravating new P.C. PC
word-processing programs that automatically insert the words “and she” whenever
the word “he” is typed.[2]
Curiously,
the Neofeminists want to neuter God and rewrite history and even overhaul our
language, but they don’t seem to pay any attention to languages such as German
or French, where every noun is assigned a gender. In German, a turnip is
female; a young girl ( Madchen ) is neuter, and in French, a tree ( l’arbre )
is masculine, while a leaf ( la feuille ) is feminine.
Talk
about Adam and Eve corollaries! Where are the word cops when you really need
them?
Neofeminists
even construct their own religions to show God and the “patriarchal Christian
Church” how it should have been be done.
The
atheists like to say that “Man creates God in his own image.” Now we have women
making Goddesses in their own image, and usually in a parody of the Holy
Trinity.
For
example, WATER (Women’s Alliance for Theology, Ethics and Ritual) uses the
sexless blessing “In the name of the Creator, the Redeemer, and the
Sanctifier.”
Others
ditch all pretense of neutrality and worship “The Mother, the Daughter, and the
Holy Spiritess.” Yet others throw out all vestiges of Christianity by praying
to pagan goddesses. A favorite chant at Woman-Church “liturgies” is directed
towards the Holy Virgin Huntress Artemis: “I am good. We are good. I am power.
We are power. I am womb-water. We are womb-water.”[31]
No,
I am not making this up.
Naturally,
the Neofeminists use our tax dollars whenever possible to erode Christian
sexual mores. For example, the ‘Michigan Womyn’s Music Festival’ recently
included a “workshop” on sado-masochism (S&M) which, according to the May
1985 issue of off our backs Magazine, included “... a group of women in leather
standing over another woman on the ground, lacerations and blood all over her
body, and blood all over the ground.”
It
seems that violence against women by men is anathema, but violence against
women by women has the Neofeminist Seal of Approval.
This
kind of idiocy is paid for by your tax dollars, while school children are
strictly prohibited from praying.
Neofeminists
reject men as partners in the human race and shrilly condemn Christianity as
“misogynist.”
Therefore,
it is natural that these aimless, wandering women should eventually gravitate
towards their own ‘worship system.’
Since
the Neofeminists have an extremely low self-image, they have a great need for
“empowerment” and control. As Christians yield complete control of their lives
to Jesus, Neofeminists relentlessly strive for the opposite --to jealously
control every aspect of their lives.
Many
or most witches believe that Satanism is an inversion of Christianity that was
invented by the Roman Catholic Church as a replacement for organized
witchcraft.[32] Satanism, they say, is a more clearly defined and more easily
opposed “target” than witchcraft. This is an obvious ploy to distance
themselves from their natural but even more disreputable cousins, New Age
Movement.”
The
practice of witchcraft -- which excludes men, provides a form of worship, and
gives the illusion of power -- fits the many needs of the Neofeminists
perfectly. These activities (often misleadingly referred to as “wisecraft”),
are usually amalgamated with assorted elements of various ancient pagan
religions. Everything in this conglomeration is welcome --except faith, hope,
love, and self-control, as explained recently by an article in Ms . Magazine; “But
to the women in feminist spirituality, witchcraft had an even more fundamental
meaning. It is a woman’s religion, a religion of the earth, vilified by
patriarchal Christianity, and now, finally reclaimed. The feminist spirituality
movement began to emerge in the mid-1970s and has become one of the largest
submovements within feminism. It’s amorphous, blending in a surprisingly smooth
amalgam of radical feminism, pacifism, witchcraft, eastern mysticism, goddess
worship, animism, psychic healing, and a variety of practices normally
associated with fortune-telling.”[33]
Wicca,
sometimes informally referred to as “The Craft,” generally worships an unholy
parody of the Holy Trinity, called the Triple Goddess: The Maid, the Mother,
and the Crone.
Carol
Christ summed up the role of Neofeminist and Wiccan worship nicely as she
confirmed that “Goddess-symbolism undergirds and legitimates the concerns of
the women’s movement, much as God symbolism in Christianity undergirded the
interests of men in patriarchy.”[17]
The
famed Neoliberal double standard functions perfectly well within the arcane
world of witchcraft. Witches prattle on about “women’s spirituality,” but will
not allow for a parallel “men’s spirituality,” presumably because they consider
men plodding, earthlike creatures incapable of spiritualism.
Radical
feminist witches see lesbians as the ideal woman, and the androgyne as the
ideal human being because (he, she, it?) is free of gender. Women (including
lesbians) who live in complete independence of men are referred to as
“virgins,” even if they seek to bear children without the ‘interference’ of men
by using the ‘turkey baster method,’ which is described in one of the
Neofeminist staples, The New Our Bodies, Ourselves ; “The sperm donor must
masturbate into a condom or clean jar. Within an hour after ejaculation, you
suck the semen into a needleless hypodermic syringe (some women use an
eyedropper or turkey baster). Gently insert the syringe into your vagina
...”[34]
By
the way, this book is available in almost every public school library and is a
favorite of many of your sons and daughters.
Most
pro-lifers are familiar with the tired Neofeminist slogan and derivative
bumpersticker, “If men could get pregnant, abortion would be a sacrament.”
Well,
women can get pregnant, and, to some of them, abortion literally is a
sacrament! This shows just how far the Neofeminist Goddess-worshippers have
fallen into self-deception.
The
origin of the above childish, pouting phrase lies with the ‘Reverend’ Carter
Hayworth, a female Episcopalian ‘priest,’who stated at the 1985 National
Abortion Federation convention that “If women were in charge, abortion would be
a sacrament ... an occasion of deep and serious and sacred meaning.”[35]
In
Scripture, women nurture children; now women ‘priests’ call deliberate child
sacrifice a sacred religious act ... You’ve come a long way, Baby --a long way
towards Hell!
Neofeminists
are always telling us that “nobody really likes abortion,” but the “abortion as
sacrament” attitude, as described below, reveals them to be true abortophiles,
or “abortion lovers.”
Abortion
is one of the many areas where the anti-life movement and the “New Age”
movement practically coincide. One prime example (but by no means unusual) was
a detailed description of an abortion ‘liturgy’ by Rebecca Altafut in the
February 26, 1986 issue of the New Haven Advocate .
This
essay, entitled “Abortion With Dignity,” relates that Altafut gets pregnant,
but she and her lover are not ready to raise a child. Therefore, she details a
five-step process for procuring an abortion with religious dignity.
The
first step is to ask the unborn baby if he or she doesn’t mind being aborted
(once again, I am not making this up)! This must be done with the utmost
seriousness. Curiously, unborn babies seem to be remarkably easy to get along
with, because they invariably seem to be eager to undergo the intensely
spiritual experience of being disemboweled, burned, and decapitated.
Altafut’s
preborn was no exception. She says that “I realized: Unborn Children are very
forgiving. I was amazed.”
She
goes on to describe the “many gifts of abortion,” including the fact that it is
sort of a fertility self-test. Another advantage for Altafut is that “we had no
need for birth control” (so much for the pro- abort theory that absolutely no
one uses abortion for birth control).
