“The quintessential example of this is of course Ted Kennedy, whose career stands for the proposition that you can allegedly assault women and even leave a woman to die and be reelected for eternity so long as you vote the right way.
“That is to say, for all of the left’s bleeding-heart smugness about ‘good intentions,’ they’re remarkably bottom-line on this: So long as you support abortion and the rest of their packet on social issues, your actual intent when calling a woman a ‘mashed-up bag of meat with lipstick’ is irrelevant. It’s an irrebuttable presumption of feminism, a de facto ‘get out of misogyny free’ card.”
— Allahpundit, Hot Air, “Kirsten Powers on Rush and Sandra Fluke: Where’s the outrage at misogynistic liberal men?”
This goes toward confirming my repeated (and strangely controversial) analysis of feminism as a phenomenon deeply rooted in the radical-egalitarian worldview of the Left.
No matter how much historical fact I pile up in support of that analysis, Joy McCann will inevitably come back at me in a raging fury for having trod upon whatever sort of “mainstream feminism” she believes Christina Hoff Sommers has rescued from the leftist ash-heap. But the fact that the Left never stopped defending the contemptible Ted Kennedy — a man who was permitted to shamelessly abuse his inherited privilege simply because of his political posture as a defender of the downtrodden — and that Kennedy was especially a hero to feminists, would seem to demonstrate the validity of my analysis.
Feminism’s embrace of the vile Kennedy very much resembles the way the Left celebrates such monsters as Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Castro, et al., who have ruthlessly slaughtered innumerable innocents in pursuit of the Dictatorship of the Proletariat. That the Left’s heroes butcher (actual) peasants and workers as an alleged means of advancing the (theoretical) rights of peasants and workers is one of those contradictions that the Left can never explain to the satisfaction of any honest observer.
The first successful Marxist revolution resulted, within 15 years, in the totalitarian dictatorship of Josef Stalin, whose bloody personal despotism exceeded every evil deed attributed to the tsarist regime during the entire history of the Romanov dynasty. The most loyal and heroic leaders of the Bolshevik revolution were marked down for especial humiliation by Stalin, forced to “confess” in show trials to crimes they had never committed, and then executed as “enemies of the people.” Meanwhile, many millions of peasants were liquidated in a terror-famine deliberately induced for the purpose of crushing rural resistance to the Stalinist agenda.
Western ap0logists for the Soviet experiment, even when they could bring themselves to admit the nightmare reality wrought by adherents of Marxist-Leninist philosophy, always insisted that these evils were not intrinsic to the philosophy. What was happening in Russia — or China, or North Korea, or Cambodia, etc. — was not “true socialism,” the apologists said, but was always explained away as the result of bad leadership or unfortunate historical circumstances.
However heinous might be the acts of flesh-and-blood socialists, their crimes could never be counted in the ledger against socialism as an egalitarian ideal.
You might have thought these idealists would have been disabused of their illusions in 1939 when Stalin made his deal with Hitler to divvy up Poland, and Communists in the West, who had spent years loudly clamoring for a “popular front” against fascism, suddenly began denouncing as “warmongers” anyone who proposed aiding Hitler’s adversaries. But the idealists learned nothing from that experience, and have learned nothing in all the decades since.
Likewise with feminists. However cruel or selfish actual flesh-and-blood feminists might be, their misdeeds are never accepted as evidence of the wrongness of feminism as an ideal.
Ted Kennedy, Bob Packwood, Bill Maher, Alec Baldwin, Keith Olbermann — there is a long list of men who have been embraced as heroic defenders of “women’s rights,” but whose personal behavior toward women has ranged from exploitative to abusive to arguably criminal.
And is there no one in the feminist movement who will admit that the deaths of 40 million innocents — aborted babies whose historical misfortune it was to be conceived in The Age of Choice — is rather a steep price to pay for “equality”? Or are we not supposed to blink at this ghastly carnage, once it has been draped in the sacred mantle of “women’s rights”?
Never mind, I guess. Start talking like that and they’ll write you off as a religious extremist, even while they continue offering up their bloody sacrifices at the smoldering altar of Moloch where they gather to sing worshipful hymns of praise to their idol, Equality.
We are still two months away from National Offend a Feminist Week, but it is perhaps not too early to offer this definition:
Misogynist: A man who disagrees with a feminist.
Joy McCann to attack me in 3, 2, 1 . . .
