Free Republic
Browse · Search
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Crouse Delivers Speech at Princeton:A Conservative Critique of Feminism
Concerned Women for America ^ | 10/8/2003 | Dr. Crouse

Posted on 10/08/2003 11:14:12 AM PDT by Vindiciae Contra TyrannoSCOTUS

A recent CBS poll revealed that three out of four women described the word feminist as an insult.

Another study found that the number of working women who believe that a career is as important as being a wife and mother has fallen 23 percent since the 1970s.

What has caused such a dramatic change in women's attitudes?

Cindy Crawford, the supermodel, dislikes the word "feminist." An interview in the September 2000 issue of George magazine explains, "The word feminist has such negative connotations to me."

Cindy is not alone. Experts agree that women are growing more and more uncomfortable with the current feminist movement.

What has happened to a movement that was supposed to make it possible for women to "have it all?"

Feminism has gone the wrong way, baby!

Feminism is out of step with mainstream women.

"Having it all" -- for most women -- doesn't mean: hatred for men, lesbianism, and radical politics. -- most women can't relate.

I could spend our time together giving you facts and data about the outcomes of modern feminism.

Instead, you can access and study that data in a report I wrote called, "Gaining Ground: A Profile of American Women in the Twentieth Century," which can be found on our website: In that report you will find 100 years of data about women's well-being -- much of it previously unpublished.

But let's make it more relevant to your own lives. Your generation has seen the personal disaster of the feminist movement and so-called sexual freedom in the lives of the women you know. Many of you are yourselves children of divorce. Many of you have helped a friend deal with a surprise pregnancy -- perhaps even walked that friend through her abortion. STD's . . . broken hearts. . . the list could go on and on.

Let's ride the feminist wave backward a bit, and revisit the foundations of modern feminism, back to the Second Wave of the Sixties and Seventies. Let's look at the effect feminist ideals had on the lives of three founders of modern feminism. You know these women's writings; they are feminist icons. But how much do you know about their personal lives? As they say, "The proof is in the pudding."

Betty Friedan -- Friedan, the mother of the feminist movement, gave us "The Feminine Mystique" -- and the "problem that has no name." That problem - according to Friedan - is that women are victims. Being female means having delusions and false values and being forced to find fulfillment and identity through husbands and children. Friedan worked 9 hours a day - declaring that being a wife and mother was "not going to interfere with what I regarded as my real life." Even her friends describe Friedan as difficult, ill tempered, disagreeable, ego-driven, rude, nasty, self-serving and imperious. Unhappily married for 21 years, her three children had to undergo therapy to deal with what was called "the emotional fallout."

Gloria Steinem -- Steinem was the beauty queen of the feminist movement. Steinem, a Phi Beta Kappa graduate, was engaged to her college boyfriend. After breaking up with him and discovering that she was pregnant, she had an abortion. Later, Steinem founded Ms. Magazine and coined two phrases -- "reproductive freedom" and "pro-choice" -- bringing a brilliant sense of marketing to a movement that glossed over the realities of promiscuity and abortion and propelled so-called "sexual freedom" into the mainstream. Steinem famously declared that a woman needs a man like a fish needs a bicycle. She remained single until her 60s -- when she recently married a divorced man with grown children.

Germaine Greer -- Known as the diva of feminism, Germaine Greer is, like Gloria Steinem, now in her 60s. Greer has two books: "The Female Eunuch" kick-started her fame and "The Whole Woman," published recently basically repudiates everything Greer had said previously. Known for her bawdy diatribes, Greer preached that sexual liberation is the path to fulfillment. Greer has had "several" abortions -- leaving her unable to have children. She was married -- briefly -- for a week, during which time, she brags, she cheated on her husband 7 times. She has stooped in recent months to getting attention by being an apologist for female genital mutilation. Greer was married once for three weeks. She bragged that she cheated seven times that week. But at age 60, she mused: "The finest time in your life was when you fell asleep in someone's arms and woke up in the same position eight hours later. Sleeping in someone's arms is the prize." Inevitably, she sleeps alone.

What do these women -- and other disparate personalities like Patricia Ireland, Alice and Rebecca Walker, Hillary Clinton -- have in common? All of these women are Utopians. They scorn the lessons of history.

The First Wave of feminism won the right to vote and the right to own property.

The Second Wave won no-fault divorce and abortion on demand.

The Second Wave drove their political ideology, but its not just about being Democrats. I want you to think beyond partisan politics and see the motivating ideology at work.

Tonight, look beyond the surface debates over the issues that capture the headlines and roil the waters - abortion, gay rights, eating disorders, comparable worth -- and think about the animating spirit - the gravitational pull, if you will -- that keeps the waves crashing on the beach.

Perhaps that is why the Organization of Women Leaders has as part of its mission statement to rewrite the definition of feminism, transform people's perceptions, and challenge the conventions about women's roles. You are a group of remarkably gifted, talented young women. The goals and aspirations you have for your lives are exciting. And you will, just as you have planned, change the world in many ways. Living in American society today offers unprecedented opportunities for women. These opportunities were hard-won. We owe a great debt to the early feminists. Because of their work years ago, women today have incredible horizons.

But from my vantage point, having walked ahead of you through many of life's opportunities and challenges, I am equally aware of the pitfalls you face because modern feminism ignores the relationship between decisions/choices and consequences. For instance, more than 10 times as many women cohabitate now as when I graduated from college. And most have no idea that these relationships generally last a mere 18 months. Most are clueless about the fact that when living together turns into marriage it is almost always the guy who makes the decision and those marriages are 50% more likely to end in divorce than are the marriages where the couple did not live together before marriage.

So, the so-called sexual freedom -- a basic tenet of modern feminism -- has been disaster for women. Your generation recognizes that even better than mine. And, you are leading the effort to reconstruct feminism, to repackage, and reposition the movement into a Third Wave of feminism. I understand that OWL recently had a discussion about "what is feminism?" I am going to guess, from looking at your goals and activities as an organization, that you would broadly describe your agenda as falling under a rubric of empowering women. Frankly, most people would join you in that admirable goal. As you pursue that laudable goal, I want to challenge you NOT to repeat history.

