Category: Contraceptive Culture

Feminism’s African Abortion Agenda

Posted on Comments

 

If any white man were to say, “Women in Nigeria are having too many babies,” he could expect to be accused of racism. On the other hand, if you were to express concern that the high fertility rate in Nigeria (5.5 lifetime births per woman) is a major obstacle to “sustainable development,” you could expect to be called an expert:

Health watchers say although Nigeria has made bold efforts to achieve rapid economic development over the past four decades, among other factors, rapid population growth has affected the quality of life and made achievement of socio-economic development goals difficult.
While launching the roadmap on harnessing demographic dividend in the youth population, the Vice President, Prof Yemi Osinbajo, expressed worry about the Nigeria’s fertility rate, saying with the youthful age structure of about half of the population under 35 years, the implication of such demographic realities for the country’s development may have consequences too grave to be ignored.
Experts estimate that the window of opportunity for demographic dividend occurs when the age of the young population and the older population is between 26 and 41 years.
Findings show that countries with higher fertility rate are unlikely to achieve desired levels of development across multiple sectors. But with a change in maturing age structure opens a window of opportunity across four sectors — health, education, economic and political.
In a research carried out by Dr Richard Cincotta, a political demographer associated with Stimson Center and Wilson Center in Washington DC on how Age Structure Change Can Benefit Development with statistical analysis using data from over 100 countries for a period of over four decades, it was found that countries with very youthful populations almost never attain high thresholds of development. Nigeria falls among these countries.
The research specifically found that Nigeria has only 1 percent chance of achieving the Sustainable Development Goal, SDG, target of reducing under-5 mortality to less than 25 deaths per 1,000 live births.
But experts say if the country invests more in reproductive health particularly family planning in areas with poor health indicators, then fertility levels may begin to decline more significantly, and children will be more likely to achieve better basic levels of health.

Far be it from me, of course, to tell Nigerian women that they are having too many babies, but this is just what “experts” are saying with their talk about the need for “family planning” in order to reduce Nigeria’s fertility rate to meet the “Sustainable Development Goal,” and warning of “consequences too grave to be ignored” unless this goal is achieved.

 

It so happens that my wife and I have six children, so that our personal fertility rate is even higher than Nigeria’s. If any expert tried to lecture me that our children are an obstacle to his “Sustainable Development Goal,” I’d tell him to go to hell and to take his goal with him.

Ah, but these cunning Malthusian “experts” have recruited feminists to assist them in their crypto-racist “family planning” projects.

 

You see, it’s about women’s rights and reproductive health:

Melinda Gates announced [in July 2017] at The Global Family Planning Summit in London, that the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation will increase its funding for family planning by 60%, providing an extra $375 [million] over the next four years. About $250 [million] of this money will be used to fund services for teenagers.
Her move is a welcome initiative following President Donald Trump’s reinstatement earlier this year of the ‘the global gag rule’ which prohibits U.S. funding to international NGOs if they advise on or provide abortion services as part of their wider family planning and contraception services. In May this year, Trump also decided not allocate any funding for international family planning in his proposed budget.
At the summit in London, Gates spoke openly of the recent moves by the US: ‘This is a difficult political climate for family planning,’ she said. ‘I’m deeply troubled, as I’m sure you are, by the Trump administration’s proposed budget cuts.’ . . .
[C]utting these funds will leave a huge hole in the money available. In real terms this means less money to fund family planning services that give women control over when and if they have children. It means huge cuts to basic contraception services for over-populated communities across the world who cannot afford larger families, a lack of abortion services for rape victims of war and abuse, and more women than ever dropping out of education to look after children. . . .
[T]he Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation is joining forces with the UK’s Department for International Development, and the UN Population Fund to provide modern, voluntary family planning to women in the world’s poorest countries across Africa and Asia. The UK has pledged to provide an average of £225 million per year until 2022.

Billionaires (and their wives) believe women in Nigeria (and other of “the world’s poorest countries across Africa and Asia”) are having too many babies. If they can’t get “family planning” money from American taxpayers, they’ll just throw another $375 million at it. Never mind, of course, what that kind of money might accomplish if it were spent to help poor Americans in, say, Baltimore, Detroit, Chicago or St. Louis.

No, no — “We must stop those Nigerians from having so many babies,” is the essence of Mrs. Gates’s thinking. She is “deeply troubled” about the babies who won’t get aborted because of President Trump’s policies. Population-control fanatics like Mrs. Gates think of themselves as humanitarian philanthropists, even though the policies they advocate would more accurately be described as anti-human and misanthropic.

P.J. O’Rourke once described the mentality of the “overpopulation” crisis types as “Way Too Many of You, Just Enough of Me”:

Going around the poor parts of the world shoving birth-control pills down people’s throats, hustling them into abortion clinics, and giving them prizes for getting sterilized is to assume that those people don’t want babies as much as we do, that they won’t like those babies as well as we like ours, and that little brown and yellow babies aren’t as good as the adorable, pink rich kind. . . .
Fretting about over-population is a perfectly guilt-free — indeed, sanctimonious — way for “progressives” to be racists.

Defenders of the “Global Family Planning” agenda would, no doubt, claim that they are only trying to improve the lives of Africans by spending money to make sure there are fewer African lives to improve: “Abort your babies, because the experts say it’s good for you!”

You’ll excuse my skepticism toward Mrs. Gates’ allegedly feminist concern for the “reproductive health” of African women, but I’m a white man, and if I endorsed this agenda, I might be accused of racism.



 

 

Harvey Weinstein, Ashley Judd and the Democrat Party’s Doubtful Future

Posted on Comments

Harvey Weinstein in 1997 (left); Ashley Judd in Kiss the Girls (right.

In 1997, 29-year-old Ashley Judd was one of Hollywood’s hottest young actresses, and 45-year-old Harvey Weinstein was one of the most powerful movie producers in the world. His company, Miramax Films, had been bought by Disney for $60 million in 1993, and the company’s film The English Patient had won the 1997 Oscar for Best Picture. Photos from the 1997 Oscar party show Weinstein standing next to Judd holding her hand, while her date, Vince Vaughn, hovers in the background.

At the time, Judd was working on Kiss the Girls, a detective thriller for Paramount, and Weinstein was very eager to work with her, IYKWIMAITYD. “I was sexually harassed by one of our industry’s most famous, admired-slash-reviled bosses,” Judd told Variety in a 2015 interview which did not name Weinstein as the boss in question:

I was making “Kiss the Girls” at the time, and here I was, a declared feminist. I had completed a minor in what was then called women’s studies, which we now call gender studies. And yet I did not recognize at the time what was happening to me. It took years before I could evaluate that incident and realize that there was something incredibly wrong and illegal about it. . . .
When I kept saying no to everything, there was a huge asymmetry of power and control in that room.
This will be familiar to all the women to whom this has happened. . . .
The ultimate thing when I was weaseling out of everything else was, “Will you watch me take a shower?” And all the other women, sitting around this table with me, said, “Oh my god — that’s what he said to me too.” In that moment, I told him something like, “When I win an Academy Award in one of your movies.” He said, “No, when you get nominated.” I said, “No, no, when I win an Academy Award.” That was a small moment of power when I was able to contradict him and hold to my reality. And then I got out of there. And by the way, I’ve never been offered a movie by that studio. Ever.

You can read the whole thing. What did it mean, in 1997, for Ashley Judd to be “a declared feminist”? If you’re old enough to remember the 1990s, you know that this meant primarily (a) commitment to defending the abortion industry and (b) fanatical devotion to the Democrat Party. After the Lewinsky scandal made headlines in 1998, feminist Nina Burleigh declared: “I would be happy to give [Bill Clinton] a blowjob just to thank him for keeping abortion legal. I think American women should be lining up with their Presidential kneepads on to show their gratitude for keeping the theocracy off our backs.” The “theocracy,” you see, is liberal codespeak for the Republican Party’s Christian conservative constituency, which opposes abortion. And this was the kind of feminism that Ashley Judd embraced as a young actress in the 1990s.

