Categories
Feminism Truth

Feminists Won’t Like The Solution To Male Mistreatment Of Women

Rod Thomson

I’ve raised six boys to manhood and I think I have a pretty solid handle on what would solve the anger of feminists at men. But they won’t like the answer. Really won’t like the answer.

This thinking is spinning off from the political hackery against Brett Kavanaugh that also exposed some really strong emotions from a subset of women against men. Kavanaugh personally may have been innocent of the evidence-less accusations, but he acted as a locum for the generic anger this group of women have for men — for myriad reasons.

For some, there is real cause to be angry at a man, or a few men, who have acted badly. For others, it is a sort of unhinged anger building up through the feeding of a narrative. The latter is mostly represented in an astonishing opinion piece that the Washington Post published from a retired female college professor.

The Post’s screed by a retired Grinnell College history professor who admitted to going off on her husband for a 30-minute screaming tirade after the Brett Kavanaugh confirmation that started with the headline, “Thanks for not raping us, all you ‘good men.’ But it’s not enough” and included gems such as “I hate all men and wish all men were dead.”

Remember, she said this To. Her. Husband.

Now this woman appears to be the typical college professor feminist, but not the typical American or American woman, as we noted last week in a study that identified seven categories of Americans by general worldview. The smallest identified in the study (and by far the loudest, magnified by the media and Hollywood) is the “progressive activist” contingent of 8 percent.

But she is emblematic of the radicalized thought that is the 8 percent tail wagging the Democratic Party dog, that could gain more adherents if such thinking is more mainstreamed on the left as it is on college campuses — from which she hails. So it is critical to push back with reason commentary based on all of history, logic and personal experience, and then get to the solutions that, based on her faulty thinking below, she probably does not want to hear.

More Original Content On Patreon

We have to go through her tirade, because it embodies the thinking of the radicals driving Democrats and media coverage. She wrote:

“I yelled at my husband last night. Not pick-up-your-socks yell. Not how-could-you-ignore-that-red-light yell. This was real yelling. This was 30 minutes of from-the-gut yelling. Triggered by a small, thoughtless, dismissive, annoyed, patronizing comment. Really small. A micro-wave that triggered a hurricane. I blew. Hard and fast. And it terrified me. I’m still terrified by what I felt and what I said. I am almost 70 years old. I am a grandmother. Yet in that roiling moment, screaming at my husband as if he represented every clueless male on the planet (and I every angry woman of 2018), I announced that I hate all men and wish all men were dead.”

The hateful illness encompassed in those last words needs no further remarking. But the author, like so many radical feminists who have out-sized voices in the media and culture, really seems to believe that every human with two X chromosomes agree with her, because they all have the same genetic structure and therefore all think alike. This is the same leftist “thinking” that leads too many to call Kanye West a “token negro” and worse because he is breaking from the leftist form that all black people think alike because they are black. It’s a sick ideology.

“My husband of 50 years did not have to stifle a laugh. He took it dead seriously. He did not defend his remark, he did not defend men. He sat, hunched and hurt, and he listened. For a moment, it occurred to me to be grateful that I’m married to a man who will listen to a woman. The winds calmed ever so slightly in that moment. And then the storm surge welled up in me as I realized the pathetic impotence of nice men’s plan to rebuild the wreckage by listening to women.”

So while her cruel and hateful words spewed at her husband, leaving him “hunched and hurt,” she only became more angry and considered his niceness “pathetic impotence.” So is toxic masculinity the problem, or it’s opposite: pathetic impotence? There is simply no rational ideology or thinking process at work in this column the Post actually published.

“Don’t you dare sit there and sympathetically promise to change. Don’t say you will stop yourself before you blurt out some impatient, annoyed, controlling remark. [Note: Exactly what she is doing.] No, I said, you can’t change. You are unable to change. You don’t have the skills and you won’t do it. You, I said, are one of the good men. You respect women, you believe in women, you like women, you don’t hit women or rape women or in any way abuse women. You have applauded and funded feminism for a half-century. You are one of the good men. And you cannot change. You can listen all you want, but that will not create one iota of change.”

Again, to her husband of 50 years. I want to feel sorry for him, married to such a woman. I cannot imagine, because this surely is not the first time she has browbeat him. But perhaps he did deserve it, if he has been applauding and funding the kind of feminism that has led to this level of hate-fueled, vapid insipidness.