The
only flaw in the entire sensuous and fulfilling abortion experience was that
they had not been allowed to complete the fifth step of the abortion ‘liturgy,’
i.e., “ ... to take the fetal tissue home with us to ritually return it to the
water, to a stream we both love well.”[36]
According
to two experienced abortionists, Altafut’s “fertility self-check” is quite common
among unmarried women who are fornicating, although it is not an entirely
conscious process; “Our discussions with unmarried women have revealed one
pattern recurring over and over again. A young woman will have an unexpected
sexual encounter with no contraceptive precautions. She will then worry herself
into a frenzy waiting for the next menstrual period. When the flow comes, she
will breathe a great sigh of relief and forget the entire episode. But some
time later the same sequence will be repeated, and the worry-relief cycle will
be relived. After three or four such episodes the patient begins to wonder
about her ability to conceive. She really should have “gotten caught,” she
thinks, yet she did not. Soon she is unconsciously trying to prove her fertility,
and usually she succeeds...”[37]
Other
Neofeminists fully and consciously embrace abortion as a positive spiritual
good. Social worker Dora Greenwald positively gushes with enthusiasm as she
describes witnessing late-term prostaglandin abortions; “It’s a really
interesting thing that is happening. It’s fascinating, when you can think about
it clinically and not get involved in the babies, or the people ... Several
times I saw really beautiful things happen, I mean it’s physically beautiful.
Sometimes you can see the vagina opening up and the entire thing coming out at
once ... It’s a really interesting thing, and it got me very excited.”[38]
This
kind of advocacy certainly puts the lie to the pro-abortion assertion that
“nobody likes abortion.”
Naturally,
the type of Goddess-worship implied by the “abortion as sacrament” slogan
appeals strongly to women who are alienated from what they perceive to be a
“male-dominated society,” and to those women who are just plain misfits. In
fact, some women have been known to spontaneously declare themselves to be
witches upon reading the books of Starhawk, founder of the Covenant of the
Goddess.
Witches
like to say that they subscribe to a religion that is “kinder and gentler” than
Christianity, and Neofeminists make a big deal out of Christian fundamentalists
praying for the death of a certain pro-abortion Supreme Court justice, when
they have been doing the same thing -- in their own way -- for many years.
For
instance, witches in the Detroit Women’s Liberation Coalition staged a mock
funeral march in March of 1970, mourning the “thousands of our sisters” who had
allegedly died of illegal abortions. They traveled to the office of William
Cahalan, the county prosecutor, and repeatedly chanted; “Cahalan, for you we
made this hex; The souls of our sisters called forth the moon; to cover the sun
and bring on your doom.”[39]
If
woman-haters are called “misogynist,” then surely the Neofeminist witches could
properly be labeled misandrists, or “mr.-ogynist.”
Another
witch, Z. Budapest, wrote a complicated spell that was designed to assist the
passage of the Equal Rights Amendment, in which she uses several symbols
representing death against entire states .
This
spell in its entirety is shown in Figure 129-6.
(editorial comments added in brackets)
|
“When the moon is full, at sundown, go to a place “wild and lone” (or your own backyard). Place on the ground a map of the United States with the non-ratified states outlined in blood red. On each of the capital cities of each of these non-ratified states, place a red-white and blue candle with the letters E.R.A. scratched onto it three times with a rose thorn. Also place on each capital a black candle inscribed with the names of the people and organizations who are working against the ERA in that state [black is never used in Wicca ceremonies unless death or ‘great evil’ is to be directed against someone]. Anoint the triple power candle with seven power oil, the black candle with hecate oil [hecate oil is another representation of death; Hecate was the Greek goddess of death and the underworld]. You will also need some incense, either high power, high priestess, or dragon’s blood. |
|
“Form a circle around the map. Light the candles, then the incense; inhale the incense while looking at the full moon. To raise power, everyone join hands and hum without strain, a centering sound. The four wimmin standing in the four corners of the Universe (E,S,W,N) within the circle will invoke the Goddess in turn [here each ‘wimmin’ recites a lengthy prayer to various goddesses, including Ea, Astarte, Ishtar, Lilith, Esmerelda, Vesta, Aphrodite, and a host of others]. |
|
“All then link arms around the circle and raise more power, concentrating on the non-ratified states. (Chanting would be appropriate here, using chants from ERA demonstrations) [How about a rousing chorus of “not the church, not the state ...?]. |
|
“Offering: mix honey and clear water in a chalice, then pour a small amount on the ground, saying: “To return to you a small portion of that which you have given us so freely.” Each womon [sic] then takes the chalice, going clockwise around the circle, and speaks her feeling about the ERA, then drinks. When the chalice has gone all around and all have reaffirmed each others spell, share some in the Goddess’ honor. |
|
“Then take a pair of shears and cut out the [nonratified] states from the map, and burn them in the flames of the candles. Say: “As this paper burns in the flame of the Goddess, so shall the enemies of wimmin be melted against her. The states will grant ratifications in the name of Thekis, Goddess of Social Consciousness.” |
|
“Let the candles burn down at their own pace until done. Gather all the remnants of this spell, including the rest of the map, and throw them into a living body of water.” |
|
“It is done.” |
Reference: Z. Budapest. “A Spell for the E.R.A.” The Allegheny Feminist [Pennsylvania], July 1978, pages 1 and 7.
In
their drive to ‘overhaul’ Christianity, the Neofeminists have revived
witchcraft and Neo-paganism to create a type of “choose your own adventure”
religion.
Although
these Neo-paganists are under the influence of Satan, they are not Satanists,
because they believe in neither God nor the Devil. Neo- pagan witchcraft is a
naturalistic religion that supposedly attunes itself to the cycles of the
earth, sea, and sky, and does not (overtly) involve itself in violent acts.
The
first step for a budding Neofeminist witch, of course, is to shed her previous
life, which includes the name given to her by her father. Her new last name
will invariably include references to some basic building block of nature,
i.e., Red Wing, Firestone, Waterwoman, etc.
The
next step is to find a coven. Most Wiccans belong to covens that are ideally
composed of 13 regular members. They celebrate their “Holy Days” on the Quarter
Days (the equinoxes and solstices) and the Cross Quarter Days (Samhain, October
31; Oimelc, February 1; Beltane, May 1; and Lughnasadh or Lammas, August 1).
Many
of participants of these rites perform in the nude -- or “skyclad” in Wicca
argot. Margot Adler and other Neopaganists admit that the new expression of
Wicca is in no way derived from extremely ancient Paganistic practices, but is
instead yet another expression of the polyglot “New Age” phenomenon, which
welds together any religious or quasi-religious scraps that happen to be at
hand or at mind. Groups of people have actually founded covens solely on the
practices and theories found in popular science fiction or fantasy fiction
novels.
Other
religiously-based “New Age” groups include the patriarchal Thor-worshipping
Asatrus, the Druids, Feriferia, and the Church of All Worlds, whose members
greet each other as gods and who envision the earth as a single colossal
organism that is itself undergoing the slow process of becoming divine --
“theagenesis” (for more information on pseudo-religious “New Age” practices,
including Satanism, see Chapter 130 on the “New Age” Movement).
The
Neopaganists would have us believe that they long for a gentler time that, as
Starhawk puts it, “... when worshipping the Goddess meant seeing as sacred the
earth and the fertility of all things on it.”[40] Starhawk and others seem to
be interested in rewriting history in order to erase the more bloodthirsty and
inevitable results of old-time paganistic rituals --like the bones of thousands
of babies found at Carthage under a small tombstone that reads “To our Lady Tanit,
and Our Lord Ba’al Nimmon, that which was vowed.”[41]
Yes,
we know just how “kind and gentle” that old-time religion was: Ba’al worship
called for the slaughter of newborn children on its altars. Perhaps it’s not
surprising, then, that the ‘new breed’ witches are uniformly pro-abortion.