To that end, tonight, let's review two historical 20th century Utopian experiments -- communism in the east and feminism in the west.


Both movements originated as a result of discontent with flawed social, economic and political systems.

Communist Discontent originated over the barely subsistence wages given to labor and the unequal distributions of wealth. Marx, in writing "Das Kapital," his monumental critique of capitalism, argued that capitalism was fundamentally exploitive and so hopelessly flawed that it would collapse under the weight of its contradictions. Marx offered a shining vision of an egalitarian socialistic society where the output of the community would share according a noble, altruistic principle: "from each according to his abilities to each according to his needs."

The feminist theorists of the mid 20th century also put forward a Utopian vision of the "good society" based on often-savage critiques of the existing progressive social order. Feminist Discontent originated in women's dependence on men and their unequal opportunities. The feminists' Utopia was a blend of sexual and economic equality, borrowed from earlier First Wave champions of women's rights, and social justice borrowed from the civil rights movement, which had just come into full flower with the passage of the Civil Rights Act in 1964.


Both movements rebelled against deeply entrenched obstacles.

It is worth noting that communism first came into being via the Bolshevik revolution in 1917 -- a rebellion NOT against a system of free market capitalism -- but against the dictatorial monarchy of Tsar Nicholas II.

The Marxist rebellion, then, was against a dictatorship and a cruelly class-stratified society; it was an attempt to end poverty. To communist thinkers, once the workers' paradise was fully established, poverty would disappear and the temporary dictatorship required by the transition to socialism would become unnecessary and the state would wither away.

The feminist revolution rebelled against inequality and the domination of patriarchy. To feminist thinkers, the great obstacle to progress toward a sexless, egalitarian society- where women could be free to realize the fulfillment of their heart's desires-was patriarchy and all elements of the social order that supported it, particularly marriage and religion. The males in society had to be reeducated as to their proper roles relating to women and, where necessary, coerced into letting women pursue their professions on a "level playing field." In the event that sexual activity resulted in an unwanted pregnancy, abortion on demand would be readily available. In those instances where a woman chose to have children, institutional arrangements had to be put in place so that the rearing of those children would not be burdensome or interfere with career aspirations.

Note that in both of these systems of thought, the source of the problems-the obstacles to progress-were faulty institutional arrangements, factors external to the individual. Defective institutions produced defective behavior that produced negative outcomes. The solution was not individual moral accountability for greed, oppression, and exploitation. The solution was to change the institutional arrangements, which would then produce positive behavior and outcomes.


Who is not inspired by the thought of an egalitarian society, where an equal distribution of wealth, power and influence is the norm . . . and NOT a mere utopian dream? Who is not inspired by the elimination of poverty? The elimination of patriarchy?

But, everywhere that Communism has ruled, it has been via a totalitarian regime established by force, never by free elections. As Mao famously said, "All power comes from the barrel of a gun." Well, let us visit Utopia and see the outcomes. Let us ask the residents of Russia, China, Cuba, North Korea, Vietnam, and Cambodia.

Stalin is quoted as having said, "A single death is a tragedy, a million deaths is a statistic." Utopian schemes produce a lot of statistics.

Let's try to grasp those statistics:

How ironic. Marx had promised: Workers of the world unite; you have nothing to lose but your chains.

It didn't work out quite that way.

The Marxist rhetoric was high sounding and noble, but in the forced labor camps, individuals are insignificant and expendable.

How does this relate to feminism? We are confronted with another utopian ideal, whose animating principles ---- women's rights, sexual equality, and the fulfillment of women's potential- are high-sounding and noble.

But like the tragic irony of communism, feminist ideals have betrayed us and produced massive damage both to women and to their children:

How is possible to start out with high sounding, noble ideals and end up with so much wretchedness? What are we to learn for the examination of these two massive Utopian experiments? There are two sources of difficulty.

The first is metaphysical: the origin and nature of evil. I've already alluded to this issue by my observation that both of these systems of thought ascribed negative, evil outcomes as being the result of faulty institutional arrangements external to the individual.

The second source of difficulty is the fact that you cannot ignore nature, specifically human nature.

The Utopians deny the fact that human nature makes demands on all of us -- that there are realities that we all have to deal with in life. They naively believe that they can shape the world to fit their utopian vision. They want a world where they can control both their actions and the consequences of their actions.

But of course, choices do have consequences and we have to lie with them - for good or ill. We frequently use that phrase when we want to emphasize avoiding negative consequences. But tonight, I want to emphasize to you, that there is a tried and true path to positive consequences in your life. Not to Utopia - but to a life of fulfillment and positive accomplishment that benefits both you and society.

I chose a different path than Gloria Steinem, Betty Freidan, and Germaine Greer. But my circumstances were not all that different; nor were the ambitions and inner drive any less compelling. I want to share my story because your generation needs to hear from someone in my generation how you CAN just about have it all.


Gil Crouse decided that he wanted me for his wife and he set about to win my heart.


From this brief overview, you can see that the things motivating me were not different from Betty, Gloria or Germaine. You can also see the different values, priorities, and the different choices we made and the different outcomes. All four of us started out with the same hard-driving ambition, but we had different priorities and different goals.


What do I think is wrong with feminism? I think somewhere along the way, feminism lost its way. The movement forgot that "having it all" included the personal dimension. Life is not just profession and career. Success is not measured JUST in paycheck and status.

The 2003 young businesswoman of the year, Gabrielle Molnar, explained that she didn't want to be called a feminist because feminism doesn't support the cause of women.

I couldn't have said it better myself. Feminism has lost sight of what it is that women REALLY want. Most women want to love and be loved. They want the freedom to be all they can be and they want to be treated with dignity and respect. They also want the opportunity to have meaningful careers and productive lives -- but most aren't willing for their ambition to harm their relationships or damage their children.