Get More Truth On Our Facebook Page

“And, for some reason, the most chilling memory of all, the one Christine Blasey Ford called up and that we all recognized: the laughter. The laughter of men who are bonding with each other by mocking us. When Ford testified under oath that the laughter is the sharpest memory of her high school assault, every woman within the sound of her voice could hear that laughter, had heard that laughter, somewhere, somehow.”

I won’t go into the obvious facts that most people see: There was zero corroboration or evidence to support Ford’s claim. None. But there were four witnesses to dispute it. That’s rational and fair-minded thinking. But for this author and those like her, an accusation alone is enough to prove veracity — no evidence required — if the accusation comes from a woman. The evidence here is that of this author living in a small information echo chamber of elite leftists. Just forehead smacking stuff from people who think so much of their own intelligence.

“The gender war that has broken out in this country is flooding all our houses.” No, it’s not. It’s really not. This is only in the fever swamps of feminists in the 8 percent. “It’s rising on the torrent of memories that every woman has.” No, they don’t.

However, there actually is a problem with men in our country, it’s just not the one the radical feminists are screaming about. The highest percentage of young men in our history are growing up without a father in the household, or any real male figure as this has become a generational problem. Ironically, it is feminists that has contributed mightily to this phenomenon in conjunction with the rise of the welfare state.

We have multiple generations of single-mother families, which has worked to impoverish a lot of women but also unleashed millions of young men into society that have no real concept of what it means to be a responsible adult man.

That’s where good fathers are essential. Of course, the most perfect, flawless men would still not placate the most hateful feminists, surely including the author in the Post, but in the end, that is on them and their choices.

I’ve taught my boys to honor, respect and protect women. They are to use their strength to protect women and the weak, never to prey on women or the weak. Never. Boys need to be reigned in from their natural, more base instincts — just as girls do but for different reasons with different results. Boys need to be given purpose that often involves physical labor when young, to channel their energy and strength into productivity, not into destruction.

Try Our Youtube Channel

But with six boys, the imperative to have a father who told them and modeled for them how to treat women is essential. And our boys were fortunate enough to have two sisters, and a mother and so they had plenty of practical opportunities.

Left to their own devices, boys will look for purpose in the pack, sometimes something beneficial such as sports, sometimes something destructive such as gangs. Or they will wander aimlessly and fall in with others operating on their base instincts. This is true in any area where single-parent homes dominate — and it holds true across race and ethnicity.

Conversely, in any area when boys have strong fathers who teach and model honoring attitudes towards women, the violence by young men is considerably less. Again, this is true regardless of race or ethnicity.

And here’s the full point: While I’ve used the first person “I” in this article, the reality is that this is all about the team my wife and I made in raising our children. We each brought our strengths that largely track with our gender. Whether you look at the biblical design for families, or just take history and research, the results are clear: two-parent families, male and female, are the best for raising children.

That is not the answer raging feminists want to hear. But it is the answer.

Rod Thomson is an author, TV talking head and former journalist, and is Founder of The Revolutionary Act. Rod is co-host of Right Talk America With Julio and Rod on the Salem Radio Network.


Drudge Got You Down? / Try WHATFINGER NEWS


 

Categories
Christianity College Culture Feminism Islam Progressives Truth

St. Ambrose College’s Segregated Muslim Prayer Room Is A Chilling Reality

by Rod Thomson

That St. Ambrose College in Davenport, Iowa has opened a sex-segregated prayer room for Muslim students requires an explanation. On the surface, it seems totally bizarre. Why exactly do Muslims want to go to an explicitly Catholic college and why is that now-progressive Catholic college proudly violating normative standards of equal treatment for men and women?

The answer is found in why feminists have turned into crickets on select overt sexism when they howl outrages over only perceived slights against women. Muslims, feminists and most American progressives have a common enemy: America’s Judeo-Christian heritage, which they have been working to dismantle for generations.

This is the only way to make sense of the otherwise head-scratching alliance of religiously antagonistic progressives, feminists and devout Muslims. Their stated beliefs and goals should make them natural foes — and they are in Muslim run countries. But they are not in America. However, if you identify a common enemy, the reason for their alliance comes into focus. It also explains why these groups are so disdainful of American exceptionalism, of America’s heritage and specifically of the founding fathers and the Constitution they produced.