Neofeminism
is an integral component of the New Age Movement. As such, its members, as they
struggle unconsciously against the gentle but persistent pull of the true God,
actually attempt to transform themselves into “little goddesses” who answer to
nobody.
It
is no surprise, then, that many people see Neofeminism itself as a type of
religion. It certainly has all of the standard trappings of a religion: Its own
Goddesses, its sacred books (Elizabeth Cady Stanton’s The Woman’s Bible and
Robin Morgan’s Sisterhood is Powerful ), its own liturgies and ceremonies, and
even its own creed.
Renegade
‘Catholic’ theologian Rosemary Radford Ruether speaks of an “emerging feminist
religion” in her book Women-Church .[42] She also describes various religious
ceremonies in the book, including ersatz lesbian ‘weddings’ and the “baptism”
of a woman into the lesbian ‘community.’[42]
The
First National Conference on Women’s Spirituality, held in Boston in 1976,
featured bare-breasted women dancing in church and chanting “The goddess is
alive!” and “Being female is divine!”[43] One of the leaders of the conference
suggested that every attendee set up an altar in her home centered around a
mirror so that women “would be continually reminded that they were the
Goddess.”[43]
Of
course, Neoliberals (and Neofeminists) have never had much regard for history.
They feel free to lie about it, disregard it, or fabricate their own whenever
the need arises.
In
fact, some Neofeminist authors actually condemn history as a tool of
‘phallocentrism,’ as shown in the quotes below.
|
“History is ... a particular form of power and knowledge involving the manipulation of academic and political resources and serving to ensure the dominance of certain groups. Rather than pretend to a spurious ‘objectivity,’ feminists argue that we must find a way to read texts that will serve to illuminate the masks of truth with which phallocentrism hides its functions.”-- Mary Condren. The Serpent and the Goddess: Women, Religion, and Power in Celtic Ireland . 1972, Harper and Row, San Francisco. |
|
“All of history must be re-written in terms of oppression of women. We must go back to ancient female religions like witchcraft.”-- The Document: The Declaration of Feminism , November 1971. |
|
“We are critical of all past ideology, literature and philosophy, products as they are of male supremacist culture. We are re-examining even our words, language itself.”-- “PRINCIPLES (New York Radical Women).” Sisterhood is Powerful (Robin Morgan, editor). New York: Vintage Books, 1970. Page 520. |
|
“All men have oppressed women ... The most slanderous evasion of all is that women can oppress men.”-- “Redstockings Manifesto.” Sisterhood is Powerful (Robin Morgan, editor). New York: Vintage Books, 1970. Page 534. |
Although
there are a thousand different covens and strains of witchcraft, they allegedly
adhere to the principle “DO AS THOU WILT AND HARM NONE.” This principle, of
course, is echoed by the Sexual Revolution: “Any sex act is acceptable as long
as nobody is hurt.” This new witchcraft endorses practices that ‘traditional’
witches would blush at; lesbianism, bestiality, and omnisexual orgies, which
are ‘sacraments’ of the new ceremonies.
As
with the American Communists, many ‘witches’ are bored housewives or single
women whose lack of physical attractiveness is more than compensated for by
their strangeness of character. These women often jettison their last names and
make up their own which contains one of the original “four elements;” i.e.,
“Firestone” or “Waterwoman.”
Z.
Budapest, one of the better-known latter-day ‘witches,’ described the new
attitude towards sex when she explained that “The Goddess is intimately
connected with religious sexual practices; mating and pleasuring are observed
in Her honor alone, giving up any and all sexual inhibitions of any current
era. The patriarchal sexual mores are direct reversals of this religious sexual
enjoyment. All taboos of Judeo-Christianity were made against the Old Religion.
She [the Goddess] is certainly promiscuous by Christian standards -- She is
unconquerable because She is Divine ... Oneness of all Nature is much sought
after in the sexual union, be it with female-male variations or female with
female and male with male ... The Sacred Whore is invoked here with Her holiest
meaning ... If and when orgasm occurs for somebody, it is treated as a sacred
chant and shared by other women in the circle.”
It
is not surprising that a pell-mell amalgam of pagan practices, imagination, and
good old Satanic influence should produce some pretty weird philosophy.
Naturally, there are always colorful characters ready to preach this nonsense.
Z.
Budapest is a good example. She despises men so passionately that her own
father’s name is anathema to her. In fact, she claims to have no father at all:
She alleges that she is the product of parthenogenesis, or a type of
“immaculate conception!” This is in keeping with the Neofeminist idea that
anything having to do with men (including having one for a father) is
inherently “sinful.”
Budapest’s
“witch religion” is nothing more than a half-baked rationalization for the
philosophy of the ‘Me Generation.’ She has dressed up the Sexual Revolution in
the fancy rags of anti-Christianity and has tried to give it an aura of
“respectability” based on a mishmash of paganism and various Eastern and “New
Age” beliefs.
As
Budapest herself proclaims, in her most delicate and restrained prose,
“Self-love is where liberation begins. If anybody tries to discourage you from
loving yourself, tell them to stuff it.”
Budapest
has published several books, including The Holy Book of Womens [sic] Mysteries
and Like-Minded Wimmen [sic]. She is the high priestess of the “Susan B.
Anthony Coven Number One,” based in San Francisco, which publishes its Dianics
newsletter THEMIS , dedicated to “the Goddess of Social Change.”
Budapest
claims that the Catholic Church burned 11,000,000 women at the stake in the
Middle Ages (equivalent to half of the female population of Europe). The
Neofeminist group WITCH alleges that the figure was a more modest nine
million.[21] Such an effort would have deforested vast tracts of woodland, in
addition to wiping out most of the female population. Budapest and WITCH ignore
the fact that even extreme anti-Catholic writers put the number at less than
20,000.
Budapest
also says that a dogma of the Christian Faith is that “woman is created in the
image of the Devil.” Her authoritative reference for this fascinating nugget of
misinformation? A pornographic movie entitled “The Devil in Miss Jones!”
Ah,
rigorous scholarly research can be so inspiring to us lesser mortals!
Despite
all of this silliness, Z. Budapest has enshrined herself in history (pardon me,
her story) for her valiant efforts on behalf of the Equal Rights Amendment. She
cooked up a rather complicated spell that was “To be cast by wimmin who have
worked for the ERA or who strongly want to “do something” for it.”
This
spell, which is shown in Figure 129-6, is rather lengthy, but is worth a
generous amount of space due to its entertainment content. Editorial comments
are contained in [brackets].
While
Z. Budapest and her ‘wimmin Wiccans’ were taking their ease and occupying
themselves with silly and useless ceremonies under the full Moon, Phyllis
Schlafly and her Eagle Forum were fighting the battle in broad daylight with
prayer to Jesus Christ and lots of slogging hard work.
History,
of course, reveals to us which side won the ERA battle. Perhaps Thekis, the
“Goddess of Social Consciousness,” was asleep -- like Ba’al was when he was
summoned by his priests.
“Women are being seen as wombs to be deactivated rather than human beings with lives to be fulfilled.”-- Erma Clardy Craven.[44]
The
abortion issue is the Neofeminist’s Achilles heel. By their actions and by
their words, Neofeminists reveal that their paramount goal is not true equality
for women -- it is instead to keep abortion legal and easily available.
