Rush Limbaugh earned the eternal enmity of feminists
when, years ago, he coined the phrase 'Feminazis' to describe today's' liberated
feminists. Rush has been proven, once again, to be ahead of his time. When reviewing
the state of feminism today, one can only marvel at his prescience.
Feminism has evolved. Not unlike the evolution of the
far left, feminism has turned into a militant, no dissent allowed, alliance of shrill,
decidedly un-feminine harpies. The self-anointed leaders of this evolved brand of
feminism have arbitrarily declared themselves 'The Experts' on all things relating
to the female sex. Period. End of discussion.
Despite their lack of credibility and an increasingly
bizarre agenda, a complaisant media has ensured that feminists still have enormous
clout. And they have no qualms about using their clout to utterly destroy any heretic
who dares disagree with their basic premise.
Their basic premise goes something like this:
Anything women do is OK and anyone who disagrees is a misogynist. Women, including
lesbians, transgendered and self-described 'women' who still possess male DNA, are
not only equal to men, they are to be regarded as the same as men.
Women are 'oppressed,' victims of the (white) male patriarchy and, by golly, they
have the right to censor anyone who disagrees with this settled fact. Oh, and homosexuality
is biological. Even though scientists have yet to find that elusive 'gay' gene,
feminists have decreed that homosexuality is not a choice, therefore all gays and
lesbians and transgendered, etc., etc., are victims.
These new, evolved feminists still see themselves as
'speaking truth to power', long after they have achieved their goal of emasculating
at least half the white males in America. (Or, at least, scaring them into submission)
The latest heretic to run afoul of feminazis is one
J. Michael Bailey, a psychologist at Northwestern University,
who had the audacity to publish a book in 2003 entitled, 'The Man Who Would be King.'
In it, he brazenly disputed a core element of the new, evolved feminism, to wit:
Maybe cross-dressing males are motivated by "..an erotic fascination with themselves
This theory is in direct contravention with a core
feminist tenet, that male cross-dressers are victims of a biological mistake. In
other words, instead of being perverts, they're victims. And feminazis have decided
that these 'victims' are in need of empowerment (liberal speak for validation).
Supplied by feminists, of course.
J. Michael Bailey's four year 'punishment' by reigning
feminists is the subject of a fascinating article in today's New York Times. Well
worth the read.
J. Bailey now ranks right up there with Lawrence Sumners,
late President of Harvard, who also had the audacity to challenge a cherished belief
of feminists. For daring to imply that men and women might have differing inclinations
for math and science, Sumners was pilloried, fried, and hung out to dry.
Despite his cowardly capitulation in the form of numerous
mea culpas (despite the fact that his comment was verifiably true) Sumners was forced
to resign from Harvard. Adding insult to injury, Harvard further capitulated to
the reigning feminazis in the form of $50 million bucks - added to the coffers of
the 'women's study' program. All in all, a pretty tasty meal for feminists, especially
since others paid the price.
No wonder men are quaking in their boots. No wonder
many men (and women) think twice before challenging even the most crackpot theories
put forth by these women. No wonder 'metro-sexuality' is becoming a viable career
option for formerly masculine men.
Learn to cry, keep your job. Parrot the feminist line and gain immediate media attention
and the valued title of 'pundit.' Wear your sensitivity on your sleeve, and pretty
soon you'll be wearing Gucci. A good living for those who agree with the party line.
These examples are but a small part of a growing trend
on the left. From feminists to environmentalists to race hustlers, any dissent from
prevailing orthodoxy, as defined by liberals, is akin to blasphemy. And met with
instant punishment. Self-anointed 'spokesmen' who blithely don the mantle of 'expert'
declare a position, quickly announce that the issue is settled, and then retreat
to their war rooms to mete out punishment to anyone who dares challenge their wisdom.
So far, these tactics have worked quite well. Myriad
examples of broken men, ruined careers, social ostracization and threat of same
have served to stifle most dissenting views. Threats of 'racism' serve to silence
any critics of bad behaviour by blacks. Actual loss of grant money and reputations
serve to silence global warming 'deniers'. Actual loss of jobs accompany any dissent
with feminists. The list goes on.
The good news is, these 'experts' have been lulled
into thinking that they are, indeed, the last word on any given subject. They've
proven their power and there is no-one in their orbit who thinks any differently.
What they haven't reckoned with is that the 98% of Americans who don't belong to
their elite club aren't buying what they're selling. These 'experts' just haven't
figured it out yet.
Old axioms usually hold true. Specifically, what goes
around, comes around. I'll go out on a limb and predict that the last word has yet
to be written. Any dissent on that?
Nancy Morgan is a columnist and a news editor for
www.RightBias.com She lives in South Carolina.