The hrumphing at this proposition will be loud. But it is undeniably a part of today’s Islam around the world. It is pretty easily a part of modern feminism that focuses on the demon of the patriarchy, denies differences in the genders and celebrates whatever the Bible decries. And it is patently manifest in pretty much all of the actions of modern progressives.

Judeo-Christian America is what modern feminism and progressives find to be an archaic, backward, gun-toting, Bible-clinging threat to the march of civilization — as they perceive it. And the Muslim march of civilization is basically all Muslim.

And what this decision by St. Ambrose College shows is that the college makes policy based on being progressive before being Catholic. That, it would seem, is unarguable.

Join Our Fight For American Values!

Just listen to the very-pleased-with-himself college senior who designed the prayer room, in conjunction with the Saudi Student Association — because every Catholic college needs to have an association of the women-crushing, hand-cleaving, civil-rights-denying ruling House of Saud.

“It’s uniquely Ambrosian, and it just sort of shows our commitment to all different faiths,” Matt Mahoney said of the sex-segregated worship room he designed. “It is really outstanding.”

What might the early church father St. Ambrose think of this “commitment to all different faiths” — which rather sounds like a commitment to no faiths? Let’s look at who Ambrose was.

“A zealous preacher and valiant defender of the Christian Faith, Saint Ambrose received particular renown as a Church writer. In dogmatic compositions he set forth the Orthodox teaching about the Holy Trinity, the Sacraments, and Repentance,” according to Orthodox Church in America. “Saint Ambrose, defending the unity of the Church, energetically opposed the spread of heresy.” [Emphasis added.]

Like Us On Facebook

Ambrose converted many pagans to Christianity, from Germany to Persia (he lived before Mohammed founded Islam) and most famously, he showed a wayward young man named Augustine the way to God through Christ. Ambrose would most certainly have considered Muslims as pagans in need of conversion — not celebration.

It’s safe to say that Ambrose would be aghast at what was being done at a college named after him. And it’s further safe to say that when the young man said the sex-segregated Muslim prayer room is “uniquely Ambrosian” he was not referring to Ambrose the man, but the culture of the progressive college that appears to have turned its back on the legacy of St. Ambrose — and made alliance with those who actively seek to destroy the actual legacy of Ambrose.

Rod Thomson is an author, TV talking head and former journalist, and is Founder of The Revolutionary Act. Rod is co-host of Right Talk America With Julio and Rod on the Salem Radio Network.


Today’s news moves at a faster pace than ever, and a lot of sources are not trustworthy. Whatfinger.com  is my go-to source for keeping up with all the latest events in real time from good sources.


 

Categories
Feminism Gender Truth

Feminism Is Winning; Destroying Boys, Gender, Family and Society

Rod Thomson

There is a dirty little secret that the information gatekeepers of the Left block from Americans: modern feminism is slicing a path of destruction through the lives of men, women, families and society.

This is not the equal pay for equal work feminism. That has long been resolved legally and culturally. This is the anti-patriarchy modern feminism. But there is essentially no patriarchy left in America. CEOs and most other leadership-count disparities are a function of women’s individual choices — countercultural choices, at that — and even then may be temporary as women are pressured by the increasingly feminized culture to battle against their innate natures that lead toward motherhood and child nurturing.

By most studies and polls, women living the lives of the major tenets of modern feminism are distinctively less happy and less fulfilled. And they live in more danger. But where we see the real destructive success of the modern, radical feminist movement — which has worked to tilt the field in favor of women while supporting the government replacing the father in the home — is in the increasingly dire plight of the American male.

Consider the following:

American men fail and drop out of school at much higher rates than American women;

American men are far more likely to die of a drug overdose than American women;

American men are far more likely to drop out of the workforce because of addiction;

American men commit suicide at a rate several times higher than American women;

American men live on average six years shorter than American women.

American men are incarcerated at far higher proportions and are more likely to commit a felony and go to prison (although this has always been the case)

American men have lost out on tens of thousands of college scholarships because the federal law called Title IX demanded equality of all sports in universities, which resulted in the elimination of many male-only sports and the accompanying scholarships.

Please Help Us Fight For Foundational American Values!