Nowhere
is glaring inconsistency more evident than when Neofeminists band together to
bitterly oppose abortion laws that will protect women .
Missouri’s
Women and Infants’ Caregiver Act would have ensured that all women considering
abortion receive counseling from the state on prenatal care and abortion
alternatives. This bill would not have restricted access to abortion in the
slightest, but pro-abortion organizations and individuals fanatically fought it
in the state legislature and stated that it was “... an extreme bill that would
cripple women’s access to reproductive services.”[45]
Massachusetts
legislators introduced a bill that would have created a public education
program to educate pregnant women about fetal development and the impacts of
drug, alcohol, and tobacco abuse on their preborn babies. This bill would have
lowered the number of infants born with low birth weight and other disabilities
and would have led to better prenatal care. This bill had broad support from
physicians and other medical professionals, but the Planned Parenthood League
of Massachusetts bitterly opposed it.[45]
A
New York law would have provided grants to non-profit organizations for the
purpose of providing information on alternatives to abortion. But the abortion
lobby, led by New York NOW, alleged that it was “a violation of free speech”
and “a imposition on the right to privacy.”[45]
The
Neofeminists also show that their allegiance to abortion is far stronger than
their loyalty to those they call their ‘sisters,’ especially when those
‘sisters’ happen to oppose abortion.
Writer
Pamela Erens confesses that pro-life women are simply rejected by their ‘sisters’
who claim to speak for all women; “Most feminists, predictably, can’t stand
them [pro-life women]. Anti-abortion feminist groups have been banned from ERA
rallies, rebuffed in their attempts to join consortiums of women’s groups, and
forbidden to meet in campus women’s centers. The rift has been present since
the earliest days of the women’s movement. Pat Goltz, the member of Ohio NOW
who founded FFL in 1972, was asked and then forced to give up her NOW
membership because of her anti-abortion activities. NOW’s president Molly Yard
says that she would meet the same fate today. “I don’t know how someone can be
a feminist if she’s not for a woman’s right to her own life,” she says.
Seventeen years later, seven-term congresswoman Mary Rose Oakar of Ohio is
consistently refused endorsement by women’s organizations because she opposes
abortion, even though she has been a leading supporter of the ERA, pay equity,
and aid for poor and elderly women.”[46]
Every
member of Feminists for Life of America can attest to the fact that you can
only be a Neofeminist if you check your brains and your judgment at the door
and exactly parrot their lines.
Even
more telling is the reaction of ultraliberal Neofeminists to women who really
are making a difference in the world.
Not
even Mother Teresa -- who embodies the purest essence of the desirable
gender-free qualities of love, compassion, and hard work -- can escape their
wrath -- simply because she opposes prenatal genocide by doing something to
help the preborn.
Virulent
pro-abort actor Ed Asner wrote that;
“It must be very hard to see the news of that phenomenal nun out of India ... to marvel at the woman and ache at what she is costing NARAL [the National Abortion Rights Action League] here in the States.”
“I question the political reasons why she was chosen for a Nobel Prize at this time. It’s as if male authorities are saying that it’s all right for women to passively help people die but not to actively take control in the world, much less of their own bodies. There’s a message there -- you look around the world for the most conservative, the least-threatening woman you can find and give her an honor.”[47]
“The
plain truth is: The feminist leaders have no troops. While the gender gap
proved to be a feminist myth, the gap dividing the feminists from the women
they claim to speak for is no myth and is worth pondering.”-- Christina
Sommers, The Wall Street Journal .[48]
It
is almost comically ironic that the Neofeminists, in their relentless push for
‘equality,’ have consigned women to a lower status than any they have yet
suffered in this country. The great benefactors of abortion, for example, have
not been women, but men .
Any
man can now indulge in unlimited sexual gratification as often as he wants and
with as many women as he wants, and then walk away from all of them. Perhaps
the height of callousness was displayed by Kansas City Royals baseball star
George Brett as he referred to the abortions his girlfriends had suffered:
“I’ve had the security of knowing I’m a proven [sexual] performer.”[49]
If
there is a ‘problem,’ the woman is left to travel to any of the convenient
nearby abortuaries, staffed almost entirely by male doctors. She is left to pay
for the abortion -- in some cases, for the rest of her life. Any counselor who
has worked in a Crisis Pregnancy Center or in an abortuary has heard this story
hundreds of times.
Only
the names change to protect the guilty.
And
guilty they are. The Neofeminists have obviously thrown off all sexual
restraint, and gleefully wallow in every type of sexual perversion imaginable.
Many
amusing and downright incredible examples of this ‘new freedom’ can be found in
Neofeminist periodicals.
For
example, Womenwise , a publication of
the New Hampshire Federation of Feminist Womens Health Centers, recently ran an
amateurish “Sexuality Survey” which asked their readers about their sexual
fantasies and masturbation habits. A typical question and answer are shown
below.
Question:
“Please share with us how you masturbate. In asking how, we are interested in
what methods you use, i.e., fingers, running water, rubbing against an object.”
Typical
Response: “By myself, I have used lubricating jelly and cucumbers. With a
partner, I have used apricot filling placed on our breasts. We have also made
use of a narrow low couch to help get our crotches together.”
Surely
the Neofeminists have a euphemism for this type of activity, just as they have
for everything else. After all, the organized child molesters call their
activities “intergenerational love.” The people who practice bestiality call
their perversion “interspecies love.” Perhaps the above response belonged to a
member of a budding group of “vegisexuals.”
One
gets the distinct impression that the Neofeminists are living in a protracted
phase of pre-adolescence, in which small children derive their greatest joy from
attempting to shock those who are older and wiser than they are.
Women
now “enjoy” a lower status than ever before. Women at least used to be looked
up to by men (sometimes in an admittedly ‘sexist’ manner), and they were mostly
treated with respect.
However,
the Neofeminists co-opted the original feminist movement and then threw out
anyone who did not agree with their long list of demands. They became loud,
obnoxious, and whiny. Their demands became strident. Some of their goals were
even accomplished.
And
now, men with no particular respect for women have the freedom to be able to
take advantage of them whenever they feel like it. According to surveys that
even towers of impartiality like Ms . Magazine commission, women in general are
desperately unhappy today, even with their careers, Mercedes, and 1.4
preppy-perfect children.
What
happened?
Women
simply traded what was most precious and fulfilling to them for what was least
precious and fulfilling for men.
Heck,
we men could have told them that .
But
nobody bothered to ask us.