I'm grateful that you are working to change people's perceptions of women - bright, talented women have plenty of opportunities for professional growth today and you have more flexibility than the women who preceded you. What is needed most -- at this point in history -- is the chance to revel in being feminine and to relish a fulfilling personal life.

More power to you as you take all that into account as you redefine what it means to be a woman and what it means to "have it all."

I'd like to conclude with a brief story:

A couple of years ago, I was speaking at a liberal arts college convocation. The President of the college and I stood at the front of the auditorium watching the students as they arrived. He turned to me and said, "Janice, do you realize - THERE IS THE FUTURE OF AMERICA?"

I'm tremendously impressed by your ambition; by your talent and your dedication to excellence.

I admire your willingness to accept the challenges of leadership.


Tonight as I look out at you, I am very much aware that:


May God bless you and, through you, may God bless America.

TOPICS: Culture/Society; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: cwa; feminism
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-80 next last

1 posted on 10/08/2003 11:14:13 AM PDT by Vindiciae Contra TyrannoSCOTUS
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Vindiciae Contra TyrannoSCOTUS
Dr. Crouse is a brilliant woman - a little known national treasure.
2 posted on 10/08/2003 11:16:56 AM PDT by anniegetyourgun
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: All

God Bless America!
God Bless This Man!

Keep Our Republic Free

Or mail checks to
FreeRepublic , LLC
PO BOX 9771
FRESNO, CA 93794

or you can use

PayPal at

It is in the breaking news sidebar!

3 posted on 10/08/2003 11:17:05 AM PDT by Support Free Republic (Your support keeps Free Republic going strong!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Comment #4 Removed by Moderator

To: Vindiciae Contra TyrannoSCOTUS
A recent CBS poll revealed that three out of four women described the word feminist as an insult.

I'd be peeved. It's belittling. It means left wing extremist dyke if you ask me.

(Bookmarked for cool e-mails when the issue arises. LOL.)

5 posted on 10/08/2003 11:26:53 AM PDT by concerned about politics (Lucifers lefties are still stuck at the bottom of Maslow's Hierarchy)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Vindiciae Contra TyrannoSCOTUS
Oh good grief....

Feminism is NOT about "hatred for men, lesbianism, and radical politics". It is and has always been about equal opportunities for everyone ... same as the civil rights movement.

Feminism is NOT about "having it all" . No one "has it all". Men don't and never did "have it all". Feminism is about having the opportunity to make individual choices for oneself. Hello? Does the "pursuit of happiness" ring a bell with this author? It doesn't say the gaurantee of happiness, its says the PURSUIT ... which means the free and equal opportunity to make one's own choices ... even wrong choices. The opposite has a name ... it's called totalitarianism.

Feminism is NOT about abortion. See and see feminism in the rest of the world where women do NOT want abortion.

The author takes the most radical elements of feminism (every political movement has it's radical element). This would be like judging Republicans and conservatives on the basis of the KKK and the likes of David Duke.

Every social/political movement has it's radical fringe. Ask what woman would want to go live in a country where women's rights are arbitrarily and frighteningly restricted? Any volunteers? Cindy Crawford maybe? She'd last about 3 seconds in one of those places.

6 posted on 10/08/2003 11:31:33 AM PDT by Lorianne
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Vindiciae Contra TyrannoSCOTUS
Actually the utopian feminazis Dr. Crouse appropriately skewers are rather mild compared to the gender supreamacist feminazis who are very much around on the university campus here is a good introduction (NOTE NOT FOR THE SQUEAMISH). I have tried to censor out all onscenities and apologize of some slipped through. These people routinely use the language that would make a long shoreman blush.


James Roger Brown


2020 West 3rd Street--Suite-210
Little Rock, AR.--72205-4463
Telephone (501) 771-7527

"The cultural institutions which embody and enforce those interlocked aberrations--for instance, law, art, religion, nation-states, the family, tribe, or commune based on father-right--these institutions are real and they must be destroyed. If they are not, we will be consigned as women to perpetual inferiority and subjugation."-Andrea Dworkin, The Root Cause: Our Blood: Prophecies And Discourse On Sexual Politics, 1975, 1976. (Internet posting.)

Female Supremacists and Lesbian Separatists are the self-declared enemy of all men and families. The purpose of the Family Defense Manual is to prepare you for the worst possibility. If you are male or a woman who chooses to participate in family life and child rearing, Female Supremacists and Lesbian Separatists are your worst enemies. Their political ideology has your extermination as one of its goals. Their ideology presumes that all men and any woman voluntarily involved in a marital relationship are genetically inferior to lesbians. If you are inferior, their ideology calls for your extermination. This is one major source of the attack on American families.

The material in this section is taken from Female Supremacist and Lesbian Separatist literature and websites. After reading this section, it should be clear to you that Female Supremacists and Lesbian Separatists can not be reasoned with. The acts of atrocity they are committing in pursuit of their political ideology, among other undesirable consequences, are killing people through subversion of the criminal justice system and the intentional manipulation of children and adults to commit suicide and acts of violence. This can not be tolerated by a civilized society.


As can best be determined at present, the Female Supremacist's and Lesbian Separatist's leadership and ideology emerged from a series of feminist, lesbian and social work conferences and seminars during the 1973-1975 time period. As did Adolph Hitler, these women concluded the best way to destroy the current social structure and replace it with their own desired reality would be to infiltrate and exploit the powers inherent in state and federal bureaucracies. This insight came from Female Supremacists and Lesbian Separatists employed in social service and social work programs at the time. Over the following years, more elaborate subversive and supporting organized crime management structures evolved as part of the normal problem-solving process required by any complex project.