None of this exactly paints a picture of a patriarchal society where women are oppressed and men are triumphant as the angry feminists on or recently out of college campuses keep telling us. Not at all. The only “oppression” is nature, for which oppression is the wrong word.

“There isn’t a shred of hard evidence to support that Western society is pathologically patriarchal; that the prime lesson of history is that men, rather than nature, were the primary source of oppression of women,” writes Jordan Peterson in his blockbuster book, 12 Rules for Life.

American women, particularly professionals with college degrees, are putting off marriage and finding fewer eligible men when they are ready to settle down and get married in their 30s. This is being written about frequently now as many of these women lament that lack of marriable men at that age.

American women are having fewer children (a feminist and leftist goal) and having them later in life. Sadly, many are finding that when they finally decide they want to start a family, they either cannot find any quality men of husband potential or their biological clock has run out.

But as horrible as that may be, it is hardly the end game. Let a feminist leader put it in her own words.

“Feminism means dismantling society’s toxic ideas about what fatherhood looks like,” Emma Roller recently wrote in Splinter. “Ultimately, it means dismantling gender completely.”

Exactly. Credit Roller with honesty, although with ongoing radicalization of feminism, the activists and leaders of the modern feminist movement are pretty open about their intent to destroy, or “dismantle,” as Roller puts it.

Like Us On Facebook

The no-commitment sexual revolution pushed by earlier feminism combined with the “rape culture” sham and gender fluidity poison from modern feminism has virtually killed romance and the potential for healthy, monogamous relationships between husbands and wives along a wide swath of America.

Destroying the joys of motherhood and loosing the restraints on men through marriage and fatherhood, has made no one happy or fulfilled. Actually, it has increased anger and depression in both sexes.

Dennis Prager recently wrote: “The left has made innumerable women unhappy, even depressed, with its decades of lying about how female sexual nature and male sexual nature are identical — leading to a “hookup” culture that leaves vast numbers of young women depressed — and its indoctrinating of generations of young women into believing they will be happier through career success than marital success.”

Interestingly, and in line with the actual natures of men and women — natures the left and modern feminists deny or blame on the largely non-existent patriarchy — multiple studies from the European Union Eurostat arm to Australia’s Cowan University to numerous American studies have found that women (and men) who have large families are the most happy.

Harry Wallop, recently wrote in the London Telegraph about the Eurostat report on happiness among European nations, but found one element of the research to be a surprise: “… one of the most intriguing details to emerge is that families with three or more children are far more likely to be very happy than families with just one or two children, than single parents and also spinsters and bachelors.”

Wallop, who has four children and in the U.K. that is considered scandalously big, went on: “My only serious theory as to why large families may be happier is because instances of selfishness should be lower. Me, me, me can not flourish in such a crowded environment. Sharing is a daily activity you just have to get used to.”

He’s right. Selfishness does not bring about happiness. It just breeds more selfishness. Sharing, giving and sacrificing for others does produce happiness. But modern feminism is the promotion of selfishness uber alles. It’s what the woman wants, when the woman wants it and all must bend to her will — including the convenience of unborn babies.

Subscribe to our Revolutionary Youtube

At bottom, feminism is determined to both prove men and women are the exact same and can do all the exact same things while at the same time insisting gender is just a patriarchal cultural construct that must be abolished. It is a movement that is as inconsistent as most of modern liberalism, but perhaps more destructive, because men and women are different. And no amount of feminist theory college degrees can change that.

Despite this growing disaster for men and society as a whole, feminists, the Left, Democrats and the media continue to play the hysterically false “war on women” card. For the ideologues, it’s their identity. For the politicians, it’s a power card. For America and the West, it’s a long-term funeral procession.

Rod Thomson is an author, TV talking head and former journalist, and is Founder of The Revolutionary Act. Rod is co-host of Right Talk America With Julio and Rod on the Salem Radio Network.

Today’s news moves at a faster pace than ever, and a lot of sources are not trustworthy. Whatfinger.com  is my go-to source for keeping up with all the latest events in real time from good sources.

Categories
Culture Feminism Gender Liberalism Truth

Bra-Less Florida High School Girl Goes Full Protest Over Gender ‘Discrimination’

Rod Thomson

A Florida high school student is charging that she was wrongly humiliated by school administrators over going bra-less to class, just because she is a girl, going the full discrimination protest route. And she’s getting a lot of help in her gender-ized victimhood from her mother.