Feminist
author Andrea Dworkin, founder of Women Against Pornography, sums up the real
“gifts” of Neofeminism in a short but thoughtful paragraph; “Women who lived
through it [the Sexual Revolution] got hurt badly. Sexual liberation has made
life harder for us. We got used. We got abused. We got beaten. We got
raped.”[18]
Anti-prostitution
activist Mary Rosera Joyce makes the obvious connections between women selling
their bodies to men and women selling their babies to men. Her unique viewpoint
causes her to realize that easy abortion has given women the opportunity to
prostitute themselves to men not once, but twice; “Women are still big business
for men. Abortion now provides a new multimillion-dollar business in another
kind of feminine prostitution. In the first form of prostitution women are paid
by men. But when women prostitute themselves to what is called the “baby
scrambler,” the suction machine for abortion, they give the money to men more
often than not ... If women were not so intellectually passive, they would be
able to see through this so-called ‘liberation.’”[50]
Figure
129-7 contains three poignant statements on the impact of ‘female empowerment’
by bioethicist Sidney Callahan and writers Joanna Foster and Kay Ebeling.
|
“Instead of being empowered by their abortion choices, young women having abortions are confronting the debilitating reality of not bringing a baby into the world; not being able to count on a committed male partner; not accounting oneself strong enough, or the master of enough resources, to avoid killing the fetus. Young women are hardly going to develop the self-esteem, self-discipline, and self-confidence necessary to confront a male-dominated society through abortion. |
|
“The male-oriented sexual orientation has been harmful to women and children. It has helped bring us epidemics of venereal disease, infertility, pornography, sexual abuse, adolescent pregnancy, divorced, displaced older women, and abortion. Will these signals of something amiss stimulate pro-choice feminists to rethink what kind of sex ideal really serves women’s best interests? |
|
“ ... While the ideal has never been universally obtained, a culturally dominant demand for monogamy, self-control, and emotionally bonded and committed sex works well for women at every stage of their life cycles. When love, chastity, fidelity, and commitment for better or worse are the ascendent cultural prerequisites for sexual functioning, young girls and women expect protection from rape and seduction; adult women justifiably demand male support in childbearing; and older women are more protected from abandonment as their biological attractions wane.”-- Bioethicist Sidney Callahan. “Abortion and the Sexual Agenda: A Case for Pro-Life Feminism.” Commonweal , April 25, 1986, pages 235 to 238. |
|
“American women climbed up the career ladder fast; but when they got to the board room, they looked around and saw that all the men had pictures of their families on their desks. The women didn’t have any pictures of their families. They didn’t have any families.”-- Joanna Foster of the Equal Opportunities Commission, quoted in Glenn Wilson and Peter Owen. The Great Sex Divide: A Study of Male-Female Differences . |
|
“Today I see feminism as the Great Experiment That Failed, and women in my generation, its perpetrators, are the casualties. Many of us, myself included, are saddled with raising children alone. The resulting poverty makes us experts at cornmeal recipes and ways to find free recreation on weekends. At the same time, single men from our generation amass fortunes in CDs and real-estate ventures so they can breeze off on ski weekends. Feminism freed men, not women. Now men are spared the nuisance of a wife and family to support. After childbirth, if his wife’s waist doesn’t return to 20 inches, the husband can go out and get a more petite woman ... |
|
“Feminism made women disposable. So today a lot of females are around 40 and single with a couple of kids to raise on their own. Child-support payments might pay for a few pairs of shoes, but in general, feminism gave men all the financial and personal advantages over women. |
|
“What’s worse, we asked for it. Many women decided: You don’t need a family structure to raise your children. We packed them off to day-care centers where they could get their nurturing from professionals. Then we put on our suits and ties, packed our briefcases and took off on this Great Experiment, convinced that there was no difference between ourselves and the guys in the other offices. |
|
“How wrong we were ... The truth is, a woman can’t live the true feminist life unless she denies her child-bearing biology. She has to live on the pill, or have her tubes tied at an early age. Then she can keep up with the guys with an uninterrupted career and then, when she’s 30, she’ll be paying her own way on ski weekends too ...”-- Kay Ebeling. “The Failure of Feminism.” Newsweek Magazine, November 19, 1990, page 9. |
Such
are the gifts of Neofeminism.
When
will we ever learn?
==========================================
[1] Dr. Phoebe Spinrad of Women for Faith and Family, quoted in a letter entitled “Sign Me Up” in Fidelity Magazine, September 1988, pages 2 and 3.
[2] Katarina Runske. “Empty Hearts and Empty Homes.” Feminism v. Mankind . Family Publications, Wicken, Milton Keynes, Britain, 1990. Pages 21 and 23.
[3] Rosemary Bottcher. “Feminism: Bewitched By Abortion.” American Collegians for Life Educational Reprint Series. Printed by Life Cycle Books, Post Office Box 420, Lewiston, New York 14092-0420. Telephone: (416) 690-5860.
[4] John Leo. “Sharing the Pain of Abortion.” Time Magazine, September 26, 1983, page 78.
[5] Quotes are from Jonathon Green. The Cynic’s Lexicon . New York: St. Martin’s Press. 1984, 220 pages, $18.95.
[6] John Lofton, Jr. “International Women’s Year Conference Federally Funded Feminist Freak Festival Stacked Against Pro-Family Majority of Women.” Battle Line , January 1978, pages 3 to 12.
[7] Caroline Bird. What Women Want: From the Official Report to the President, the Congress, and the People of the United States . New York: Simon and Schuster Publishers, 1979.
[8] Annie Laurie Gaylor. “Feminist Salvation.” The Humanist , July/August 1988, page 37. Also quoted in David Kupelian and Mark Masters. “The New McCarthyism.” New Dimensions Magazine, July 1990, page 22.
[9] Sarah M. Grimke. Letters on the Equality of the Sexes and the Condition of Woman . Boston: Isaac Knapp, 1838, reprinted by Source Book Press, New York, 1970, page 10ff. Also quoted in Samuel L. Blumenfeld. The Retreat From Motherhood . New Rochelle, New York: Arlington House. 1975, 222 pages, page 48.
[10] Rosemary Radford Ruether. “Radical Victorians: The Quest for an Alternative Culture.” Women and Religion in America . Volume 3, 1900- 1968. San Francisco: Harper and Row, 1986, pages xiv and 3.
[11] Elizabeth Cady Stanton’s Woman’s Bible , quoted in Carol P. Christ and Judith Plaskow. “The Essential Challenge: Does Theology Speak to Women’s Experience?” Womanspirit Rising: A Feminist Reader in Religion . San Francisco: Harper and Row, 1979, page 19.
[12] James Cardinal Gibbons. The Faith of Our Fathers . Baltimore: The John Murphy Company, 1876. Reprinted by Tan Books and Publishers, Rockford, Illinois, in 1980, pages 21 and 60.
[13] Germaine Greer, quoted in Steve Duin. “Fortunately, Women Still Decide to Run.” The Oregonian , September 29, 1992, page B7.
[14] Lawrence Lader. Abortion II, Making the Revolution . Boston: Beacon Press, 1973, pages 18 to 20 and 36 to 40.
[15] Judith Hole and Ellen Levine. Rebirth of Feminism . New York: Quadrangle Books, 1971. This is probably the most detailed and best available account of the early Neofeminist movement to 1971. If you need information on the origins of any American Neofeminist group, this is the reference you want to get. Pages 91, 127, 143 to 144, 146, 240, and 413.
[16] “Free Abortion on Demand!” Women and Revolution , Summer/ Autumn 1992, pages 15 to 18.
[17] Quoted in Samuel L. Blumenfeld. The Retreat From Motherhood . New Rochelle, New York: Arlington House. 1975, 222 pages, page 58.
[18] Monsignor R.G. Peters. “Let’s Give Women Their Due.” Catholic Twin Circle , May 28, 1989, page 14. Also quoted in Samuel L. Blumenfeld. The Retreat From Motherhood . New Rochelle, New York: Arlington House. 1975, 222 pages, page 57. [19] “Know Your Enemy: A Sampling of Sexist Quotes.” Sisterhood is Powerful (Robin Morgan, editor). New York: Vintage Books, 1970. Pages 31 to 36.