Well, guess what? Harvey Weinstein is down for that agenda, too.

“We need to defend Planned Parenthood and women’s rights.”
— Harvey Weinstein, Feb. 26, 2017

If you’ve ever read Eric Hoffer’s The True Believer, you understand how easily some people can be deceived and manipulated by advocates for trendy political causes. There is a line in Animal House, where the Deltas are on their way to pick up girls at a liberal women’s college:

FLOUNDER: I hear Dickinson girls are fast. What should l say?
OTTER: Just mention modern art, civil rights or folk music, and you’re in like Flynn.

It’s the same thing with feminists and abortion. Ann Coulter once observed that abortion is the holy sacrament of the Church of Liberalism, and this total commitment to promoting abortion has been profoundly harmful to the Democrat Party. Anyone with a shred of human decency knows that abortion is wrong, and the Democrats’ pro-abortion stance has the effect of driving decent people away from their party, while simultaneously attracting dangerous perverts to the party.

 

Say what you will, it was obviously no accident that Democrat Anthony Weiner was married to Hillary Clinton’s assistant Huma Abedin. The Clintons have always surrounded themselves with corrupt and immoral people, because no honest or moral person would support them — at least, not once they realized who the Clintons really are. It is always better to be an enemy of such people than to be their allies. Christopher Hitchens famously chronicled Bill Clinton’s betrayals of his liberal supporters in a book aptly titled, No One Left to Lie To.

Does anyone really believe, as Harvey Weinstein said, that support for the abortion industry is synonymous with “women’s rights”?

Cui bono? Who actually benefits from the abortion industry’s grisly trade? Isn’t it true that the main effect of legalized abortion, and the Contraceptive Culture in general, is to enable irresponsible men to pursue hedonistic sexual activity without being bothered by the potential burden of caring for children? And how is it in the best interest of women to be treated as “pump-and-dump” sexual commodities?

Years ago, I remarked that many Democrats go into politics for the same reason teenage boys learn to play guitar. And in 2013, after Anthony Weiner was caught in his second “sexting” scandal, I described Democrats as “The Pervert Party”:

What we know of Weiner’s latest shame is that, in the wake of his 2011 scandal, the married Democrat began an online correspondence with an Indiana girl, identified by BuzzFeed as Sydney Leathers, who says she worked on President Obama’s re-election campaign. To give you an idea of Ms. Leather’s partisan and ideological commitments, after a maniac’s shooting rampage in Tucson, Arizona, she created an online petition that blamed this deadly crime on Sarah Palin, whom Ms. Leathers condemned for “inciting violence.” (In fact, the Tucson gunman was a schizophrenic inspired by a leftwing conspiracy “documentary.”) Only a liberal girl could admire a creep like Weiner.

Being the pro-abortion party makes Democrats so profoundly immoral that we are scarcely surprised by their dishonesty, corruption and scandalous personal misconduct. And, with a nod toward some of my #NeverTrump Republican friends, this is also a danger to the GOP. The degradation of public morality, in which Democrats have been enthusiastically complicit, has not been without it harmful effects on Republicans. Confronted by a corrupt Democrat machine (including their dishonest party “operatives with bylines” in the media), some in the GOP figure they can play by the same rules. If Democrats were willing to defend Bill Clinton, who was plausibly accused of rape, after all, how can they condemn Donald Trump’s boorish behavior? And so the blatant immorality of Democrats tends to erode moral standards among Republicans as well. This danger cannot be ignored.

 

The fate of Democrats in recent years should be a warning to any Republican who is tempted to emulate them. Whatever selfish gains the Clintons derived from their corruption has come at a painful cost to the Democrat Party’s political influence, as I recently explained:

Democrats have lost power at every level, as Republicans not only control the White House and both houses of Congress, but also hold the governorships of 33 states, and 68 of 99 state legislative chambers. In 32 states, which are home to 61% of the U.S. population, the GOP controls both houses of the state legislature. Hillary Clinton’s supporters like to point out she won the popular vote, with 66 million votes to Trump’s 63 million, yet nearly a quarter of her total — more than 16 million votes — were concentrated in just three states: California, New York and Illinois. Lacking effective leadership, Democrats have become deranged and desperate, and are being attracted to lunatic fringe movements.

Of course, it is possible — likely, even — that an anti-Trump backlash will reduce some of that GOP advantage in next month’s off-year elections, but the long-term trend over the past 25 years will probably continue: No matter how much Democrats increase their margins in big cities and the coastal states, these gains are more than offset by Republican gains among suburban and rural Middle American voters. Consider these three data points from Wisconsin exit polls:

 

“Family values” still matter. When push comes to shove, marriage and religion are decisive influences in electoral politics. When we look at these factors in Wisconsin — a state that Trump won by a narrow margin — the only demographic groups that went for Clinton were (a) unmarried women and (b) those who never attend religious services.

Once you begin extrapolating from those data points — and if you understand the selection effects involved — you see why the pro-abortion feminism of Ashley Judd must ultimately be fatal to the Democrats.

 

Ashley Judd doesn’t have any children. Indeed, if you look at the four women featured on the cover of Ms. magazine in 2003 — “This Is What a Feminist Looks Like” — you find that two of them (Camryn Manheim and Whoopi Goldberg) have one child each, while Judd and Margaret Cho have zero, so that their average is 0.5 children per woman. Because feminist ideology is anti-marriage, anti-motherhood and anti-religion, the Democrat Party’s embrace of feminism creates a long-term problem for the party. And the rising feminist resentment toward hypocritical male “allies” like Harvey Weinstein will only exacerbate this problem.

There was a time when liberal feminism attracted males whose idea of “women’s rights” were similar to Weinstein’s, but in the wake of Hillary Clinton’s feminist-themed campaign, an angry anti-male radicalism has taken hold among women on the Left. The “male feminist” type of left-wing man is now openly mocked and scorned for his attempts to get laid by spewing talking-points about women’s “empowerment,” etc.

 

 

 

If a young man is interested in politics, is there any reason he should support a Democrat Party controlled by enraged man-hating feminists? After the defeat of Hillary Clinton in 2016, which ought to have been seen as a lesson in why feminism fails, Democrats are instead doubling down. They are talking about nominating Sen. Kamala Harris in 2020, reinforcing the message that men are no longer welcome in the Democrat Party. Taking a look at exit polls in Ohio — where Trump won male voters by a 23-point margin — it’s clear that this message is already well understood, the same way the “Black Lives Matter” movement made clear that Democrats are against white people. All signs indicate that the Democrat Party’s agenda will become even more extreme, as they embrace the radical “Resistance” movement. And who can forget Ashley Judd’s “Nasty Woman” rant at the Women’s March on Washington?

 

Yes — that is what a feminist looks like, and that’s also what the future of the Democrat Party looks like, if they have a future at all.



 

 

Feminist ‘Success’ (Or, Never Bet Against the Gods of the Copybook Headings)

Posted on Comments

“It is necessary to unite and fight to protect ourselves from exploitation as the world’s baby-makers.”
— Carol Hanisch, March 2014

“I don’t particularly like babies. They are loud and smelly and, above all other things, demanding . . . time-sucking monsters with their constant neediness. . . . I don’t want a baby. . . . Nothing will make me want a baby. . . . This is why, if my birth control fails, I am totally having an abortion.”
— Amanda Marcotte, March 2014

“Feminists don’t just hate men. They don’t just hate Republicans. Feminists hate the most helpless and innocent human lives. The road to feminism’s imagined utopia of ‘equality’ is paved with dead babies.”
— Robert Stacy McCain, April 2017

Feminism is a death cult. The feminist movement’s commitment to abortion as the essence of “women’s rights” tells you everything you need to know about their ideology. Consider, for example, how the feminist insistence on mandatory health insurance coverage for contraception catapulted Sandra Fluke into national notoriety in 2012, and became the basis of claim that Republicans were waging a “war on women.” As was demonstrated at the time, the cost of birth-control pills was less than $10 for a month’s supply, scarcely a major expense for Ms. Fluke and her fellow students at Georgetown University (annual tuition $50,547). However, Georgetown is a nominally Catholic institution and a loophole in ObamaCare had exempted (under a “conscience clause”) such institutions from the federal mandate that all health insurance must pay for contraception. Furthermore, now that Congress is wrangling with repealing and replacing ObamaCare, a major stumbling block is that conservative Republicans want to end federal funding for Planned Parenthood (the nation’s largest abortion provider) while Democrats and their feminist allies insist that this funding is sacrosanct.