The incident came about when the 17-year-old female Braden River High School student, in Bradenton, Fla., went to school in a loose top without a bra. Her teacher notified school administrators that the revealing outfit was being a distraction in class and administrators told her to put a T-shirt on under her loose shirt. But the female administrator thought the girl’s nipples remained too prominent. The administrator sent the girl to the nurse’s office to put four band-aids on to “X out her nipples.”

This was a moment of understandable humiliation and consternation for the student, but did not result in a self-reflection on personal choices. It quickly turned to self-righteous indignation and, of course, victimhood. She was trained well along the way that her actions did not result in consequences, but that she was the victim of the patriarchy.

“I felt very attacked because of my gender,” the girl told the local newspaper.

Naturally.

It’s not like she was a teen girl in a class with hormone-raging teen boys making a clear display of herself in a way guaranteed to…distract boys in the class. At that age, she probably distracted girls, too, albeit in a different way.

The girl comes by her gender victimhood honestly. A lot of the response seems driven by her mother, who has been all over school officials for their actions, rather than helping her daughter learn how to function in society.

Please Consider Supporting Our Efforts

Her mother told the local newspaper that the district’s policy is sexist and administrators need to prove intent when determining if a student’s outfit is vulgar. Intent? So if a student showed up naked to school but with no intent to be vulgar — maybe it’s art or maybe its a protest — then they should not be in violation of dress code?

“We should not treat a girl like this because of where her fat cells decided to distribute genetically,” the mother said. Fat cells have decision-making powers?

There’s not a lot of clear thinking going on here. But don’t think the district is not worried. Because these are the times in which we live.

Like Us On Facebook

The school district’s lawyer, Mitch Teitelbaum, said the incident should have been handled better — without saying how exactly — but that the decision to ask the girl to adjust her clothing was correct. “It is undisputed that this matter should have been handled differently at the school level, and corrective measures have been taken to prevent a re-occurrence in the way these matters will be addressed in the future,” Teitelbaum said.

Teitelbaum said the girl was in violation of the dress code in the student code of conduct prohibiting students from “wearing clothes that expose underwear or body parts in an indecent or vulgar manner or attire that disrupts the orderly learning environment.”

There is nothing specific about girls wearing bras. But then, it was probably written at a time when a certain amount of common sense and decency prevailed. Again, not these times.

“You would not ask this kind of stuff of a male,” the girl’s mother protested. “If a male was wearing basketball shorts, and somebody thought they could see his package, you would never ask him to stand up and move around.”

Join Our Revolutionary Channel

Actually, I seriously doubt that. Quite sure that student would be asked to adjust his clothing. That’s actually indecent exposure, which is against the law. But again, thoughtful common sense is not at the forefront here.

The aggrieved girl is now going full-scale protest by — you guessed — not wearing bras to school anymore. She tweeted out her intent with “Stop sexualizing my body @piratenationhs.” That was after she tweeted “…My school basically told me that boys’ education is far more important than mine and I should be ashamed of my body.” And, importantly, that was after she re-tweeted in March a tweet stating: “i f**king hate this country.”

Sigh.

Rod Thomson is an author, TV talking head and former journalist, and is Founder of The Revolutionary Act. Rod is co-host of Right Talk America With Julio and Rod on the Salem Radio Network.


Today’s news moves at a faster pace than ever, and a lot of sources are not trustworthy. Whatfinger.com  is my go-to source for keeping up with all the latest events in real time from good sources.


 

Categories
Feminism Politics Truth

The Disease of Modern Feminism

Rod Thomson

Early American feminism that aimed at women’s right to vote and equality under the law was an honorable and reasonable feminism that many American women supported.

That is not remotely today’s feminism.

In fact, today’s is almost the opposite and seems driven largely by angry, man-hating social justice warriors and purely political partisans demanding unlimited abortions until the moment of birth, plus the rest of the liberal agenda. The evidence for this is following. Like intersectionality identity politics, it is another poison in the American culture that propels ever more division, animosity and strife with no apparent end goal.

In fact, it is so divisive and anti-men, that the more radical leaders — which are tomorrow’s mainstream leaders — do not believe that I should even be having an opinion on the subject, because I am a man.