[20] Jim Atkinson. “Roseanne Bites Man.” National Review , September 3, 1990, page 38.
[21] Robin Morgan (editor). Sisterhood is Powerful . New York: Vintage Books, 1970.
[22] Barbara H. Roberts, M.D. “Abortion Laws Murder Women.” Essay in a Women’s National Abortion Action Coalition booklet entitled “Abortion is a Woman’s Right: March on Washington, DC and San Francisco, November 20 [1972].”
[23] Rick Hampson. “Awful Ex-Husbands Get Comeuppance in Contest.” The Oregonian , May 27, 1992, page B4.
[24] Martha Shelley, “Notes of a Radical Lesbian.” Quoted in Robin Morgan’s Sisterhood is Powerful . New York: Vintage Books, 1970, page 306.
[25] The Document: Declaration of Feminism . Originally distributed by Nancy Lehmann and Helen Sullinger of Post Office Box 7064, Powderhorn Station, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55407.
[26] Lesbian playwright Carolyn Gage, quoted in Cate Garrison. “Theater of Exclusion.” Willamette Week [Portland, Oregon], September 12-18, 1991, pages 15 and 16.
[27] Julie Russie. “Radical Women’s Candidly Revolutionary Conference.” Freedom Socialist (“Voice of Revolutionary Feminism”), July-September 1990, pages 10 and 11. This conference took place February 17-20, 1990, at Santa Monica, California.
[28] David Kupelian and Mark Masters. “The New McCarthyism.” New Dimensions Magazine, July 1, 1990, page 22.
[29] As described in The Oregonian , October 27, 1989, page D7.
[30] Rosemary Radford Ruether. Womanguides: Readings Toward a Feminist Theology . Beacon Press, 1985, page 104.
[31] Donna Steichen. “Women-Church Synod in Cincinnati.” Fidelity Magazine, December 1987, pages 21-31. Quote on page 29.
[32] Self-proclaimed witch Norma Joyce of Eugene, Oregon, quoted in Sura Rubenstein, “Witchcraft Followers Say They Are Not Satanists.” The Oregonian , August 13, 1989. Page C7.
[33] “Spiritual Explorers.” Ms . Magazine, December 1985.
[34] The New Our Bodies, Ourselves . Simon and Schuster, 1984, page 313.
[35] National Abortion Federation Update , Fall 1985, page 7.
[36] Rebecca Altafut’s “abortion ceremony” is described in David H. Andrusko. “The Indignity of Abortion.” National Right to Life News , April 10, 1986, pages 2 and 9.
[37] As described in Selig Newbardt, M.D., and Harold Schulman, M.D. Techniques of Abortion . Boston: Little, Brown and Company. 1977 (Second Edition), Page 120.
[38] Dora Greenwald, MSW, quoted by Magda Denes. “Performing Abortions.” Commentary , October 1976, pages 33 to 37. This is a truly frightening and profoundly sickening article written by a doctor who observes and describes in graphic detail a number of saline abortions and their results. She acknowledges that abortion is killing, but a type of “necessary” killing.
[39] Detroit Free Press , March 8, 1970. Recounted in Judith Hole and Ellen Levine. Rebirth of Feminism . Quadrangle Books: New York, 1971. Page 298.
[40] Nancy M. Cross. “The Dry Wood: Feminism, Hosea, and Jesus.” Fidelity Magazine, January 1989, page 20.
[41] Paul deParrie. Unholy Sacrifices of the New Age . Wolgemuth & Hyatt Publishers, 1988.
[42] Rosemary Radford Ruether. Women-Church: Theology and Practice of Feminist Liturgical Communities . San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1985, pages 65, 173 to 181, and 196 to 200.
[43] Naomi R. Goldenberg. Changing of the Gods: Feminism and the End of Traditional Religions . Boston: Beacon Press, 1979, pages 92 and 94.
[44] Erma Clardy Craven, quoted in ALL About Issues , July/August 1980, page 5.
[45] “Abortion Lobby Opposes Alternatives Proposals.” Life Insight (publication of the NCCB Secretariat for Pro-Life Activities), September 1991, page 2.
[46] Pamela Erens. “Anti-Abortion, Pro-Feminism?” Mother Jones , May 1989, pages 31 and 45.
[47] Ultraliberal actor Ed Asner to Gloria Steinem, March 9, 1980 PARADE Magazine. Also quoted in “Steinem on Mother Teresa.” National Right to Life News , March 1980, page 8.
[48] Christina Sommers. “Hard-Line Feminists Guilty of Ms.-Representation.” Wall Street Journal , November 7, 1991, page A14.
[49] George Brett on the abortions his girlfriends have suffered. Quoted in Newsweek Magazine, July 17, 1989, page 13.
[50] Mary Rosera Joyce. “The Sexual Revolution Has Yet to Begin.” In Thomas J. Hilgers and Dennis J. Horan (editors), Abortion and Social Justice . Thaxton, Virginia: Sun Life Publishers, 1980. Pages 224 and 225.
==========================================
Samuel L. Blumenfeld. The Retreat From Motherhood . New Rochelle, New York: Arlington House. 1975, 222 pages, hardback $7.95. This interesting book by a pro-abortion former editor and sociologist attempts to pin down the roots of Neofeminism -- and does a pretty good, if rather disjointed job. Although he is definitely anti-life, Blumenfeld has strung together a large quantity of evidence that shows the influence of the population controllers and media in the mass turning away from childbearing to abortion and contraception. Blumenfeld feels that there is really no hope for us, and that we will eventually exterminate ourselves (but he neglects the role of religion, as well).
James Burnham. Suicide of the West . Regnery Books, $18.95. Order from the Conservative Book Club, 15 Oakland Avenue, Harrison, New York 10528. This book dissects Neoliberalism to its rotten core. It examines the curious Neoliberal combination of guilt, arrogance, selective indignation and compassion, double-standards, fuzzy logic, good intentions, and self-righteousness. The book examines why Neoliberals can never rule, why Neoliberalism is the ideology of suicide, why it clashes with Christianity, why Neoliberals sneer at patriotism and other ‘traditional’ values, and why Neoliberals are driven to make war on these values.
Ronda Chervin. Feminine, Free, and Faithful . 143 pages, $7.95. Order from Ignatius Press, 15 Oakland Avenue, Harrison, New York 10528. Chervin shows that freedom and femininity are not mutually exclusive terms, but necessary elements for a woman to achieve her full potential as a Christian.
G.K. Chesterton. What’s Wrong With the World: The Superstition of Divorce, Eugenics, and Other Evils, and Other Essays . 450 pages, sewn hardcover $29.95, sewn softcover $17.95. Order from Ignatius Press, 15 Oakland Avenue, Harrison, New York 10528. Although nearly a century old, these economic and sociologic writings by one of the most prolific and respected Christian writers of all time show conclusively that the anti- life mentality has been with us for many years. Chesterton shows that lax moral standards will lead to eugenics, divorce, artificial contraception, abortion, and ultimately the dehumanization of man, the loss of respect for human life, and the destruction of the family. A ‘must read’ for Christian historical scholars.
Mary Lewis Coakley. Long Liberated Ladies . 260 pages, $9.95. Order from: Ignatius Press, 15 Oakland Avenue, Harrison, New York 10528, telephone: 1-800-528-0559. A favorite Neofeminist myth is that the Catholic Church institutionally and systematically oppresses women as a class. This book outlines the lives of women who accomplished spectacular spiritual and material feats instead of whining about how terribly they were “oppressed.” Stories include the lives of Saint Catherine of Siena, Joan of Arc, Amelia Earhart, Isabella of Castille, and Florence Nightingale.