Feminism is, and always has been, anti-marriage and anti-motherhood. You could cite a long list of feminists — from movement pioneers like Shulamith Firestone, Ti-Grace Atkinson and Gloria Steinem to such latter-day ideologues as Amanda Marcotte, Jaclyn Friedman and Meghan Murphy — without ever naming a woman who has given birth to a child.

This implacable hostility to motherhood, of course, is a logical consequence of feminism’s anti-male agenda. When the modern feminist movement first erupted in the late 1960s, their rhetoric involved condemnation of “male chauvinism” or “sexism.” Adapting the terminology of the civil rights movement (as opposition to “white supremacy”), feminists also used the phrase “male supremacy” to define their enemy. However, within a few years, the movement’s intellectual leadership substituted, as the preferred description of their ideological target, a term borrowed from anthropology, patriarchy. Originally coined (from the Greek words for “father” and “rule”) to refer to the primitive system of tribal authority under male elders, “patriarchy” was borrowed by feminists from the Communist Party co-founder Friedrich Engels, who used such phrases as “patriarchal order” and “the patriarchal family” in his 1884 treatise Origin of the Family, Private Property, and the State. As used by feminists, however, “patriarchy” means . . . well, just about anything a feminist doesn’t like. Yet if this word still has any actual meaning, then when the feminist denounces “patriarchy,” she especially intends to condemn men for their roles as fathers.

“Fatherhood, the exercise of men’s authority over women and children, is the position of men in the family,” feminists Jo Sutton and Scarlet Friedman wrote in 1979. “It is the means of instilling in the family members a recognition and acceptance of, and acquiescence to, male authority. . . . The end is political self-perpetuation, that is, the continuation and reproduction of male supremacy.”

We must observe that “male authority” and “male supremacy,” as used by feminists, are just synonyms for male influence. Ask any married father who much “authority” and “supremacy” he exercises within his family, and he will likely laugh at you. A happily married friend of mine, when invited recently to attend a social occasion, responded: “I don’t know. Let me check with the boss,” meaning his wife. That this friend is a retired military officer and a highly skilled professional in his civilian career, is of no consequence in terms of his “male authority” within his marriage. As far as his domestic and social life is concerned, he cannot act without his wife’s permission, or else risk her wrath, and this situation prevails in every marriage of long endurance with which I am familiar. Husbands refer to their wives as “boss” with both affection and irony, because no matter how much success and respect a man might obtain in his job, it counts for practically nothing on the home front. “If mama ain’t happy, ain’t nobody happy,” as the saying goes, and for feminists to denounce the family as an institution of “male supremacy” is a claim so counterfactual as to be quite nearly the opposite of reality. Their rhetoric, of course, conceals the actual purpose of feminism, namely the complete negation of male influence. Feminists do not actually seek equality, but rather advocate a totalitarian regime in which men have no rights at all, not even the right to speak in their own defense. In attacking fatherhood as “the exercise of men’s authority,” what feminists actually intend is to deprive men of any influence at all in the lives of their own offspring. In the feminist mind, males exist only as a caste of despised servants, assigned to work to pay child support and taxes for welfare programs: “Shut up and pay.” The fatherless family is the feminist ideal.

In practice, the “success” of feminism’s anti-male agenda has resulted in 40% of U.S. children being born to unmarried women, even while the feminist death-cult devotion to abortion and contraception greatly reduces the overall birth rate. Congratulations, feminists!

The number of women giving birth has been declining for years and just hit a historic low. If the trend continues . . . the country could face economic and cultural turmoil.
According to provisional 2016 population data released by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention on Friday, the number of births fell 1 percent from a year earlier, bringing the general fertility rate to 62.0 births per 1,000 women ages 15 to 44. . . .
A country’s birthrate is among the most important measures of demographic health. The number needs to be within a certain range, called the “replacement level,” to keep a population stable so that it neither grows nor shrinks. If too low, there’s a danger that we wouldn’t be able to replace the aging workforce and have enough tax revenue to keep the economy stable.

When you start digging down into the CDC report (PDF), you discover that, despite the trendy belief that advances in reproductive technology will somehow solve this problem, particularly by enabling older women to become mothers, the data prove the demographic axiom that “fertility delayed is fertility denied.” The majority (55%) of babies are born to women under 30, whereas only 3% of U.S. births were to women 40 and older. The CDC report doesn’t provide adequate historical context for the lay reader to understand what is driving this trend, but in 1983 (the year I graduated college), the average age of first-time mothers was 23, whereas in 2014, the average first-time mother was 26. Keep in mind, however, that the average age of first-time mothers does not reflect the percentage of women who never have children — and childlessness has increased substantially in recent decades. Whereas in 1976, 10% of U.S. women ages 40-44 (i.e., born 1932-36) had never given birth, by 2006, this figure had doubled to 20% (for women born 1962-66). Furthermore, the percentage of childless women in the U.S. would have increased even more if not for immigration from high-fertility foreign countries. The percentage of U.S.-born women ages 40-50 who were childless in 2012 was 17%, whereas for immigrant women the number was 11%.

Thus, the paradoxical demographic result of feminist “success” is both (a) more childless women and (b) more fatherless children. Any student of this subject knows that unwed motherhood is a major contributing factor to  poverty (just FYI, 70% of black children in the U.S. are born to unmarried women), and that divorce almost always worsens the economic situation for mothers and their children. Insofar as feminists have been successful in their goal of destroying the marriage-based family, then, it is women and children who have suffered most as a result of this ideological war against “male authority.”

A skeptic might wonder if these demographic trends reflect some independent cultural or economic factor, rather than the influence of feminism (and the government policies advocated by feminists). In reply, I would ask the skeptic, “Where do feminists have the most influence?” The answer to that question is college and university campuses, where Title IX has had the effect of officially mandating discrimination against males, who are a despised minority (43%) of undergraduates. Male college students are routinely demonized by feminist faculty (e.g., “young, white, rich, clueless white males” who “think nothing of raping drunk girls at frat parties and snorting cocaine, cheating on exams, and threatening professors with physical violence”). Indoctrinated with this anti-male prejudice by their professors, female students spew hateful rhetoric about “imperialism, white supremacy, capitalism, ableism, and a cissexist heteropatriarchy” (Oberlin College) or “capitalist imperialist white supremacist cisheteronormative patriarchy” (USC). It is therefore not surprising that among college-educated women ages 40-50, 20% are childless, compared to 11% of high-school dropouts.

 

Feminists believe that “marriage constitutes slavery for women” (Sheila Cronan, 1970), and therefore seek to “to destroy patriarchal power at its source, the family” (Andrea Dworkin, 1974), because the only way women can avoid “forced motherhood and sexual slavery is escape from the patriarchal institution of marriage” (Alison Jaggar, 1988).

Most people are unaware of what the feminist agenda actually is because, when addressing the general public, feminists espouse bland slogans about “equality,” etc. When speaking amongst themselves, however, feminists express goals that are much more radical. This distinction between feminism’s public rhetoric (its exoteric discourse) and the anti-male ideology of the movement’s leadership (its esoteric doctrine) can best be shown by examining the content of university Women’s Studies courses. Consider for example, “Critical Approaches to Heterosexuality,” a freshman-level course taught at the University of California-Riverside by Professor Jane Ward. In the course syllabus, Professor Ward declares that the class is “organized around the argument that heterosexuality — as a system bound up with misogyny and reliant upon the gender binary — is ultimately unworkable.” Are the taxpayers of California, or the parents of students, aware of what is being taught at UC-Riverside?