Also as with Hitler, Female Supremacists and Lesbian Separatists developed plans to destroy and eventually exterminate (gendercide) the group they believed responsible for their personal misery -- MEN. Lesbian relationships that cross agencies and professional disciplines are a key coordination tool. This increasingly sophisticated endeavor includes development of private corporations which provide important functions within the organization, including use of information necessary to coordinate the destruction of families and the criminalization of as many men as possible.

All of this being conducted behind the legal wall of secrecy set up around the "child protection system." (When contacted, national and local gay and lesbian organizations indicated they had no information about such groups. Sources inside the gay and lesbian community indicate there is general abhorrence of these extremists, but no one knows what to do about them. This is probably also true for leadership in mental health and social work professional organizations. No one wants to do the necessary housecleaning, because they fear offending allies and damaging their own economic or political interests.)

The result is something unique in human history. A self-appointed group of well educated, intelligent, man-hatred motivated women, occupying positions of power and influence, who believe they will not achieve justice and personal happiness until they succeed in destroying every vestige of all social components of the civilization into which they were born. These women have collectively chosen to pursue the total destruction of all social processes by which civilization is passed from one generation to the next. These women are actively working to achieve this destruction. They are succeeding. Our current political, legal and professional leadership is not competent to understand or deal with the new forms of subversion, terrorism and supporting criminal management structure (especially the organized crime among psychology practitioners, social work practitioners, and in psychological testing) these women have created or exploited to achieve their goal.

The solution to this problem is two-fold: (1) identify these hate motivated female subversives and terrorists so the legal system may be used to remove them from government or professional positions which allow them to adversely affect the lives of others in pursuit of their hate agenda; (2) identify the subversive, terrorist, and criminal operations these women have established to achieve the destruction of our civilization and initiate legal action to shut these operations down.

Holding individual Female Supremacists and Lesbian Separatists responsible for the consequences of their criminal and subversive actions is reasonable and will avoid yet another witch hunt. Regardless of how you personally feel about lesbians, they have always been a component of the human population. Their existence is a reality. There would be no more justice in persecuting all lesbians for the acts of Female Supremacists and Lesbian Separatists than there is in Female Supremacists and Lesbian Separatists trying to exterminate all men because these women can not find happiness. As a practical matter it would be a waste of resources. We need only identify the guilty and see that what they have done can never happen again.


Supremacists are dangerous, regardless of the qualifier one places in front of the word. Our nation has the good sense to monitor the activities of supremacists who are likely candidates for converting their right to speak about superiority into executing their supremacist views as policies, which usually translate into executing people or depriving people of their human and civil rights.

Unfortunately for us, our policing mechanisms have missed stealth supremacist and separatist movements hiding among feminists -- Female Supremacists and Lesbian Separatists. Female Supremacists and Lesbian Separatists exhibit the same dangerous traits as other supremacists and separatists. These dangerous traits include assertions of biological superiority, a mob mentality at public events, use of intimidation and fear, outright lies, demands for special privileges, claims of being unforgivably wronged, the association of unwarranted interpretations with genuine facts, and the subversion of government and justice.

Feminist ideologist Andrea Dworkin related her experience speaking at a 1977 Lesbian Pride Week event that demonstrates why Female Supremacists and Lesbian Separatists are dangerous and should be considered a very serious threat:

"Hisses. Women shouting at me: slut, bisexual, she XXXs men. And before I had spoken, I had been trembling, more afraid to speak than I had ever been. And, in a room of 200 sister lesbians, as angry as I have ever been. "Are you a bisexual?" some woman screamed over the pandemonium, the hisses and shouts merging into a raging noise. "I'm a Jew," I answered; then, a pause, "and a lesbian, and a woman." And a coward. Jew was enough. In that room, Jew was what mattered. In that room, to answer the question "Do you still XXX men?" with a No, as I did, was to betray my deepest convictions. All of my life, I have hated the proscribers, those who enforce sexual conformity. In answering, I had given in to the inquisitors, and I felt ashamed. It humiliated me to see myself then: one who resists the enforcers out there with militancy, but gives in without resistance to the enforcers among us. The event was a panel on "Lesbianism as a Personal Politic" that took place in New York City, Lesbian Pride Week 1977. A self-proclaimed lesbian separatist had spoken. Amidst the generally accurate description of male crimes against women came this ideological rot, articulated of late with increasing frequency in feminist circles: women and men are distinct species or races (the words are used interchangeably); men are biologically inferior to women; male violence is a biological inevitability; to eliminate it, one must eliminate the species/race itself (means stated on this particular evening: developing parthenogenesis as a viable reproductive reality); in eliminating the biologically inferior species/race Man, the new Ubermensch Womon (prophetically foreshadowed by the lesbian separatist herself) will have the earthly dominion that is her true biological destiny. We are left to infer that the society of her creation will be good because she is good, biologically good. In the interim, incipient Super Womon will not do anything to "encourage" women to "collaborate" with men--no abortion clinics or battered woman sanctuaries will come from her. After all, she has to conserve her "energy" which must not be dissipated keeping "weaker" women alive through reform measures. The audience applauded the passages on female superiority/male inferiority enthusiastically. This doctrine seemed to be music to their ears. ((Internet posting.) LETTERS FROM A WAR ZONE: Biological Superiority: The Worlds' Most Dangerous and Deadly Idea. Andrea Dworkin, 1977, 1988, 1993.)

"Recently, more and more feminists have been advocating social, spiritual, and mythological models that are female-supremacist and/or matriarchal . . . . But the price we pay is that we become carriers of the disease we must cure. It is no accident that in the ancient matriarchies men were castrated, sacrificially slaughtered, and excluded from public forms of power; nor is it an accident that some Female Supremacists and Lesbian Separatists now believe men to be a distinct and inferior species or race. Wherever power is accessible or bodily integrity honored on the basis of biological attribute, systematized cruelty permeates the society and murder and mutilation contaminate it. We will not be different . . . . It is shamefully easy for us to enjoy our own fantasies of biological omnipotence while despising men for enjoying the reality of theirs. And it is dangerous--because genocide begins, however improbably, in the conviction that classes of biological distinction indisputably sanction social and political discrimination. We, who have been devastated by the concrete consequences of this idea, still want to put our faith in it. Nothing offers more proof--sad, irrefutable proof--that we are more like men than either they or we care to believe." ((Internet posting.) LETTERS FROM A WAR ZONE: Biological Superiority: The Worlds' Most Dangerous and Deadly Idea. Andrea Dworkin, 1977, 1988, 1993.)