Concerned Women for America . CWA publishes this untitled 16-page newsletter monthly. It addresses many topics of concern to American Christian families, including porn, abortion, homosex, and others. It is available for $15 per year from Concerned Women for America, 370 L’Enfant Promenade SW, Suite 800, Washington, DC 20024.
Nicholas Davidson. The Failure of Feminism . Prometheus Books, 700 East Amherst Street, Department E, Buffalo, New York 14215. 1987, 392 pages, $24.95. Reviewed by Joseph Sobran on page 54 of the December 18, 1987 issue of National Review . An incisive examination of the slogans, buzzwords, and idiocies of the Neofeminist movement. This book covers the deleterious effects of the Neofeminists on childraising, marriage, sex, politics, and every other aspect of American life since the late 1960s. Curiously, the author is pro-abortion, and fails to see the critical place that baby-killing takes in the murky Neofeminist ‘ethos.’
Dinesh D’Souza. Illiberal Education: The Politics of Race and Sex on Campus . The Free Press, 866 Third Avenue, New York, New York 10022. 1991, 310 pages. An outstandingly detailed account of the power of the “victim status” at colleges and universities. The author examines the admissions policies, multiculturalism, mechanics of protest, racial incidents, the subverting of academic standards, and the teachings of race and gender at Berkeley, Stanford, Howard, Michigan, Duke, and Harvard.
Carol Felsenthal. Phyllis Schlafly: The Sweetheart of the Silent Majority . Chicago: Regnert Gateway, 1981. The last five chapters of this book describe Schlafly’s fight against the ERA and gives fascinating insight into the strategies and tactics used by both ‘sides’ in the battle. It is interesting to note that this book was the topic of an intensive and sometimes physically brutal censorship campaign by the same Neoliberals who champion “free speech.”
Suzanne Gage. When Birth Control Fails: How to Abort Ourselves Safely . Speculum Press/Self-Health Circle, Inc., Post Office Box 1063, Hollywood, California 90028. 1979, 54 pages. A very interesting short book on the equipment that has been used in the past by women’s illegal abortion circles, and which will be used in the future when women set up “Jane” networks once again. This book (and others like it) will then be of interest to pro-life activists who are working to derail the abortion movement’s “underground railroads.” This book shows how to self-examine, how to construct the Del-Em home suction abortion machine, and also gives information on herbal abortions.
Maggie Gallagher. Enemies of Eros: How the Sexual Revolution is Killing Family, Marriage, and Sex, and What We Can Do About It . Bonus Books, 1989. 283 pages, $18.95. Reviewed by Ellen Wilson Fielding on pages 41 to 43 of the December 8, 1989 issue of National Review and by Fern Schumer Chapman on pages 49 to 51 in the June 1990 issue of Reason . An examination of the forces that destroy normal human sexuality even as they claim to reinforce them. The many topics covered in this book include surrogate mothering, no-fault divorce and the resulting “feminization of poverty,” abortion, feminism and social engineering. The book also covers generally the repressive impacts of the ‘new androgyny.’ Gallagher shows how the demands of Neofeminism have vastly impoverished women in almost every way, while directly playing into the hands of exploitative men.
Anne Marie Gardiner, SSND (editor). Women and Catholic Priesthood: An Expanded Vision . Proceedings of the Detroit Ordination Conference. New York: Paulist Press. 1976, 250 pages. Two hundred pages of sniveling from the usual (dissenting) suspects. All of the old shopworn arguments are put forth for women’s ordination, and it all just seems so unconvincing. Interesting appendices include the conference roster of attendees, a list of the public sponsors of the conference, and “women in Catholic priesthood now.”
Anne Nicol Gaylor. Abortion is a Blessing . New York: Psychological Dimensions Publishers. 1975, 122 pages. This amazingly-entitled book, by a Zero Population Growth fanatic (who hypocritically has four children), accurately reflects the author’s attitudes. The book jerkily swings from third-rate psychological analysis of the “antis” (that’s us, folks) to virulent anti-Catholic tirades (“card-carrying Catholics” shouldn’t be allowed to sit on juries when abortion is involved) to stomach-turning and obviously false tearjerker stories of desperate women who were butchered by illegal abortions. The book makes fascinating reading, however, for many reasons: The crude and nightmarish cartoons (one of which shows a one-ton embryo strangling its mother with its umbilical cord) to women’s accounts of trips to Mexico for illegal abortions, which were performed in spotless facilities by polite and accomplished doctors -- a very far cry indeed from the alleged butchery that modern pro-aborts like to snivel about.
Carol Gilligan. In a Different Voice . Harvard University Press, 1982. 174 pages, $5.95. Reviewed by Wanda Franz, Ph.D., on page 11 of the November 24, 1983 issue of National Right to Life News . The pro-abortion author argues that women have a different psychological composition than men, then goes on to undercut her theory of superiority by excusing women to commit various acts (including abortion) for immature reasons.
Greenhaven Press. Feminism: Opposing Viewpoints . Greenhaven Press Opposing Viewpoints Series, Post Office Box 289009, San Diego, California 92128-9009. 1989, 231 pages. Sections feature essays written by leading activists on both sides of the euthanasia debate from women and the vote to the future of feminism. Authors include Elizabeth Cady Stanton, Germaine Greer, and Phyllis Schlafly. A catalog is available from the above address and can be obtained by calling 1-(800) 231-5163.
Greenhaven Press. Male\Female Roles: Opposing Viewpoints . Greenhaven Press Opposing Viewpoints Series, Post Office Box 289009, San Diego, California 92128-9009. 1989, 440 pages. This series consists of a basic volume followed by annual updates by the same name. The main arguments for and against each view are presented by the leading authorities in each field. The questions asked are: “How Are Sex Roles Established?;” Are Women An Oppressed Minority?;” “Do Men Need Liberating?;” and “Is the Family Obsolete?” Authors include Betty Friedan, Phyllis Schlafly, George Gilder, Ellen Goodman, and Richard F. Doyle. A catalog is available from the above address and can be obtained by calling 1-(800) 231-5163.
Weldon M. Hardenbrook. Missing from Action: Vanishing Manhood in America . Nashville: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1987. 192 pages, $14.95. Reviewed by James Bruen in the December 1987 Fidelity Magazine. Any Neofeminist who reads this book will die of apoplexy. The book surveys the feminization of American culture and the extreme confusion and the resulting lack of direction in our society. It is now men, not women, who are alienated from many aspects of the Catholic Church and the mainline Protestant Churches that have allowed themselves to be deceived and seduced by the Neofeminists. The author presents an array of solutions to the phenomenon of women’s leadership by default: Avoid government programs that are biased towards women; adjust social programs to reflect the differences between boys and girls; and get men to accept their responsibilities as spiritual and moral heads of their families.
Judith Hole and Ellen Levine. Rebirth of Feminism . Quadrangle Books: New York, 1971. This book tells the reader everything he or she wants to know about the early (1950 to 1970) feminist movement -- and usually much more. It includes incredible detail. An excellent history of the Equal Rights Amendment to mid-1971 can be found on pages 54 to 77.