Feminism is an anti-male/anti-heterosexual hate movement, masquerading as “social justice,” and what are the consequences of making feminist ideology the basis of public policy? Discrimination against male students in the education system is one obvious result, and the catastrophe caused by declining birth rates is another (cf., Jonathan V. Last’s What to Expect When No One’s Expecting: America’s Coming Demographic Disaster). It is when we examine the consequences as individual cases rather than statistical trends, however, that we can see where the feminist death-cult is leading us. Consider the story, for example, of a recent custody case in Tennessee:

In the first ruling of its kind in Tennessee, a judge has granted a woman the legal rights of a husband.
The ruling, issued [in May 2017], came as the state Legislature was pushing through a bill designed to stop Judge Greg McMillan of Fourth Circuit Court — and any other judge in Tennessee — from making that very decision, court records show.
McMillan penned approval of a divorce for same-sex couple Sabrina Witt and Erica Witt that includes designation of Erica Witt as the father of the couple’s daughter, conceived through artificial insemination.
Days later, Gov. Bill Haslam signed into law a bill inspired by the Witts’ case, the first in the state after a 2015 federal Supreme Court decision that conferred marital rights to same-sex couples. The state law ordered courts to give “natural meaning” to words such as mother and father.
Tennessee Attorney General Herbert Slatery III already had opined that judges would — and should — ignore the new law in such family law proceedings as divorce, custody and child support. The Legislature ignored the opinion.
Erica Witt and Sabrina Witt legally wed in April 2014 in the District of Columbia. They bought a home here and decided to have a child via artificial insemination from an anonymous donor.
Sabrina Witt bore a girl as a result in January 2015. Because Tennessee did not then recognize same-sex marriage as legal, Erica Witt’s name was not placed on the baby’s birth certificate.
When the U.S. Supreme Court gave gay people the right to marry and divorce in June 2015, their marriage became legal in Tennessee.
In February 2016, Sabrina Witt filed for divorce. Her lawyer, John Harber, argued that the law on custody rights in artificial-insemination cases in Tennessee used the term “husband.”
He said the natural meaning of that word is a man, so Erica Witt didn’t qualify. McMillan agreed.
But Erica Witt’s lawyer, Virginia Schwamm, filed a challenge to the constitutionality of the law since it was passed decades before the same-sex ruling and now runs afoul of it.
The Tennessee Legislature swung into action. The “natural meaning” bill was drafted to ban the legal labeling of a woman as a husband, and 53 legislators used a conservative legal group to try to step into the Witts’ divorce case. . . .
McMillan was having none of that. He refused in an April order to allow such an intervention, saying the Legislature needs to stay out of the court’s and the Witts’ business. . . .
Sara Sedgwick, senior counsel for the health care division of the office, urged McMillan in a brief to view the words “wife” and “husband” in a “gender-neutral” fashion. To do otherwise would be to violate constitutional law, particularly in light of the same-sex marriage decision, she wrote. . . .
Stripping away gender from the label of husband, McMillan said Erica Witt was a legal father with legal rights to see her daughter. She also has to pay child support.
“Erica Witt is a legal parent of the parties’ minor child,” McMillan wrote.

Let me point out the timeline here:

  1. April 2014: Erica and Sabrina marry in Washington, D.C., then move to Tennessee, where same-sex marriage is prohibited by the state constitution.
  2. January 2015: Sabrina gives birth in Tennessee to a girl conceived by artificial insemination.
  3. June 2015: The U.S. Supreme Court imposes same-sex marriage on Tennessee and the 33 other states where it was still illegal.
  4. February 2016: Sabrina files for divorce.

You see that this marriage lasted less than two years, and the baby girl at the center of this custody dispute was barely a year old when Sabrina filed for a divorce from Erica, just eight months after the Supreme Court’s Obergefell ruling compelled Tennessee to recognize such marriages as legally valid. However, based on this rather brief relationship between Sabrina and Erica, a Tennessee judge has now declared that Erica has “legal rights” to Sabrina’s baby girl, who is not even biologically related to Erica, the ex-wife whom the court has now officially deemed the legal “father” of the child!

Do you see how feminist ideas of “equality” lead to this kind of madness? Do you see how, as a consequence of the political influence of feminism’s “gender-neutral” ideology, our society has now added to the trend of childless women and fatherless children a whole new category of misery and confusion in the form of lesbian divorce and custody battles over children conceived via artificial insemination from anonymous donors? Do you understand why I keep saying Feminism Is a Totalitarian Movement to Destroy Civilization as We Know It?

In conclusion, we must invoke the poetry of Rudyard Kipling:

On the first Feminian Sandstones
We were promised the Fuller Life
(Which started by loving our neighbour
And ended by loving his wife)
Till our women had no more children
And the men lost reason and faith,
And the Gods of the Copybook Headings said:
“The Wages of Sin is Death.”

Never bet against the Gods of the Copybook Headings.



 

‘An Uncomfortable Truth’

Posted on Comments

 

Spain is dying. The total fertility rate — average number of lifetime births per woman — is 1.49 in Spain, and this is nearly 30% below replacement level. In December 2015, demographers noted that Spain had passed a crucial milestone — more deaths than births, a harbinger of population decline. Before a nation dies, it first grows old, and the graying population of Spain creates a heavy burden on the country’s pension and health care system, as there are fewer and fewer younger workers to pay taxes.

What Spain is now facing is demographic winter, and a Spanish businessman named Alejandro Macarrón Larumbe has created an organization called Renacimiento Demografico (Demographic Renaissance) to spread awareness of this looming social problem.

“Demographic winter is an uncomfortable truth for radical feminism,” Macarrón said in an interview with La Contra TV this week. The Google translation of an article about his interview is a bit uneven — e.g., using “majors” where a better translation would be “senior citizens,” and using “bigger” where “older” was intended — but I’ll adjust it a bit and you can still get most of what he was trying to say:

Alejandro Macarrón, director general of the Demographic Renaissance Foundation, gives an interview to La Contra TV in which he describes the causes and consequences of the demographic winter that is living Spain. He defines this situation as a “suicide” of our country since, he says, “we are going to die as a people because we do not want children”.
During the half-hour interview, the director general of the Demographic Renaissance Foundation [says] that the fall in the birth rate in our country will cause a deterioration of pensions, “which will increasingly be worse and more painful to pay for active workers”.
Alejandro warns that movements in favor of euthanasia are going to exert more pressure on our society “because there are more and more [retirees] who are very expensive.” “The [elderly] are going to [become] a great percentage of voters, it is the decisive segment for the vote. When the population is smaller and the people are [older], the economy logically goes down,” he assured. . . .
In addition, Macarrón has denounced that before “the woman worked at home. Most of them now work outside the home and it seems that the one that does not is second, one late. Incentives are now given only to those who work outside the home, and that goes against the birth rate. It is discriminatory, the state must be central.”
“Birth is not only a woman’s thing, it seems that the figure of the father has disappeared, in abortion this is very much. Incentives are being given only to mothers. If we think only of women, it favors the absence of family,” he warned. . . .
Finally, Macarrón has pointed out that this situation “is an uncomfortable truth for radical feminism, which discredits traditional women. Also for the environmentalism, which defends that the human being is the problem, since, the less people, the less pollution.”

If you are fluent in Spanish, you may want to watch the video interview:

 

(Hat-tip: Pete Da Tech Guy on Gab.) Macarrón’s remarks about women working outside the home and the disappearance of the father’s role in families deserve more explanation. This sounds too much like “back-to-the-kitchen” male chauvinism, but motherhood is not incompatible with wage earning. Anyone who looks at demographic data knows that birth rates are actually higher in working-class families than among the affluent college-educated elite. So the idea that careers and motherhood are an “either/or” choice is a false dilemma. More important factors are the decline of marriage, the delay of childbearing, and the rise of the DINK (double income, no kids) lifestyle among upscale professionals. When divorce and unwed motherhood become commonplace, when young couples are discouraged from marrying, when materialism is promoted in popular culture, when young women are led to believe that postponing motherhood until they are past 30 is a good idea — well, these are core factors in the “demographic winter” Macarrón warns about.

