Archive for November 19th, 2010

No woman can call herself free who does not own and control her body. –  Margaret Sanger

The lie at the heart of neofeminism is perfectly illustrated by the way in which it misuses the slogan which forms the title of today’s column.  For the record, I support a woman’s free and unfettered right to an abortion in the first trimester; after that the nervous system of the baby (the medical term “fetus”, though technically correct, is too often used to obscure the truth by dehumanizing the subject of the discussion) begins to develop to a high enough degree for it to be considered human, and therefore entitled to the same protections as severely retarded children who are dependent on life support.  Twelve weeks is plenty of time to decide whether one wants an abortion or not, and barring late-term developments which endanger the mother it is thus a reasonable compromise between her rights and those of the unborn child.  To restrict abortion further is to reduce women to state-owned incubators for future taxpayers, and to allow it without any restrictions at all is to establish the dangerous legal precedent that some humans can be legally declared disposable.  I am not dogmatic about the date (a doctor might be able to convince me that, say, the 16th week is a better dividing line), nor am I declaring this so as to open the topic for debate; in fact, I specifically ask that none of my readers reply on the subject because A) this is not an appropriate venue for it; and B) Americans are as a group completely irrational about it and prefer to insist on either total illegality under any circumstance or total legality up until the moment labor starts.  The only reason I mention it at all is because I don’t want either anti-choice fanatics or anti-life fanatics claiming me as one of their own on the basis of selective interpretation of any statements I might make in today’s column.

OK, now that’s out of the way I must point out that though the landmark Roe vs. Wade decision established that a woman’s right to privacy includes her right to own and control her own body, the broader implications of the decision have been completely ignored in favor of a psychotic interpretation that a woman’s right to control her own sexuality does not include the right to have sex with whoever she chooses on whatever terms she chooses, yet does give her certain power over the persons of others!  In many (in some cases most or all) of the United States a woman is not legally permitted to consent to certain forms of sex (prostitution, BDSM, oral sex, etc) no matter how old she is, and in some states “mandatory prosecution laws” deny a woman the right to choose whether to press “domestic violence” charges on her husband or boyfriend, thus granting outsiders the power to judge her relationships and deny her access to her chosen partner through his incarceration.  Conversely, in some parts of the country a woman has the right to kill a viable baby (22 weeks or more) or to force a man to pay her substantial sums of money for two decades through theft of his genetic material (whether by lying about birth control or by the turkey-baster method).  The modern American woman is like a chained princess, able to control other’s bodies but not her own.

The reason for this profoundly asinine interpretation of a simple legal principle (the right of every citizen to be free from government interference in his or her private life) is, in a word, neofeminism.  After the neofeminists seized control of second-wave feminism in the late ‘70s, the “feminist” establishment became little more than a front for a determined campaign to castrate and subjugate men and eliminate traditional heterosexual relationships.  One must presume that even the most fanatical neofeminists recognize the need for reproduction, but they want to be sure that it is absolutely, completely and totally under neofeminist control and that any hint of pleasure or self-determination for men is removed from the equation.  Rabid neofeminists hate men exactly as misogynistic religious fundamentalists hate women; they accept them as a necessary evil but demand they be totally dominated by the state and forced to use their bodies only to serve women’s needs.  The neofeminist plan for men is like the Islamic fundamentalist plan for women:  the subjugated gender is vilified as inferior, treacherous and morally corrupt and is condemned to a life of unending toil, servitude and sexual submission with even the most minor transgressions subject to incredibly harsh penalties, all for the “good of society.”  And because of this, neofeminists oppose any and all forms of sexuality which allow a man to achieve gratification at a fair price such as porn, prostitution and equal marital relationships.

Given this catechism of hate, it should be obvious why the neofeminists support unlimited abortion rights and the principle of “rights without responsibilities for the woman, responsibilities without rights for the man” in anything to do with children, yet oppose a woman’s right to earn her living by pleasing men in any way or to consent to a relationship in which the man seems to have the upper hand.  To the neofeminist mind, the claim of “equal rights for women” is nothing but an excuse for the suppression of men and heterosexuality.  Equal rights entail equal responsibilities, and full social participation requires personal autonomy and the right to self-determination, yet the neofeminists consistently support legislation which reduces women to legally incompetent wards of the state.  Mandatory domestic violence prosecution, current paternity law and the “Nordic Model” of prostitution law all presume that adult women exist in a state of perpetual childhood in which we are neither competent to make our own decisions regarding sexual relations with men, nor liable for the consequences arising from our actions.

As I discussed in my column on modern marriage, it is a common misconception that the gender of those in power in a modern government has any real effect on its actions.  As I said in that column, “Institutions are inherently sexless; they can be made up of men, women, machines or any combination thereof without making any difference in their motivations or behavior.  All organizations, no matter what their constituency, wish to survive and grow, and will obtain that end by any means necessary; since the most powerful social forces emanate from women it is women who must be controlled in order to control society, even if those in power are mostly female.”  Because of their particular psychological dysfunction the neofeminists have an emotional need to control men, but that does not free them from the practical need to control women in order to control society.  And so they mouth platitudes about a “woman’s right to choose” while vehemently opposing it in actuality.

But now we’re seeing a new kind of feminist; most third-wave feminists enjoy being women, like men, enjoy sex and have internalized “equality” rhetoric to the point where they don’t want men to be treated unfairly any more than they want women to be.  They accept sex work as a valid choice, support a woman’s right to engage in BDSM and some have even spoken out against the way modern law treats men.  For the present, the neofeminists still dominate the establishment and still control the majority of grant money and legal discourse involving women, but that can’t last forever; the nasty old bitches who have been flapping around since the ‘70s like bloated vampire bats are starting to die off, and despite their efforts to indoctrinate a new generation of disciples their numbers are decreasing and their rhetoric seems more and more strident and disgusting to most young women.  So it’s only a matter of time before most of the feminists who have the ears of legislators will be those who embrace their sexuality rather than frightened, dried-up old hags, and when that day comes perhaps “a woman’s right to choose” will become something more than merely a euphemism for abortion.

Read Full Post »