Many women on the political left actually don’t seem to see this sea change in feminism. They still think it is about equal pay (another myth issue), equal opportunities, equality with men and, yes, also abortion. Sure, those are used in sound bites, but only for the political ends of gaining partisan votes. There is no objective truth underpinning them. Abortion is the animating issue for those leading the feminist charge. The movement apparently will accept any kind of anti-feminist behavior or immoral person as long as they are a Democrat and will vote for abortion at any time. Universal opposition to politically conservative, Republican women demonstrates the party partisanship.

But let’s show the overt partisan politics of modern feminism — which is totally devoid of the origins of the movement and the stated goals of standing up for women — and seemingly only about power for Democrats.

 

Historic revelations of feminism’s hypocrisy

The first signs of the disease began sometime around Anita Hill, and her less-than-credible sexual harassment testimony that almost sunk the nomination of Clarence Thomas to the U.S. Supreme Court. Almost none of her testimony was corroborated, and much was disputed by other women in the same office. None of it fit with Clarence Thomas’ known character at the time — or since.

Nonetheless, feminists jumped to support Anita Hill ostensibly because any woman alleging sexual harassment or worse must be believed. But in hindsight, it seems it was only a partisan attack against a conservative justice. Worse for Democrats, a conservative black justice. Thomas was brilliant in his defense, labeling it a “high-tech lynching.”

But the unveiling of partisanship really picked up steam a few years later when Bill Clinton’s penchant for being a serial sexual abuser, probable rapist and disgusting older, powerful married man who took advantage of young women working for him.

The Juanita Broaddrick rape charges are quite compelling and liberals are conveniently seeing the credibility in her claimsnow. There were three other women who came forward with credible sexual assault allegations. And of course there was Monica Lewinsky, the very young intern who the most powerful man in the world persuaded to repeatedly perform oral sex in the Oval Office. Powerful men taking advantage of young, vulnerable women is something feminists supposedly decry and a huge defilement of the American trust.

And yet the feminists who intoned so righteously that Anita Hill must be believed for far less on threadbare testimony, worked night and day to shoot down woman after woman after woman who made far more credible claims against Clinton.

Clinton was just shrugged off as being a bit of a good ol’ boy, bit of a libertine, his personal actions were nobody’s business but his family’s and that we all must separate the private man from the public man. I screamed from the rooftops that you cannot possibly separate the two — they are the same man. A man who incessantly cheats on his wife cannot be expected to be honest in his public dealings. And indeed he wasn’t. He lied to his wife. And he lied to the American people.

This was all just more connivance by his defenders to keep a serial sexual assaulter in office because — not to put too fine a point on it — he defended the right of pregnant women to kill their babies up until birth.

 

The long list of feminist defenders of Bill Clinton

This is just amazing in light of Anita Hill, then Bill Clinton and now the rolling wave of high-profile sex assault predators. Here are what leading feminists were saying in 1998 to keep Clinton in office.

  • “We’re trying to think of the bigger picture, think about what’s best for women,” said Eleanor Smeal, president of the Feminist Majority Foundation. When conservatives called hypocrisy on the feminists, Smeal said: “It’s a twofer for them. If they can get the president, great. And if they can get feminism, even greater.”
  • “It will be a great pity if the Democratic Party is damaged by this,” feminist writer Anne Roiphe told Vanity Fair’s Marjorie Williams in 1998. “That’s been my response from the very beginning — I just wanted to close my eyes, and wished it would go away.”
  • One feminist infamously said she would perform oral sex on Bill Clinton as long as he kept abortion legal up to nine months. Some campus extremist? Hardly. Nina Burleigh, Time magazine’s White House correspondent when Clinton was President. She wrote: “I’d be happy to give him [oral sex] just to thank him for keeping abortion legal.”
  • Bill Clinton’s “enemies are attempting to bring him down through allegations about some dalliance with an intern…. Whether it’s a fantasy, a set-up or true, I simply don’t care,” said high-profile feminist Betty Friedan. Or true.

For a more complete list of fairly stunning hypocritical statements by feminists, read this.

 

Contemporary revelations of feminist hypocrisy

It can sound like modern liberal feminists are coming around to understand what conservatives were saying in the 1990s. Character matters. Private life morals cannot be separated from public life actions. The former will inevitably influence the latter.