Get me started on this topic, and I could go on for thousands of words, but the crucial question is, what kind of messages are young people getting from parents, from schools, from churches and from media?

 

While I don’t know what’s on TV in Spain, popular culture in the United States celebrates the illusion of eternal youth, the idea that everybody can be like the cast of Friends or The Big Bang Theory, eschewing the most important responsibilities of adult life, marriage and parenthood. We can laugh at the character of Sheldon Cooper, a brilliant scientist with the temperament of a petulant toddler, but such entertainment has the effect of idealizing a lifestyle of perpetual adolescence. Similar messages are reinforced by many other TV shows and movies, so that young people exposed to this incessant media bombardment develop beliefs and attitudes that are incompatible with becoming the kind of adults who make good husbands and wives, good fathers and mothers. Only if parents recognize that the cultural sewage spewing out of Hollywood is toxic, and do what they can to limit its impact on their children’s belief system, can there be hope to avert demographic winter. Parents must exercise a counter-cultural influence, or else their children will believe the deadly lies that Hollywood is selling. Public schools are doing nothing about this problem, because the schools are part of the problem. Our government education bureaucracy is now run by left-wing “progressives” who are anti-Christian, anti-capitalism, anti-marriage and anti-motherhood. Schools now teach young people that babies are bad, abortion is good and promiscuity is harmless. The public school curriculum systematically attacks Bible-based moral beliefs, and schools employ atheist teachers who ridicule Christianity in their classrooms.

 

There is a connection between belief and behavior, you see. Parents who allow their children’s beliefs to be scripted by Hollywood (and “educated” by government bureaucrats) should not be surprised when the results are catastrophic not only for their children as individuals, but for society as a whole. More than 15 years ago, Jim Sedlak of the American Life League looked at Europe’s demographic decline and warned:

“The ‘success’ of the population controllers in Europe is now taking its toll,” said Sedlak. “The average number of babies per woman has fallen from 1.95 to 1.65, and there is no end in sight.”
“In order to turn things around, four things are necessary,” Sedlak said. “First, the world has to understand that there is not an overpopulation problem, but a problem of too few children. Second, everyone in our society must accept large families and stop using peer pressure to convince people not to have more children. Third, governments and rich philanthropists must stop giving money to population control programs. Finally, young people getting married have to be thinking of having four or more children.”
“We have one generation to turn things around,” Sedlak said. “After that, it may be too late.”

That one idea — promoting “four or more children” as the ideal family size — struck me at the time as the only possible basis of hope. It just so happened that my wife and I already had four kids then, and we subsequently had two more. Our youngest is now 14, president of her eighth-grade class at a Christian school, in the 99th percentile on standardized tests. Just this morning I overheard her talking to a friend, explaining that when she has children, she wants to homeschool them.

You can’t beat something with nothing.

That is to say, pro-family Christians cannot hope to prevail against the toxic ideas of the Culture of Death — which celebrates abortion, divorce, promiscuity and homosexuality — if we are unwilling to be specific in describing what the pro-life alternative could look like.

When we behold the desperate situation of countries like Spain, which are far down the road toward demographic winter, we ought to understand how important it is that we act now to counteract this evil.



 

Democrats Surrender to ‘Fear Itself’

Posted on Comments

 

Republicans are celebrating Happy Fun Victory Week with such amusements as video of Democrats saying Donald Trump would never be president. Democrats, meanwhile, are surrendering to despair. Now that the election is over, liberals are just beginning to notice the extent of losses Democrats have suffered at the state level during the Obama Era:

Let’s be frank. After this week’s electoral explosion, liberalism faces years in the wilderness. It’s not just that the president-elect is Donald Trump. It’s that a Democratic Party that as recently as Monday imagined it had forged an electoral coalition sufficiently solid to stand for decades now lies in shambles. In 2018, the party must defend an astonishing 25 seats in their Senate caucus, many of them in states that Trump carried. “It’s going to be a disaster,” said one Democratic strategist — and that was back when people thought Hillary Clinton was a shoo-in. Republicans control a record 69 of 99 state legislative chambers, and wound up with at least 33 governorships, the most since 1922. In short, the Democrats’ exile is likely to be lengthy.

It would be a stupid blunder for conservative, however, to think that the current “shambles” of the Democrat Party means we’re on our way to the Permanent Republican Majority once envisioned by Karl Rove. Such complacent hubris is exactly how the Bush era ended in political disaster — voters handing Congress over to Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid’s Democrats in 2006, Barack Obama winning the presidency in 2008. Both the Trump administration and GOP leaders in Congress will have to work hard — and be smart — to retain the support of the 60 million Americans who voted Republican on Nov. 8.

Well, these sober-minded reflections should not dampen our good cheer, and Happy Fun Victory Week means we can enjoy the schadenfreude of watching liberals in agony over their unexpected defeat.

This post-election IUD panic is insane — a consequence of Democrat propaganda during the campaign, as I explain in my latest column:

Back in 1984, when I was a young Democrat, I voted for Walter Mondale for president, and wasn’t happy that he lost. Back then, however, we didn’t have Twitter or Facebook, so we couldn’t instantaneously broadcast our expressions of despair to the world. Old folks back then (I was 25) didn’t give a damn about my opinion, but now every young kid with a laptop can play Internet pundit and they’re pushing the panic button: “OMG! Trump! Get an IUD before it’s too late!”
Who told you this? Where did this absurd meme originate? Didn’t your parents warn you against believing everything you read on the Internet? Was it true, as Gabriella Paiella of New York Magazine told readers mere hours after Hillary conceded defeat, that “everyone” was urging women to get IUDs? No, it started with Erin Gloria Ryan, who majored in English at Notre Dame, Class of ’05, and hit the panic button Nov. 2, before Election Day. . . .

Read the whole thing at The Patriarch Tree. Once upon a time, a Democrat told America that “the only thing we have to fear is fear itself.” Now the only thing Democrats offer America is . . . fear itself.



 

 

Queer Feminism at Marquette University

Posted on Comments

“To me as a queer activist and young scholar in the early 1990s, the term queer seemed to capture it all — the political urgency of combating heterosexism, my feeling and knowledge that the binaries of gender and sexual orientation were created through forced conformity and repression, the indeterminateness of my own experiences of gender and sexual attraction. . . . For twenty-five years or so, I’ve identified as queer — a queer person, a queer activist, a queer-theoretically informed sociologist.”
— Professor Dawne Moon, Marquette University

Marquette University is allegedly Catholic, and also has one of the worst records for suppressing free speech of any campus in the country. Marquette has a “red light” rating from the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE), meaning that the university’s policy “clearly and substantially restricts freedom of speech” and “unambiguously infringes on what is or should be protected expression.”

Marquette is being sued by John McAdams, a tenured professor of political science who was threatened with firing because he blogged about the totalitarian climate on campus. FIRE reported in February:

Disregarding freedom of speech, academic freedom, and its own policies, Marquette University will attempt to revoke Professor John McAdams’s tenure and fire him. Marquette is taking action against McAdams, a political conservative and frequent critic of the administration, supposedly in response to his online criticism of a graduate student instructor who told a student not to oppose same-sex marriage in her class. Marquette had previously suspended McAdams without due process, treated him as though he presented a violent threat, and cancelled his current semester’s classes.

Rick Esenberg, president and general counsel of the Wisconsin Institute for Law & Liberty, compared Marquette’s policy to Stalinism:

“For blogging and defending an undergraduate student, Professor McAdams is being suspended. But it is worse than that. He is being told that he will be fired unless, in the manner of a Soviet show trial, he confesses guilt and admits that his conduct was ‘reckless.’”

To reiterate: Marquette is so committed to promoting a pro-homosexual agenda that students are not allowed to criticize this agenda in their classrooms, and when a faculty member calls attention to this policy, he is treated as a danger to student safety, suspended from his position and threatened with firing. This is happening at an allegedly Catholic school.