Mary Joyce. Women and Choice: New Beginnings . Order from LifeCom Publishers, Post Office Box 1832, St. Cloud, Minnesota 56302, or from Trinity Communications, Post Office Box 3610, Manassas, Virginia 22110, telephone: (703) 369-2429. 1986, 178 pages, $7.95. Reviewed by Nancy Koster in the May 1, 1986 National Right to Life News . Mrs. Joyce shows how the new vehicle of Neofeminism is a totally inadequate tool for women to attain true equality. By rejecting the easy paths of the ‘rights to choose,’ women can lead the way to a truly benign society, where everyone’s needs are met. Mrs. Joyce spends a lot of time in a revealing discussion of the differences between men and women and how important they are in the pro/anti-life battle.
Lawrence Lader. Abortion II, Making the Revolution . Boston: Beacon Press, 1973. The definitive work on early (1960-1970) pro-abortion strategy by the king of the abortion propagandists. Lader was a close friend of the ‘leading lights’ of the early pro-abortion movement, including Betty Friedan and Dr. Bernard Nathanson.
Kathleen McDonnell. Not An Easy Choice: A Feminist Reexamines Abortion . Boston: South End Press, 1984. 157 pages, $8.00. Reviewed by Patricia Soenen in the October 24, 1985 National Right to Life News . This book is a frightening look at true Neofeminism. The author can’t really ‘reexamine’ abortion honestly, because she begins by asserting that it is a “woman’s right.” However, this author is not entirely ignorant: She acknowledges that women must confront the fact that the unborn are human beings, i.e., they must “let the fetus in.” What is frightening is that, even though McDonnell acknowledges the humanity of the unborn, she still thinks it is all right to kill them. This is one step further than even the Nazis took -- at least they tried to dehumanize their victims. in other words, McDonnell is baldly stating that it is all right to kill a human being who is an inconvenience to you! This book shows how pro- abortionists are sinking even deeper into self-delusion and Newspeak.
Father Vincent P. Miceli. Women Priests and Other Fantasies . $19.95. Order from Keep the Faith, 810 Belmont Avenue, Post Office Box 8261, North Haledon, New Jersey 07508, telephone: (201) 423-5395. The author examines the pandemonium that results in the Christian Church (particularly the Catholic Church) when the senses of the sacred and supernatural are lost. The instant that Holy Scripture is judged by secular standards, the message of Christianity is hopelessly compromised and lost.
Robin Morgan (editor). Sisterhood is Powerful . New York: Vintage Books, 1970. The collection of radical Neofeminist essays that is sometimes used by Neofeminists instead of the Bible as they swear themselves into office. This gives some idea of just how much the Neofeminist movement owes to this book, which is an excellent collection of essays that illustrate vividly the character of the chilly Neofeminist ‘soul.’
Father William Oddie. What Will Happen to God? (Feminism and the Reconstruction of Christian Belief). 180 pages, $9.95. Order from: Ignatius Press, 15 Oakland Avenue, Harrison, New York 10528, telephone: 1-800-528-0559. The Neofeminists are striving to eliminate from all church documents and prayers what they consider to be “sexist” language. Father Oddie exposes the fallacies of this goal, and shows what will happen if we allow radical feminism to continue to dictate to the Church. The elimination of so-called “sexist” language is only the beginning! The Phyllis Schlafly Report . Monthly national newsletter of the Eagle Forum, which is involved in virtually every conservative issue. Subscription price $15 for one year and twelve issues. Write to Post Office Box 618, Alton, Illinois 62002.
John Piper and Wayne Grudem (editors). Recovering Biblical Manhood & Womanhood: A Response to Evangelical Feminism . Crossway Books, Wheaton, Illinois 60187. 1991, 575 pages. An outstanding collection of 26 scholarly essays by the leading Evangelical experts on marriage and the family. Topics include manhood and womanhood as defined by the Bible; head covering; the role of women in the churches; husbands and wives as analogues of Christ and the church; the inevitable failure of feminism; and the essence of femininity. This book, written by both men and women, is not a light read and is certainly not for Neoliberals, because the authors approach their topics from a strictly Biblical perspective.
Rosemary Radford Reuther. Womanguides: Readings Toward a Feminist Theology . Beacon Press, 1985. This tract, by one of the leading ‘thinkers’ of the Neofeminist movement, competently ties together the New Age religion, Neofeminism, and Neoliberalism to demonstrate how a featureless moral landscape may be produced by combining all of these evils.
Margaret Sanger. Woman and the New Race . Reprinted in 1969 by permission of the Sanger Estate by the Maxwell Reprint Company, Fairview Park, Elmsford, New York 10523. Any pro-life activist who wants to become familiar with the real attitudes and philosophy of the anti-life movement and Neofeminism in general should read this book. It is an utterly fascinating treatise by one of the original Neofeminists.
Special Libraries Association. Libraries and Information Centers Within Women’s Studies Research Centers . A compendium of information on what is available in Women’s Studies programs, primarily at colleges and universities. Also much information on a ‘network’ of information specialists who do women’s studies research. 125 pages, $7.00, published in 1988 by Special Libraries Association, 1700 18th Street NW, Washington DC 20009, telephone: (202) 234-4700.
Betty Steele. The Feminist Takeover: Patriarchy to Matriarchy in Two Decades . Published by Human Life International, 7845-E Airpark Road, Gaithersbury, Maryland 20879. 1989, $8.00. The origins of the Neofeminist movement and its contrasts to true feminism. This book outlines how a few influential women who hate men have contributed to the destruction of family life and of civilized society, and gives the word “Feminazi” new and compelling meaning.
Donna Steichen. Ungodly Rage: The Hidden Face of Catholic Feminism . Ignatius Press, San Francisco. 1991, 413 pages. A very detailed and absorbing account of how the Roman Catholic Church in the United States has been infiltrated and subverted by Neoliberals and Neofeminists for the express purpose of blunting its effectiveness in its reaction to evils such as divorce, abortion, and euthanasia.
Gail Grenier Sweet (editor). Pro-Life Feminism: Different Voices . 1985, $7.95. Order from Life Cycle Books, Post Office Box 792, Lewiston, New York 14092-0792. Telephone: (416) 690-5860. Reviewed by Leslie Bond in the October 24, 1985 National Right to Life News . This book is an anthology of articles that outline what it really means to be a feminist: to be dedicated to advancing the causes of all women -- including unborn women! It also thoroughly debunks the ingrained notion that a feminist stand must include abortion. The book discusses the Equal Rights Amendment and its pervasive connection to abortion, and compares and examines the differences between the National Organization for Women and Feminists for Life of America.
Rosemary Thomson. The Price of Liberty . Creation Press, 499 Gunderson Drive, Carol Stream, Illinois 60187. 1978, 162 pages. An overview of the foundation, origins, objectives, and ultimate results of the “women’s liberation movement.” Particular emphasis is given to the family under siege, the plight of the preborn, the Equal Rights Amendment, and what Christians can do to stem the tide.
Hans Urs von Balthasar, Joseph Ratzinger, Walter Kasper, et.al. The Church and Women: A Compendium . 280 pages, $14.95. Order from: Ignatius Press, 15 Oakland Avenue, Harrison, New York 10528, telephone: 1- 800-528-0559. A collection of articles by leading Church scholars on the role of women in the Catholic Church today and contemporary issues regarding feminism, including the ordination of women and the role and importance of the family. The role of women is developed in a context faithful to Scripture, tradition, and the Magisterium of the Church.
=================================================================