As you just read, Female Supremism is based on assertions that: (1) lesbians are biologically superior to all men (Do the male homosexuals who march with these women during Gay Pride Week know this?); (2) all men are biologically inferior to all women; (3) women who have anything to do with men are inferior; (4) the male "race" or "species" must be exterminated. The following citations demonstrate that the "biological superiority of women" assertion is an essential, consistent component of the Female Supremacist and Lesbian Separatist movement and literature. As with all such movements, it is necessary to justify killing your inferior "enemy" or deprive him (literally in this case) of human and civil rights. By becoming part of mainstream literature, Female Supremacist and Lesbian Separatist views become accepted as "fact" and make their anti-male agendas seem more reasonable to people, including men, who would otherwise not support depriving anyone of human or civil rights.

"MALE: ... represents a variant of or deviation from the category of female. 'The first males were mutants...the male sex represents a degeneration and deformity of the female.'

MAN: ... an obsolete life ordinary creature who needs to be watched ... a contradictory baby-man ...

TESTOSTERONE POISONING: ... 'Until now it has been though[t] that the level of testosterone in men is normal simply because they have it. But if you consider how abnormal their behavior is, then you are led to the hypothesis that almost all men are suffering from "testosterone poisoning."' ((Internet posting.) Collected Quotes from Feminist Man-Haters: A Feminist Dictionary, ed. Kramarae and Treichler, Pandora Press, 1985)

"The newest variations on this distressingly ancient theme center on hormones and DNA: men are biologically aggressive; their fetal brains were awash in androgen; their DNA, in order to perpetuate itself, hurls them into murder and rape." ((Internet posting.) Letters from a War Zone, Andrea Dworkin, p. 114.)

Germaine Greer when asked: "You [Greer] were once quoted as saying your idea of the ideal man is a woman with a dick. Are you still that way inclined?" Dr Greer (denying that she said it): "I have a great deal of difficulty with the idea of the ideal man. As far as I'm concerned, men are the product of a damaged gene. They pretend to be normal but what they're doing sitting there with benign smiles on their faces is they're manufacturing sperm. They do it all the time. They never stop. I mean, we women are more reasonable. We pop one follicle every 28 days, whereas they are producing 400 million sperm for each ejaculation, most of which don't take place anywhere near an ovum. I don't know that the ecosphere can tolerate it." ((Internet posting.) Collected Quotes from Feminist Man-Haters: Germaine Greer, at a Hilton Hotel literary lunch, promoting her book The Change-- Women, Aging and the Menopause. From a news report dated 14/11/91.)

"I believe that women have a capacity for understanding and compassion which a man structurally does not have, does not have it because he cannot have it. He's just incapable of it." ((Internet posting.) Collected Quotes from Feminist Man-Haters: Former Congresswoman Barbara Jordan)

The irony and duplicity in Female Supremacists and Lesbian Separatists asserting biological superiority is that their own literature claims women have been victims of the same folly. One statement clearly describes the destructive consequences of such extremist distortions:

"'The female is a female by virtue of a certain lack of qualities,' said Aristotle; 'we should regard the female nature as afflicted with a natural defectiveness.' And St. Thomas for his part pronounced woman to be 'an imperfect man,' all 'incidental' being [sic] . . . .This diseased view of woman as the negative of man, "female by virtue of a certain lack of qualities," infects the whole of culture. It is the cancer in the gut of every political and economic system, of every social institution. It is the rot which spoils all human relationships, infests all human psychological reality, and destroys the very fiber of human identity.' ((Internet posting.) THE ROOT CAUSE: OUR BLOOD: PROPHECIES AND DISCOURSES ON SEXUAL POLITICS, Andrea Dworkin, 1975, 1976.)

By defining women who attempt to deal equally with the "enemy" [men] as also defective, it becomes easier to justify subverting or otherwise maliciously using other feminist organizations and movements. Female Supremacists and Lesbian Separatists hide their destructive agendas behind feminists genuinely pursuing equal rights and the child protection movement. What better way to destroy "phallic identity" than to seize male children under the guise of "child protection" and turn them over to Female Supremacist or Lesbian Separatist cohorts in social service agencies and allied "mental health" facilities who will "educate" these "predestined violent rapists" as to their true nature.

"Under patriarchy, every woman is a victim, past, present and future. Under patriarchy, every woman's daughter is a victim, past, present and future. Under patriarchy, every woman's son is her potential betrayer and also the inevitable rapist or exploiter of another woman." ((Internet posting.) Liberty, Andrea Dworkin, p. 58.)

"All men are rapists and that's all they are," ((Internet posting.) People, Marilyn French, February 20, 1983.

"In a patriarchal society all heterosexual intercourse is rape...." ((Internet posting.) Professing Feminism: Cautionary Tales from the Strange World of Women's Studies, Catherine MacKinnon p. 129.)

"I claim that rape exists any time sexual intercourse occurs when it has not been initiated by the woman, out of her own genuine affection and desire." (Collected Quotes from Feminist Man-Haters ((Internet posting.) From Robin Morgan, "Theory and Practice: Pornography and Rape" in "Going too Far," 1974.)

Believing that all men are rapists justifies any action. Since every man has, or will, commit rape, they deserve whatever happens to them, including being falsely accused.

"Men who are unjustly accused of rape can sometime gain from the experience." ((Internet posting.) Catherine Comins, Vassar College Assistant Dean of Student Life in Time, June 3, 1991, p. 52.)