Annual tuition at Marquette is $38,470, plus $11,440 for room and board, so that parents are paying $49,910 a year to have this allegedly Catholic school indoctrinate their children with an ideology diametrically opposed to the teachings of the Catholic Church. Continue reading Queer Feminism at Marquette University →

Sex Facts: Robots Don’t Have Babies and There Is No ‘Teenage Pregnancy Crisis’

Posted on

 

In 1999, Maggie Gallagher published “The Age of Unwed Mothers,” in which she conclusively demonstrated that the panic about teenage pregnancy (“kids having kids”) was fundamentally misguided. Contrary to what the media and politicians were telling Americans, teenage motherhood had significantly declined since the 1960s, and what had actually changed about motherhood was the decline of marriage rates for young women. Gallagher showed that the astonishing increase of unwed motherhood — now 40% of U.S. births are to unmarried women — was largely a phenomenon involving women in their early 20s.

 

Teen motherhood is not a pathology. In fact, the highest rates of teenage motherhood in recent U.S. history were during the 1950s, the Golden Age of “Family Values.” The birth rate for females ages 15-19 was 96.3 per thousand in 1957, and is now a measly 26.6 per thousand. In “The Age of Unwed Mothers” (which you absolutely must read, if you’ve never read it before), Gallagher pointed out that statistics about “teenage pregnancy” had been consistently misrepresented in the media so that births to young adult women (ages 18 and 19) were conflated in the public mind with a negative stereotype, i.e., the 15-year-old girl who was doomed to be a high-school dropout and pass on to her child a legacy of poverty.

Liberals never let facts get in the way of their agenda, however, so the scare campaign about teenage motherhood has been leveraged to promote sex education in schools. Am I the only person in America who sees how redundant “sex education” classes are in the 21st century?

If kids have questions about sex — e.g., “How does pregnancy happen?” — it doesn’t require much skill to Google it. Insofar as teenagers have a problem with sex, it is not because of a lack of information, but a lack of virtue. The basic function of human reproductive organs is not exactly a mystery, and requires no more than a day or two to explain in an eighth-grade biology class. However, teaching kids the Latin names for what’s in their pants (“scrotum,” “labia,” etc.) is less important than teaching them how to keep their pants on. What kids need to be taught are lessons about courtesy, morality, and personal responsibility.

What most Americans don’t realize is that the push for sex education in schools is directly connected to Planned Parenthood’s agenda of promoting contraception and abortion, to reduce the U.S. birth rate as part of deliberate program of population control funded by major tax-exempt foundations and implemented worldwide by the United Nations. This is not a “conspiracy theory,” but is a matter of historic fact best explained in Donald Critchlow’s 2001 book Intended Consequences: Birth Control, Abortion, and the Federal Government in Modern America. John D. Rockefeller III and Hugh Moore were among the most influential proponents of what can fairly be described as an anti-motherhood crusade that led to both the development of the contraceptive pill and the legalization of abortion. Considering how contrary this was to the moral and religious beliefs of most Americans, the population-control movement set about to undermine those beliefs with a propaganda campaign, fostering a myth that reached its apogee with the 1968 publication of Paul Ehrlich’s book The Population Bomb. Ehrlich wrongly predicted worldwide mass starvation as a result of overpopulation, based on a fallacy of limited resources.

It was this misguided neo-Malthusian anti-baby agenda, rather than any concern for “women’s rights,” which was the driving force behind Planned Parenthood and the politics that led to the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision. As part of this campaign, Planned Parenthood lobbied for sex education programs to indoctrinate children with beliefs and attitudes that conform to and support the population-control agenda. When parents complained about what their children were being taught about sex at taxpayer expense, defenders of these programs claimed sex-ed classes were necessary to prevent teenage pregnancy. If this “education” is based on falsehood, guess what happens when these programs are implemented?

The lifelike dolls are meant to teach teenage girls what it’s like to raise an infant, warts and all. As part of high school sex-ed programs around the world, teachers give infant simulators to their female students, who care for the robots over the course of a few days.
The babies, which can run about $1,000 apiece, are programmed to cry, scream and sleep. Computers tucked within the dolls register when the babies are changed, burped, fed or — in instances where everything goes drastically wrong — when they “die.”
“We’ve had midnight telephone calls from parents saying: ‘Please tell me how to turn it off, my daughter’s going crazy,’” as Janette Collins, a London-based youth counselor said to the Financial Times last October. “It’s the very few girls who score really well that you have to look out for. In my experience they’re the ones who go off and get pregnant for real — you’ve accidentally taught them they can cope.”
Collins might have been onto something. In fact, according to a study published [Aug. 25] in the journal Lancet, putting a robot baby in the hands of 13- to 15-year-old Australian teens seemed to backfire.
Girls who participated in the virtual infant parenting, or VIP, program were more likely to become pregnant or have an abortion by their early 20s than those who did not, the authors found.
The Australian VIP program is similar to the RealCare babies — formerly, Baby Think It Over dolls — supplied by the U.S.-based company Realityworks. Researchers in the United States had previously criticized the Baby Think It Over dolls, but this marked the first randomized control trial examining the dolls’ efficacy. During the study, 1,267 girls took part in the VIP program, while a comparison group of 1,567 did not.
The trial period represented three years’ worth of robot interventions, from 2003 and 2006, involving 57 schools in Australia. The authors report that 8 percent of the girls who cared for infant dolls had at least one baby by age 20, whereas only 4 percent of the control group did; similarly, 9 percent of the VIP group had at least one abortion, compared with 6 percent of the non-doll group during that time.

You can read the whole thing. As someone who has extensive experience in the field of child care — with six children now ranging in age from 13 to 27 — I have long criticized these robot-baby programs, not because they might encourage pregnancy, but rather because babies are not robots. Children are not objects, but flesh-and-blood human beings.

Caring for our own flesh-and-blood offspring is both a matter of natural instinct and an entirely rational activity, once we understand the benefits of having babies, which no robotic doll can teach. You may not believe, as I do, that children are quite literally a blessing from God, yet the direct personal benefits of parenthood should be obvious to any young person who has the foresight to ask, “What will happen to me when I get old?” Do we want to be lonely, unloved and forgotten, or to be cherished, respected and cared for? This consideration alone should suffice as an incentive to have children, but beyond the purely selfish motives, having babies (and raising them with good values) also provides a benefit to society.

If you think there are “too many” people in the world, you are thinking of people too generally. Are there too many intelligent people in the world? Are there too many well-educated people, too many highly skilled people, too may hard-working people in the world? Are there too many kind people or too many honest people in the world? Most people who are literate enough to read this article probably think of themselves as above-average people, and rightly so. If you are a person of superior quality, doesn’t it make sense that you would have high-quality children? After all, a person as superior as yourself would be a very shrewd judge when it comes to selecting a spouse, so that your child would benefit from the superior qualities of both parents. And since you would instill excellent values in your children, teaching them to live according to the highest moral and ethical principles, the entire world will benefit from your decision to have a baby. Or six babies, as the case may be.

 

Contributing six superior quality offspring toward making the world a better place is not, however, my only philanthropic endeavor. I’m also busy explaining scientific truth to the blog-reading masses. For example, I’ve explained that feminism causes herpes, and now I’ve got some more scientific truth for you: Robots don’t have babies.

In fact, robots don’t have sex. Oh, sure, some people seem suspiciously enthusiastic about the idea of “sex robots,” but ask yourself, “Who is having ‘sex’ in that scenario?” (Hint: Not the robot.)

Really, it’s just robot-assisted onanism. Does anybody really need that kind of assistance? I rather doubt it. However, this technology does give feminists new opportunities to engage in paranoid outbursts: SEX ROBOTS WILL TURN MEN INTO MISOGYNIST MONSTERS! Of course, feminists already think all men are misogynist monsters, so this is not really anything new, not even in terms of blatant hypocrisy (because every feminist’s ideal boyfriend is a Hitachi Magic Wand.)

The best kind of sex is the old-fashioned kind.

“So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them. And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply . . .”
— Genesis 1:27-28 (KJV)

Feminists hate God even more than they hate men, and feminists hate babies almost as much as they hate God. Basically, feminists hate life, so it’s probably better to have sex with a robot than to have sex with a feminist. At least a robot won’t give you herpes or accuse you of rape.

