by Erik Rush
Of all the movements that sprang from the Civil Rights era, the feminist movement has probably been the single most damaging to our nation. While it is clear that certain issues of parity where women were concerned – such as in the workplace – proved to be as necessary as dismantling Jim Crow laws, it has also become clear that those who drove this movement were less concerned with women’s rights than expanding socialist policies in America. This is old hat to many of us by now.
But why such an unequivocal statement as “the single most damaging”? I say this because while the issues and subsequent “remedies” respecting interest groups during that period of time primarily affected those groups directly and impacted society as a whole to a somewhat lesser degree, the feminist movement primarily affected women – more than half our population – in very fundamental ways. The effect on the remainder of the population – namely males, and thus society as a whole – was, and will likely remain, incalculable.
Starting in the late 1960s, socialists in politics and the media characteristically targeted women as another dissatisfied minority who would be brought into the fold as advocates for the social engineering necessary to bring about a socialist revolution in the United States. Again, legitimate parity issues aside, the number of women who were dissatisfied – read “future feminists” – was very small indeed. However, using such well-spoken and high-profile trolls as Betty Friedan, Bella Abzug, and other predominantly East Coast libertines, Marxists were able to articulate their message very effectively.
As with minorities, gays, the handicapped, and other special interests, the promise was “we’ll look out for you”; to the rest of us, the unspoken mantra: “who wouldn’t want equality for these folks?” So, while the Neandertals – mostly fly-over state people – protested, most of us shut up while such wisdom as “it’s OK for women to be promiscuous if it’s OK for men”, and “fathers and mothers are interchangeable” became mainstream.
More women entered the workforce, less out of desire than out of the necessity generated by those the Left insinuated into legislative and regulatory areas of government, which eventually taxed and regulated business into subsistence mode. But enter the workforce they did, and as time went on, domesticity became a scarlet letter rather than a badge of honor. Women who thought they were doing the right thing evolved into lousy wives and mothers.
Not that men were blameless, of course. Leaving aside those males who were architects within the movement, many males - particularly young, ignorant ones such as I was back in the day – were more than willing to oblige the crop of “enlightened” women who now were perfectly willing to engage in sex within fifteen minutes of meeting a fellow. This of course led to all sorts of emotional malaise on both sides, shallow, doomed marriages and depressed, maladjusted children. It bears mentioning here that this was all part of the plan.
What also bears mentioning is that this “new wisdom” made for handy extrapolations regarding the Gay Rights agenda: If moms and dads are interchangeable, then two moms or two dads ought to be as good as one of each, and other such groundless propaganda. We’re admonished that homosexuals now have the right to their own social experiment, dismal and destructive though it promises to be.
Women continue to be propagandized and confused with inference that they ought to be able to have it all at the same time. With their innate drives supplanted by even more unreasonable cultural demands than prior to the Sexual Revolution, stress and yet more dissatisfaction results. In a relationship, they are instructed that sex is a weapon to be wielded, lest their men control them completely.
Men, as hard-wired to provide and protect as women are to nurture, balk inwardly at the prospect of emotionally becoming, well, women. They feel neglected, and at a deep emotional level, rightly so - but God help the husband so rash as to interfere with his wife’s pursuit of her inner Oprah. Their roles ridiculed and usurped, they displace their emotional needs through work or less healthy social outlets, or they leave, finding yet another female as confused as their mate, but without the familiar, tiresome baggage. If there are children, the stage has been set for the cycle to begin anew.
Previously indoctrinated low-income and minority groups proved the easiest to corrupt. With direct financial infusion into communities and households being weaned off of religion and traditional values and into the culture of victimization, substance abuse, and sensualism, women became self-hating, undereducated baby machines and men became shiftless purveyors of sperm. As with the rest of the males in society, what they need the most – to be needed – has become nearly unattainable, so why stay in a marriage or bother to raise one’s spawn?
So, here we are in the 21 st century. All of the arguments feminists made thirty years ago have been exploded, yet they (and now the sexual orientation movement) are still making them, even more vociferously. The legacy of a promiscuous populace has given us sexually-transmitted diseases we didn’t even know existed in the late ‘Sixties – yet the Left still asserts people have a right to their promiscuity. We’ve experienced the dysfunction that arises in families when either parent is physically or emotionally absent, yet we’re still told that either will do. In a “perfect” socialist state, of course, both are expendable.
Where does it end? You tell me? Like the addict, perhaps we will have to reach a level of demoralization and misery so profound that there will be no room left for the denial that a fundamental perversion of human society can somehow work. Or, like the addict who goes on denying to the bitter end, we will, as a society, die.