Once the "fact" that all men are rapists and biologically inferior to women is "established" they can justifiably be subjected to violence and extermination.

"I feel that 'man-hating' is an honorable and viable political act, that the oppressed have a right to class-hatred against the class that is oppressing them." ((Internet posting.) Collected Quotes from Feminist Man-Haters: Quotes from Robin Morgan (editor of Ms magazine))

"I haven't the faintest notion what possible revolutionary role white hetero-sexual [sic] men could fulfill, since they are the very embodiment of reactionary-vested-interest-power. But then, I have great difficulty examining what men in general could possibly do about all this. In addition to doing the shitwork that women have been doing for generations, possibly not exist? No, I really don't mean that. Yes, I really do." ((Internet posting.) Collected Quotes from Feminist Man-Haters: Robin Morgan)

"The oppressors are indeed XXXED UP by being masters (racism hurts whites, sexual stereotypes are harmful to men) but those masters are not OPPRESSED. Any master has the alternative of divesting himself of sexism or racism--the oppressed have no alternative--for they have no power--but to fight. In the long run, Women's Liberation will of course free men--but in the short run it's going to COST men a lot of privilege, which no one gives up willingly or easily. Sexism is NOT the fault of women--kill your fathers, not your mothers." ((Internet posting.) Collected Quotes from Feminist Man-Haters: Robin Morgan)

"And one last great myth: 'Violence never solves anything.' In the grand philosophical sense those words may ring true. Violence is like money: it can't make you happy, save your soul, make you a better person--but it certainly can solve things. When the winners exterminate the losers, historical conflicts are permanently solved. More women than we know have probably got rid of abusive husbands . . . . Violence definitely solves some things. A dead rapist will not commit any more rapes: he's been solved. [NOTE: Remember the assertion "All men are rapists."] Violence is a seductive solution because it seems easy and quick; . . . . Violence may be a tool and a tactic that feminists should use; certainly we ought to be putting some serious thought into it. If we refuse it, it should not be because it offends against our romantic notion of morally superior Womanhood, but for some better and more thoughtful reason. If we accept it, we had better figure out how to avoid becoming corrupted by it." ((Internet posting.) "Justice Is A Woman With A Sword," D.A. Clarke. Always Causing Legal Unrest, 1991)

"This violence is always accompanied by cultural assault -- propaganda disguised as principle or knowledge. The purity of the 'Aryan' or Caucasian race is a favorite principle. Genetic inferiority is a favorite field of knowledge. Libraries are full of erudite texts that prove, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that Jews, the Irish, Mexicans, blacks, homosexuals, women are slime. These eloquent and resourceful proofs are classified as psychology, theology, economics, philosophy, history, sociology, the so-called science of biology. Sometimes, often, they are made into stories or poems and called art. Degradation is dignified as biological, economic, or historical necessity; or as the logical consequence of the repulsive traits or inherent limitations of the ones degraded. Out on the streets, the propaganda takes a more vulgar form. Signs read "Whites Only" or "Jews and Dogs Not Allowed." Hisses of kike, nigger, queer, and pussy fill the air. In this propaganda, the victim is marked. In this propaganda, the victim is targeted. This propaganda is the glove that covers the fist in any reign of terror. This propaganda does not only sanction violence against the designated group; it incites it. This propaganda does not only threaten assault; it promises it. ((Internet posting.) LETTERS FROM A WAR ZONE: Part IV THE NEW TERRORISM, Andrea Dworkin, 1976-1989.)

"Because the women's movement has not confronted its own shadow, feminism is now exhibiting many of the characteristics which it associates with "the patriarchy," such as shaming, blaming, manipulating and attempting to control men in order to feel empowered in relationship to them," ((Internet posting.) Reclaiming the Dark Feminine: The Price of Desire, Carolyn Baker, Ph.D., p. 121.)

Falsely accusing a man of rape, child abuse, or any other crime, is an act of violence. Removing a male child from parental custody to ensure that he receives proper "treatment" for the "inevitable expression of his true violent rapist nature" is an act of violence. Female Supremacists and Lesbian Separatists, no doubt, must find it amusing that they have succeeded in getting male legislators, male prosecutors and male law enforcement officers to complete their violent acts for them, by the simple expedient of lying to them.

"As I see it, our revolutionary task is to destroy phallic identity in men and masochistic nonidentity in women--that is, to destroy the polar realities of men and women as we now know them so that this division of human flesh into two camps--one an armed camp and the other a concentration camp--is no longer possible. Phallic identity is real and it must be destroyed. ((Internet posting.) THE ROOT CAUSE: OUR BLOOD: PROPHECIES AND DISCOURSES ON SEXUAL POLITICS, Andrea Dworkin, 1975, 1976.)

Women, of course, are depicted as innocent creatures incapable of violence.

"Ninety-five percent of women's experiences are about being a victim. Or about being an underdog, or having to survive...women didn't go to Vietnam and blow up things up. They are not Rambo." ((Internet posting.) Jodie Foster in The New York Times Magazine, January 6, 1991, p. 19.)

Female Supremacists and Lesbian Separatists and all women, being powerless eternal victims, are thereby entitled to use any access to power afforded by their work place to save women and destroy men.

"If the classroom situation is very heteropatriarchal - a large beginning class of 50 to 60 students say, with few feminist students - I am likely to define my task as largely one of recruitment...of persuading students that women are oppressed." ((Internet posting.) Professor Joyce Trebilcot of Washington University cited in Who Stole Feminism: How Women Have Betrayed Women, p. 92 by Christina Hoff Summers.)

What do Female Supremacists and Lesbian Separatists working behind the legislated veils of secrecy in child protection agencies, mental health professions, law enforcement and the judicial system view their "task" to be and what have they done to achieve their perceived "task"? Answering this question is especially important in light of the stated goals of Female Supremacists and Lesbian Separatists.