 

Remember: “PIV is always rape, OK?”




 

Feminism: It’s About SCIENCE!

Posted on Comments

 

Sex is about reproductive biology. Human beings are mammals, and any eighth-grader can figure out what that means in terms of sex.

Once you understand this scientific definition of sex, everything else is just details. Young people have to figure out how to attract potential partners, how to choose a good partner from among the prospective candidates, and how to negotiate a relationship that will lead toward lifelong monogamous pair-bonding — i.e., a successful marriage — because this is the ideal situation in which to raise children.

“So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them. And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply . . .”
— Genesis 1:27-28 (KJV)

Science and the Bible are not really in disagreement about sex. Godless atheists enjoy denouncing Christianity as “superstition,” but insofar as successful reproduction and child-rearing are concerned, do we find that Darwinism actually has anything to teach us? And am I the only one who has noticed that the fanatical advocates of Darwinism generally don’t do much in the way of reproducing the species? Having announced the Death of God in 1966, making godlessness the basis of their worldview, the secular elite now claim to worship at the altar of Science, and you might expect that pursuing a “survival of the fittest” strategy would lead these devout disciples of Darwin to procreate abundantly. Alas, no.

 

Those who imagine that they can kill God simply by not believing God exists are not as scientific as they claim to be. After all, if God does exist, his existence is independent of human belief, and therefore the logic of atheism is highly irrational. Atheists begin their argument with the conclusion — “The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God” (Psalm 14:1 KJV) — then seek evidence to support that conclusion, and confirmation bias always leads them to believe they are correct.

The motive for this search, of course, is that fools wish to live in a godless world where they can pursue their own selfish desires without limits. If God does not exist, there are no rules, you see. Atheism therefore attracts to its banner immoral hedonists and greedy materialists, as well as power-mad totalitarians who want to dictate their own rules to the rest of us without regard for any eternal standard of Right and Wrong. If we are Beyond Good and Evil, as Nietzsche believed, then everything is simply about The Will to Power and, once people start thinking this way, it is only a matter of time before the Panzer divisions are rolling across the Polish frontier and the Stukas are dive-bombing Warsaw.

The lessons of the 20th century, however, have not been properly taught in our schools, and so our university campuses are nowadays under the administration of godless fools, who sometimes seem shocked to discover that their students are dangerous totalitarians. It turns out, quite routinely, that the atheist decides the Meaning of Life is “Give me what I want” and “Do what I say,” a philosophy of selfish irresponsibility.

Marriage and parenthood are not very compatible with such a philosophy, which is why the godless so often fail to reproduce. Nietzsche, of course, died a lunatic, most likely as a result of tertiary syphilis, and more recently Michel Foucault died of AIDS, but it is among feminists that we find the perfect philosophical expression of the Culture of Death.

The road to Equality is paved with dead babies. Feminism’s idea of “empowerment” for women requires forsaking motherhood and, once the possibility of procreation is excluded, what does sex mean? If a woman decides to be a non-participant in the reproduction of the species, does she have any need for marriage? Indeed, why bother with men at all? This feminist argument has been obvious for many decades:

In 1980, Australian feminist Denise Thompson described how “countless numbers of lesbians” joined the feminist movement because it offered them “the possibility of a cultural community of women whose primary commitment was to other women rather than to men.” Furthermore, Thompson added, the rise of the feminist movement produced a “mass exodus of feminist women from the confining structures of heterosexuality” in such numbers as to raise questions about “the institution of heterosexuality in the consciousness of those feminists who, for whatever reason, chose not to change their sexual orientation.” . . .
Women “changed their sexual/social orientation from men to women,” Thompson explained, “in response to the feminist political critique of their personal situations of social subordination.” If the personal is political (as feminists say) and if women’s relationships with men are “confining structures” of “social subordination,” why would any feminist be heterosexual?

That quote from my book Sex Trouble (pp. 109-110) is not merely a summary of arguments by Denise Thompson, who is author of the 2001 book Radical Feminism Today. All she did was to describe a phenomenon that may be observed by anyone who studies feminism. Whatever else her ambitions include, if a woman desires to find a husband and have babies, there are obvious limits to how far she can go in supporting feminism, because the feminist movement is anti-marriage and anti-motherhood.

 

Feminism is fundamentally an anti-male ideology, and therefore is ultimately also an anti-heterosexual ideology. Whether or not the young woman who joins the feminist movement begins with any inclination toward lesbianism, she will discover that her commitment to the movement’s ideology makes it difficult for her to find happiness in heterosexual relationships. The kind of men who seek women as wives — romantic men, those who hope to find lasting love in a permanent, monogamous relationship — will tend to avoid women who denounce marriage as slavery, an institution of “social subordination.” Likewise, the young feminist will find that her support for the movement tends to exclude from her companionship any man who desires to become a father. Feminism is implacably hostile to motherhood, advocating abortion and contraception, and celebrating childlessness as the ideal expression of women’s liberation from the oppressive yoke of patriarchy. The social consequences of this hostility are obvious.

“Certainly all those institutions which were designed on the assumption and for the reinforcement of the male and female role system such as the family (and its sub-institution, marriage), sex, and love must be destroyed.”
— The Feminists, 1969

“Pregnancy is barbaric.”
— Shulamith Firestone, 1970

“Women’s oppression is based in the fact that she reproduces the species. . . .
“In terms of the oppression of women, heterosexuality is the ideology of male supremacy.”
— Margaret Small, “Lesbians and the Class Position of Women,” in Lesbianism and the Women’s Movement, edited by Nancy Myron and Charlotte Bunch (1975)

“Women are a degraded and terrorized people. Women are degraded and terrorized by men. … Women’s bodies are possessed by men. … Women are an enslaved population. … Women are an occupied people.”
— Andrea Dworkin, 1977 speech at the University of Massachusetts at Amherst, in Letters from a War Zone (1993)

“The lesbian liberation movement has made possibly the most important contribution to a future sexual liberation. . . . What the women’s liberation movement did create was a homosexual liberation movement that politically challenged male supremacy in one of its most deeply institutionalized aspects — the tyranny of heterosexuality.”
— Linda Gordon, “The Struggle for Reproductive Freedom: Three Stages of Feminism,” in Capitalist Patriarchy and the Case for Socialist Feminism, edited by Zillah Eisenstein (1978)

“The first condition for escaping from forced motherhood and sexual slavery is escape from the patriarchal institution of marriage.”
— Alison M. Jaggar, Feminist Politics and Human Nature (1988)

“Woman’s biology oppresses her only when she relates to men. The basis of the inequality of the sexes here is seen as the inequality inherent in heterosexual intercourse as a result of sex-specific anatomy. To transcend or avoid this in personal life by having sexual relations only with women — lesbianism — eliminates the gender-based underpin­nings of sexual inequality in this view. . . . Women and men are divided by gender, made into the sexes as we know them, by the social requirements of its dominant form, heterosexuality, which institutionalizes male sexual dominance and female sexual submission.”
— Catharine MacKinnon, Toward a Feminist Theory of the State (1989)

“To the extent that women harbor negative attitudes toward lesbians and lesbianism, we demonstrate identification with men. To the extent that women express negative attitudes toward lesbians in our words and deeds, we strengthen patriarchy.”
— Dee Graham, Loving to Survive: Sexual Terror, Men’s Violence, and Women’s Lives (1994)

“The term motherhood refers to the patriarchal institution . . . that is male-defined and controlled and is deeply oppressive to women.”
— Andrea O’Reilly, Feminist Mothering (2008)

“In the early 1970s both gay and feminist movements concurred in critiques of patriarchal, heterosexual institutions, such as the family, and there was a sense of common cause. . . . [A]ddressing the patriarchal structures that shaped family life, revealing women’s discontents with heterosexual relationships . . . feminists laid the foundation for a thoroughgoing critique of heterosexuality . . .”
— Stevi Jackson and Sue Scott, Theorizing Sexuality (2010)

The logical consequences of feminism are not usually apparent to young women when they first join the movement. A young woman feels she is treated unfairly in some way and the promise of “equality” appeals to her, and so she starts calling herself a feminist. She begins reading feminist writers who tell her that she is a victim of oppression, and she learns a vocabulary — “sexism,” “misogyny,” “objectification,” etc. — to describe male behavior she doesn’t like. She develops an attitude of resentment and suspicion, a sort of sexual paranoia that makes it impossible for her to enjoy normal interactions with men. If a man expresses admiration for her beauty, he is objectifying her with the “male gaze.” She despises men who are sexually interested in her, who want to possess her body, to degrade and enslave her in the tyranny of male supremacy.