Of all the movements that sprang from the Civil Rights era, the feminist movement has probably been the single most damaging to our nation. While it is clear that certain issues of parity where women were concerned – such as in the workplace – proved to be as necessary as dismantling Jim Crow laws, it has also become clear that those who drove this movement were less concerned with women’s rights than expanding socialist policies in America. This is old hat to many of us by now.
But why such an unequivocal statement as “the single most damaging”? I say this because while the issues and subsequent “remedies” respecting interest groups during that period of time primarily affected those groups directly and impacted society as a whole to a somewhat lesser degree, the feminist movement primarily affected women – more than half our population – in very fundamental ways. The effect on the remainder of the population – namely males, and thus society as a whole – was, and will likely remain, incalculable.
Starting in the late 1960s, socialists in politics and the media characteristically targeted women as another dissatisfied minority who would be brought into the fold as advocates for the social engineering necessary to bring about a socialist revolution in the United States. Again, legitimate parity issues aside, the number of women who were dissatisfied – read “future feminists” – was very small indeed. However, using such well-spoken and high-profile trolls as Betty Friedan, Bella Abzug, and other predominantly East Coast libertines, Marxists were able to articulate their message very effectively.
As with minorities, gays, the handicapped, and other special interests, the promise was “we’ll look out for you”; to the rest of us, the unspoken mantra: “who wouldn’t want equality for these folks?” So, while the Neandertals – mostly fly-over state people – protested, most of us shut up while such wisdom as “it’s OK for women to be promiscuous if it’s OK for men”, and “fathers and mothers are interchangeable” became mainstream.
More women entered the workforce, less out of desire than out of the necessity generated by those the Left insinuated into legislative and regulatory areas of government, which eventually taxed and regulated business into subsistence mode. But enter the workforce they did, and as time went on, domesticity became a scarlet letter rather than a badge of honor. Women who thought they were doing the right thing evolved into lousy wives and mothers.
Not that men were blameless, of course. Leaving aside those males who were architects within the movement, many males - particularly young, ignorant ones such as I was back in the day – were more than willing to oblige the crop of “enlightened” women who now were perfectly willing to engage in sex within fifteen minutes of meeting a fellow. This of course led to all sorts of emotional malaise on both sides, shallow, doomed marriages and depressed, maladjusted children. It bears mentioning here that this was all part of the plan.
What also bears mentioning is that this “new wisdom” made for handy extrapolations regarding the Gay Rights agenda: If moms and dads are interchangeable, then two moms or two dads ought to be as good as one of each, and other such groundless propaganda. We’re admonished that homosexuals now have the right to their own social experiment, dismal and destructive though it promises to be.
Women continue to be propagandized and confused with inference that they ought to be able to have it all at the same time. With their innate drives supplanted by even more unreasonable cultural demands than prior to the Sexual Revolution, stress and yet more dissatisfaction results. In a relationship, they are instructed that sex is a weapon to be wielded, lest their men control them completely.
Men, as hard-wired to provide and protect as women are to nurture, balk inwardly at the prospect of emotionally becoming, well, women. They feel neglected, and at a deep emotional level, rightly so - but God help the husband so rash as to interfere with his wife’s pursuit of her inner Oprah. Their roles ridiculed and usurped, they displace their emotional needs through work or less healthy social outlets, or they leave, finding yet another female as confused as their mate, but without the familiar, tiresome baggage. If there are children, the stage has been set for the cycle to begin anew.
Previously indoctrinated low-income and minority groups proved the easiest to corrupt. With direct financial infusion into communities and households being weaned off of religion and traditional values and into the culture of victimization, substance abuse, and sensualism, women became self-hating, undereducated baby machines and men became shiftless purveyors of sperm. As with the rest of the males in society, what they need the most – to be needed – has become nearly unattainable, so why stay in a marriage or bother to raise one’s spawn?
So, here we are in the 21 st century. All of the arguments feminists made thirty years ago have been exploded, yet they (and now the sexual orientation movement) are still making them, even more vociferously. The legacy of a promiscuous populace has given us sexually-transmitted diseases we didn’t even know existed in the late ‘Sixties – yet the Left still asserts people have a right to their promiscuity. We’ve experienced the dysfunction that arises in families when either parent is physically or emotionally absent, yet we’re still told that either will do. In a “perfect” socialist state, of course, both are expendable.
Where does it end? You tell me? Like the addict, perhaps we will have to reach a level of demoralization and misery so profound that there will be no room left for the denial that a fundamental perversion of human society can somehow work. Or, like the addict who goes on denying to the bitter end, we will, as a society, die.