"The Feminists -v- The Marriage License Bureau of the State of New York...All the discriminatory practices against women are patterned and rationalized by this slavery-like practice. We can't destroy the inequities between men and women until we destroy marriage." ((Internet posting.) Sisterhood Is Powerful, Morgan (ed), 1970 p. 537.)

"The nuclear family must be destroyed, and people must find better ways of living together. ... Whatever its ultimate meaning, the break-up of families now is an objectively revolutionary process . . . . Families will be finally destroyed only when a revolutionary social and economic organization permits people's needs for love and security to be met in ways that do not impose divisions of labor, or any external roles, at all." ((Internet posting.) Source: (Rod Van Mechelen): Functions of the Family, Linda Gordon, WOMEN: A Journal of Liberation, Fall, 1969.)

"In my view, those of us who are women inside this system of reality will never be free until the delusion of sexual polarity is destroyed and until the system of reality based on it is eradicated entirely from human society and from human memory. This is the notion of cultural transformation at the heart of feminism. This is the revolutionary possibility inherent in the feminist struggle . . . . As I see it, our revolutionary task is to destroy phallic identity in men and masochistic nonidentity in women . . . . Phallic identity is real and it must be destroyed. Female masochism is real and it must be destroyed. The cultural institutions which embody and enforce those interlocked aberrations--for instance, law, art, religion, nation-states, the family, tribe, or commune based on father-right--these institutions are real and they must be destroyed. If they are not, we will be consigned as women to perpetual inferiority and subjugation." ((Internet posting.) THE ROOT CAUSE: OUR BLOOD: PROPHECIES AND DISCOURSES ON SEXUAL POLITICS, Andrea Dworkin, 1975, 1976.)

"Only when manhood is dead--and it will perish when ravaged femininity no longer sustains it--only then will we know what it is to be free." ((Internet posting.) THE ROOT CAUSE: OUR BLOOD: PROPHECIES AND DISCOURSES ON SEXUAL POLITICS, Andrea Dworkin, 1975, 1976.)

Female Supremacists and Lesbian Separatists exist. Their stated goals are to (1) "destroy marriage"; (2) destroy "the nuclear family"; (3) destroy the "delusion of sexual polarity"; (4) "destroy phallic identity in men"; (5) destroy "The cultural institutions . . . . law, art, religion, nation-states, the family, tribe, or commune based on father-right"; (6) "eliminate the species/race itself [men]" because "male violence is a biological inevitability"; (7) eliminate sexual intercourse and replace it with "parthenogenesis" [cloning or genetic engineering]. To achieve these goals Female Supremacists and Lesbian Separatists can and do justify any act, including falsely accusing men of rape and child abuse, subverting legislative and judicial processes, and gaining access to power, by any and all means, for the purpose of depriving men of their human and constitutional rights, freedom, and ultimately to deprive them of their lives, if possible.

It is time to stop pretending these criminal extremists do not exist, especially for feminists and members of the gay and lesbian community genuinely interested in equal rights, since their ultimate extermination is also on the Female Supremacists and Lesbian Separatist agendas. It is time to start turning over the rocks Female Supremacists and Lesbian Separatists hide under, especially those operating under color of government authority in government agencies, law enforcement, and the judicial system. It is time to determine what Female Supremacists and Lesbian Separatists have succeeded in sabotaging and how much damage they have done.

Female Supremacists and Lesbian Separatists who have gone beyond exercising free speech and are attempting to destroy men in every way possible at every opportunity and to destroy, not only our government, but our entire civilization through subversion, belong in prison with terrorists who blow up buildings, racists who drag people to death, and individuals who tie homosexuals to fence posts and beat them to death. Female Supremacists and Lesbian Separatists who violate the human and civil rights of men and male children out of hate are no different.

7 posted on 10/08/2003 11:32:47 AM PDT by robowombat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Lorianne
Post #7 will help you to see more accurately.
8 posted on 10/08/2003 11:43:46 AM PDT by Vindiciae Contra TyrannoSCOTUS
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Vindiciae Contra TyrannoSCOTUS
Huh? This is just more quoting from radicals. There are all kinds of radical people out there. Every movement has them.

Not everyone who cares about the environment joins ELF and burns down costruction projects and torches SUV's.

It is possible to be FOR something and not be a radical. The author of the article you poste admits she had the freedom to make her own choices in life and organize her professional and personal life as she sees fit. She's not advocating for anything different for others ... that means she is a feminist. Would she move to Iran or Afghanistan and give up her individual autonomy because she's a woman?

The author needs to travel a bit. I think she's been in her ivory tower too long. To me, she seems complacent about her life and opportunities. And I notice that she was telling other young women to go out and "be all you can be" as well. Does that apply to all women in the world, or just to ivory tower intellectual women like herself and her audience? She could do a lot more good for others saying what feminism is REALLY about.
9 posted on 10/08/2003 12:01:03 PM PDT by Lorianne
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Vindiciae Contra TyrannoSCOTUS
10 posted on 10/08/2003 12:03:26 PM PDT by LiteKeeper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Vindiciae Contra TyrannoSCOTUS
I can sum it up: radical feminazis started the battle of the sexes. They got a lot of support from mainstream women, until the radical agenda caused feminism to lose the most important aspect of the war as far as normal, heterosexual women were concerned.

We lost men.

We ALL lost men, even mainstream women. Remember the whining about whatever happened to all the real men that started in the 80's? Well, though it wasn't REPORTED by the Clintonista propaganda machine during his tenure of sexual assault in the White House, it never went away either.

Nobody makes friends by attacking them. Sooner or later, those you attack will fight back or in this case, look elsewhere like mail order brides from the former Soviet Union. It's that simple.

11 posted on 10/08/2003 12:09:08 PM PDT by cake_crumb (UN Resolutions = Very Expensive, Very SCRATCHY Toilet Paper)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Vindiciae Contra TyrannoSCOTUS
Note that in both of these systems of thought, the source of the problems-the obstacles to progress-were faulty institutional arrangements, factors external to the individual. Defective institutions produced defective behavior that produced negative outcomes. The solution was not individual moral accountability for greed, oppression, and exploitation. The solution was to change the institutional arrangements, which would then produce positive behavior and outcomes.