Her hostility toward “the patriarchal institution of marriage” (Jaggar) may not immediately lead the young feminist to reject “the inequality inherent in heterosexual intercourse” (MacKinnon), yet she must avoid any man who is interested in finding a wife, and she must also renounce any desire to have children, because her “oppression is based in the fact that she reproduces the species” (Small). Having thereby abandoned the kind of scientific understanding of sex that is apparent to any eighth-grade biology student, what purpose is served by her relationships with men? If sex is nothing but immoral hedonism — the pursuit of pleasure for its own sake — then what is a man to her, other than an instrument to serve her own selfish needs? And if a man does not willingly accept this role, if he has needs and purposes of his own, how or why would he possibly be of any interest to a feminist?

A young woman who becomes a feminist as a high school or college student is unlikely to perceive all the implications of her ideology. She aspires to a professional career and, insofar as she thinks of marriage and motherhood at all, these are merely potential choices for the future, activities she might choose to pursue when she’s 25 or 30, once she has gotten her degree and established her career. She therefore must avoid any genuinely serious romantic involvement with her boyfriends, because such a relationship could lead toward “the patriarchal structures” (Jackson and Scott) of the traditional family. In postponing serious relationships with men, the young feminist thereby makes herself unavailable to any man who is interested in finding a wife, and she makes this decision at an age — in her teens or early 20s — when young people normally begin pairing off together, engaged in the process of courtship aimed toward forming lifelong partnerships. Despite the trend toward postponing marriage and parenthood, the typical first-time mother in the United States is about 25, and most American mothers have two children by the time they’re 30. More than 42% of women who eventually become mothers have their first baby before age 25. A woman who delays motherhood thereby diminishes the likelihood that she will ever have any children, and there has been a remarkable increase in childlessness.

 

These trends demonstrate the influence of the feminist movement, which encourages young women to reject sex in its basic scientific meaning, i.e., as naturally related to procreation. Feminism tells young women that they should pursue sex on the basis of immoral hedonism, as pleasure without responsibility. Most young women who adopt this irresponsible attitude do so with the mistaken belief that the choices they make in their teens and 20s will have no permanent consequences. The young feminist believes she can be promiscuous in her youth without impairing her ability to find a husband later, and that she can choose to postpone motherhood without any increased risk of childlessness. She believes in equality, and therefore listens to feminist advice. She doesn’t bother to ask what equality may require, or who is giving her this advice.

“I was the editor of my campus sex magazine. I had some one-night stands. I explored my sexuality and what I wanted, and I met a guy at a party and he was amazing. He was super-charismatic and sexy and funny and brilliant and I fell really hard for him. We started seeing each other and then, three weeks later, I woke up with an outbreak of genital herpes.”
— Ella Dawson, September 2015

“The labels I currently use for myself are queer, gay, femme, and homoflexible. (Basically, I’m a lesbian with exceptions.) The label bisexual doesn’t work for me right now. . . . I’m on the asexual spectrum somewhere . . . I don’t experience primary sexual attraction.”
— Miriam Mogilevsky, October 2015

“Only when we recognize that ‘manhood’ and ‘womanhood’ are made-up categories, invented to control human beings and violently imposed, can we truly understand the nature of sexism. . . .
“Questioning gender . . . is an essential part of the feminism that has sustained me through two decades of personal and political struggle.”
— Laurie Penny, October 2015

“I don’t particularly like babies. They are loud and smelly and, above all other things, demanding . . . time-sucking monsters with their constant neediness. . . . Nothing will make me want a baby. . . . This is why, if my birth control fails, I am totally having an abortion.”
— Amanda Marcotte, March 2014

Do you suppose many young women would call themselves feminists if they were informed of the character of those who lead this movement? Do you suppose many teenage girls hate babies, identify as “genderqueer,” or look forward to the morning when they wake up with genital herpes? Yet these are the attitudes, beliefs, identities and behaviors that the feminist movement celebrates. This is the “empowerment” and “liberation” that feminism encourages in the name of “equality.”

Those who worship at the altar of Science exhibit a remarkable willingness to ignore any fact that does not fit their theory, and we are not surprised to see strange claims made by those who ignore eighth-grade biology lessons. Feminist Tumblr is full of these young lunatics.

Simple Objective Fact of the Day:
opposite-sex relationships are favored in society because of heterosexism. People in same-sex relationships are allowed to point this out.

Actually, ma’am, “heterosexism” is necessary to “society” because without “opposite-sex relationships,” there would be no “society,” because there would be no people. This is an “Objective Fact” that we are allowed to point out, but even if we never pointed it out, it would still be true.

Because a statistically insignificant fraction of the world’s children are now conceived with the extraordinary assistance of Science, some people seem to believe that “opposite-sex relationships” are as obsolete as VHS tapes, manual typewriters, and vinyl 45-rpm records. Everybody’s gay now, and in the near future, all babies will be conceived in laboratory petri dishes, implanted in hired surrogates who will be paid to give birth, and then this generation of scientifically produced super-babies will be raised by trained experts in government-subsidized daycare centers. It is only the ignorant prejudice of “heterosexism” that causes “society” to expect that children will continue to be produced the old-fashioned way. And now, for some Simple Objective Facts:

Top Ten Countries by Total Fertility Rate
(Average lifetime births per woman)

  1. Niger …………………….. 6.76
  2. Burundi ………………… 6.09
  3. Mali ……………………… 6.06
  4. Somalia ………………… 5.99
  5. Uganda ………………… 5.89
  6. Burkina Faso ………… 5.86
  7. Zambia …………………. 5.72
  8. Malawi …………………. 5.60
  9. Angola …………………. 5.37
  10. Afghanistan …………. 5.33

Excuse me for suspecting that “heterosexism” is still quite prevalent in Burundi and Burkina Faso, Uganda and Afghanistan, and that all births in these countries result from “opposite-sex relationships.” While I suppose there might be some people in Mali or Malawi who could afford the “scientific” method — in vitro fertilization, etc. — why should they bother? These high-fertility societies aren’t suffering from any shortage of mothers and babies, whereas on the other hand . . .

Total Fertility Rates for
Selected Industrial Nations

South Korea …………… 1.25
Japan …………………….. 1.40
Greece ……………………. 1.42
Italy ……………………….. 1.43
Germany ………………… 1.44
Austria …………………… 1.46
Spain ……………………… 1.49
Switzerland ……………. 1.55
Canada ………………….. 1.59
Denmark ……………….. 1.73
Australia ………………… 1.77
Belgium …………………. 1.78
Netherlands …………… 1.78
United States …………. 1.87

The appropriate phrase here is demographic collapse, although “decadence” and “societal death spiral” might work as well.

Making atheism the basis of their belief system, celebrating selfish immoral hedonism as Science, feminists are the Darwinian Dead End.

“See, I have set before thee this day life and good, and death and evil . . . I call heaven and earth to record this day against you, that I have set before you life and death, blessing and cursing: therefore choose life, that both thou and thy seed may live . . .”
— Deuteronomy 30:15, 19 (KJV)

To reject God is to reject life. The curse is upon them.

Science? It’s so simple any eight-grader could understand it.

+ + + + + +

The Sex Trouble project has been supported by contributions from readers. The first edition of Sex Trouble: Radical Feminism and the War on Human Nature is available from Amazon.com, $11.96 in paperback or $1.99 in Kindle ebook format.