Left-wing New York Times writer Michelle Goldberg, who takes shots at conservatives all through this, now writes a column I Believe Juanita:…her explanation, that she didn’t want to go public but couldn’t lie to the F.B.I., makes sense. Put simply, I believe her.”

It would be tempting to take a victory lap that they have finally seen the light. But in truth, it looks like they just saw the opportunity to knock off Roy Moore and put a Democrat in the strongly conservative Alabama Senate seat, and ultimately go after President Trump.

Why? Three examples explain it.

1) First, when Harvey Weinstein first erupted, followed by other Hollywood people, and media people, and comedians — all leftist Democrats and many major fundraisers — there was no soul-searching on the Clinton years. Even when conservatives kept bringing it up. Nothing.

But when the allegations came out on Roy Moore, liberals sniffed an opportunity. Then and only then did they start to publicly reassess the Clinton years. That’s when Goldberg and several others started saying Clinton should have been forced to resign. That’s just a tad too convenient and far too late.

2) New Jersey Sen. Bob Menendez, a Democrat, who has a strong but technically unproven reputation for corruption, was in the midst of a long jury trial. He was charged with influence peddling, gaming federal welfare programs, illegal favors for friends who gave him money, and so on. When Democrat leaders were asked if he would be forced to resign if found guilty — they refused to say yes! The jury in that trial ended with a split decision, meaning the judge had to declare a mistrial. But Democrats made their intentions clear.

During Menendez’s trial, very credible accusations were also made that he used underage prostitutes while in the Dominican Republic with his friend and co-defendant (who was found guilty on corruption charges.) These were unproven allegations, like Moore’s, although his name shows up on flight lists for the time of the accusations. And still, Democrats and feminists said nothing about him stepping down. Could it be because the New Jersey Gov. Chris Christy is a Republican and would have appointed a Republican to replace him?

3) Minnesota Sen. Al Franken, another Democrat, and Congressman John Conyers, yet another Democrat, are stepping down at some point or not running for re-election amid a plethora of sexual assault and misconduct allegations. This, however, fits the mode of power. Both will be replaced by Democrats guaranteed, so in that sense, they were expendable to the greater cause of gaining power. Menendez would have been replaced by a Republican, so he has to stay. And that’s how it works.

 

The feminist mind that openly supports hypocrisy

There is one honest, if somewhat disturbing, feminist on this issue — a true defender of the ends justifies the means.

Kate Harding, co-editor of “Nasty Women: Feminism, Resistance, and Revolution in Trump’s America” and co-host of the podcast Feminasty, wrote a Washington Post article entitled: “I’m a feminist. I study rape culture. And I don’t want Al Franken to resign.”

Here’s the money section:

“It would feel good, momentarily, to see Franken resign and the Democratic governor of Minnesota, Mark Dayton, appoint a senator who has not (as far as we know) harmed women. If I believed for one second that Franken is the only Democrat in the Senate who has done something like this, with or without photographic evidence, I would see that as the best and most appropriate option. But in the world we actually live in, I’m betting that there will be more. And more after that. And they won’t all come from states with Democratic governors and a deep bench of progressive replacements. Some will, if ousted, have their successors chosen by Republicans.”

She expounds further.

“In other words, if we set this precedent in the interest of demonstrating our party’s solidarity with harassed and abused women, we’re only going to drain the swamp of people who, however flawed, still regularly vote to protect women’s rights and freedoms. The legislative branch will remain chockablock with old, white Republican men who regard women chiefly as sex objects and unpaid housekeepers, and we’ll show them how staunchly Democrats oppose their misogynistic attitudes by handing them more power.”

And there you have it. Feminist Harding (who is the featured picture with this post), writing in the Washington Post, is giving Democrat men a green light to abuse however much they want, as long as they protect “women’s rights” — by which she means unlimited abortion and contraceptives. That is precisely the argument made in 1998 by Eleanor Smeal, Nina Burleigh and others.

Nothing has changed.

Feminists are revealed in all these cases to be complete partisans, having no underlying philosophy beyond the desire for power to keep abortion legal up to the moment of birth.

That’s a disease.

Rod Thomson is an author, TV talking head and former journalist, and is Founder of The Revolutionary Act.