Huh? All social change and revolutions are about replacing "faulty institutional arrangeements". Our entire country was founded on this premise !!!!!

Get a clue, lady. Our Founders were individuals who banded together to oust the British and the entire system of monachy .... an entrenched institution that, in their eyes, prevented progress and squashed individual freedom! There were many who wanted to leave well enough alone, leave the status quo ... but nooooo, those pesky Founders thought things could be better. How arrogant of them!

Our entire country is founded on the basis of overthrowing a previous social/economic/political institutions that had lasted centuries!!!!

Ditto the French Revolution.

Ditto all revolutions and social change throughout history.

In general, human nature is that people are not content with the status quo ... they are always searching for a better way to live .... that's why history is replete with CHANGE to the existing social/political order. If this wasn't so, we'd still be living in caves.

This lady should read some history.

12 posted on 10/08/2003 12:14:22 PM PDT by Lorianne
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Vindiciae Contra TyrannoSCOTUS
"She has stooped in recent months to getting attention by being an apologist for female genital mutilation."

THAT IS HIDEOUS. IT IS EVIL, ROTTEN, DISGUSTING, BAD, WRONG, PERVERSE, GROTESQUE...and I ran out of words. The BIGGEST problem I have with primative culture is the practice of genital mutilation, and I'm not a feminazi. The indoctrination of boys into homosexual sex runs parallel to such treatment of women. There I go again, letting out another dirty secret.

You would THINK that the feminazis, being the alleged fighters for female freedom, would be against the mutilation of the very genitalia they appear to worship.

But what am I saying? Did the Taliban's actions toward women bother them? Saddam's rape rooms? No.

I'll go back to reading the article now.

13 posted on 10/08/2003 12:21:39 PM PDT by cake_crumb (UN Resolutions = Very Expensive, Very SCRATCHY Toilet Paper)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: cake_crumb
Agreed, there is a radical element that we allowed to take the mic. We should take it back. That's why I say I'm a feminist and they are NOT feminists.

If the people who care about the environment allow ELF to take over the name Enviornomentalists, they will be doing the same thing.

I, for one, refuse to retreat to a different hill and change my banner. CWA is a good organization and what I consider more feminists than NOW, but I criticise them for one thing ... they should not be cowards and constantly be in retreat. Stand up for what you believe and call yourself a feminist. Don't be run around by the radical fringe of clueless whackos who deign to take over the name.

PS. Most of these people on either fringe (the radical feminists and the radical anti-feminists) have never traveled and don't have a clue. I have. I've traveled in over 50 countries and lived in some of the most wretched places on earth. And I can say without a doubt none of these women, the radical feminists or the ingratful anti-feminists have a clue about what is the REAL world. None of them would survive 3 seconds outside the USA. They need to get out more and see the real world. Feminism has a lot of REAL work to do on behalf of not just women, but everyone.

CWA should be up there on the front lines leading the charge for REAL feminism. Otherwise, they are snively cowards no different than the rad-fems they rightly villyfy.

14 posted on 10/08/2003 12:24:27 PM PDT by Lorianne
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Lorianne
You seem to be advocating that the schism in Feminism results from the ism.
15 posted on 10/08/2003 12:33:19 PM PDT by Vindiciae Contra TyrannoSCOTUS
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Vindiciae Contra TyrannoSCOTUS
... "tonight, let's review two historical 20th century Utopian experiments -- communism in the east and feminism in the west. Both movements originated as a result of discontent with flawed social, economic and political systems."

Well gee, let's compare the social experiment called the United States of America with Communism .... yes, both movments started with " discontent with flawed social, economic and political systems." ____ Check.

Therefore, Democratic Republics and Communism are similar ____ Check

Communisim is bad, therefore, the USA is bad.____ Check?

Someone call Queen Elizabeth quick and tell her we've changed our minds and we want to be under British rule again. What the hell were our Founders thinking?

(Hope this author didn't study logic.)

16 posted on 10/08/2003 12:35:46 PM PDT by Lorianne
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Vindiciae Contra TyrannoSCOTUS
Wow, impressive. And true. BUMP!
17 posted on 10/08/2003 12:56:02 PM PDT by cake_crumb (UN Resolutions = Very Expensive, Very SCRATCHY Toilet Paper)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Lorianne
Thank you, thank you, tank you for demonstrating that FEMINISM = FEMINISM. Real women drop the ism.
18 posted on 10/08/2003 1:04:01 PM PDT by Vindiciae Contra TyrannoSCOTUS
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Vindiciae Contra TyrannoSCOTUS
Being female means having delusions and false values and being forced to find fulfillment and identity through husbands and children.

Hmmmm, isn't that how Hillary came to power?

19 posted on 10/08/2003 1:05:48 PM PDT by SpinyNorman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Vindiciae Contra TyrannoSCOTUS
I suppose. It has resulted from real feminists being COWARDS by allowing a small but loud group of radical self-serving fringe take over the name Feminism and attach their self aborbed agenda to the name .... Feminism rightfully belongs to ALL women in the world (that's 3.1 billion and counting) not a tiny fraction (probably less than 5,000) of fringe whackos.

I for one refuse to retreat. And I really don't care what Cindy Crawford thinks about it. For my supermodel money, I'll go with Cathy Ireland instead.

I rather like the uncowardly attitude of Feminists for Life who oppose abortion but blantantly refuse to back down from the name FEMINIST.

(Incidently, their name bugs the hell out of NOW-brand feminists, which is worth keeping the name alone).

Though I have some disagreements with the FFL website (some residual whiny-ness) .... I still admire their kind of in-your-face, take-charge, lead, follow or get the hell out of the way ... kind of feminism. :)

20 posted on 10/08/2003 1:06:04 PM PDT by Lorianne
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-80 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794 is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson