San Francisco State University endorsed the erasure of women this week when its top student affairs administrator released a statement reaffirming the transgender activists who attacked women’s rights speaker Riley Gaines.
Gaines, who rose to fame after speaking up about the unfairness of men masquerading as women to gain an advantage in women’s sports, was assaulted last week after she attempted to address a crowd at a Turning Point USA event about the necessity of female spaces, especially in athletic settings. The chaos ensued mere hours after White House Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre encouraged radical gender ideologues to “fight back” against people who called for sex-specific spaces.
Footage of the attack on SFSU’s campus shows the former NCAA swimmer being chased by a crowd yelling “trans rights are human rights” and calling the swimmer a “transphobic b-itch.”
Gaines reported that, during the chaos, she was assaulted by at least one man and trapped in a room for three hours. The mob also attempted to extort money from her in exchange for her freedom before she was finally able to escape. Gaines said neither campus police nor attending school administrators took steps to stop the violence.
“This is proof that women need sex-protected spaces,” Gaines tweeted.
Instead of punishing the hysterical students who “ambushed” Gaines, the school and alumni cheered on the angry mob.
Shortly after Gaines was attacked, SFSU’s Vice President for Student Affairs & Enrollment Management Jamillah Moore released an official statement encouraging the students who harassed the speaker.
“Today, San Francisco State finds itself again at the center of a national discussion regarding freedom of speech and expression. Let me begin by saying clearly: the trans community is welcome and belongs at San Francisco State University,” she wrote.
Moore also claimed that the students that are seen on footage roughhousing Gaines chose to “protest peacefully.”
“Thank you to our students who participated peacefully in Thursday evening’s event. It took tremendous bravery to stand in a challenging space. I am proud of the moments when we listened and asked insightful questions. I am also proud of the moments when our students demonstrated the value of free speech and the right to protest peacefully,” Moore said.
Gaines quickly condemned Moore’s statement and confirmed that she plans to sue the school for failing to protect her from violence.
“I’m sorry did this just say PEACEFUL….,” Gaines replied. “I was assaulted. I was extorted and held for ran[s]om. The protestors demanded I pay them if I wanted to make it home safely. I missed my flight home because I was barricaded in a classroom… We must have different definitions of peaceful.”
Just last month, an angry mob of Stanford law students shut down a talk led by Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals Judge Kyle Duncan with profane insults and threats of violence and death. Stanford President Marc Tessier-Lavigne and Stanford Law School Dean Jenny Martinez eventually apologized but the students and administrators who participated in the chaos were left largely unpunished.
Stanford Law School’s Associate Dean for Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion Tirien Steinbach, who confronted Duncan about the “harm” she claimed he caused to students, doubled down on their defiant challenge and refused to apologize even after she was put on administrative leave.
Jordan Boyd is a staff writer at The Federalist and co-producer of The Federalist Radio Hour. Her work has also been featured in The Daily Wire, Fox News, and RealClearPolitics. Jordan graduated from Baylor University where she majored in political science and minored in journalism. Follow her on Twitter @jordanboydtx.
Those conservatives who want to shape the nascent pro-family movement emerging on the right must be willing to embrace a controversial — and countercultural — reality: Healthy families require strong, stable, and secure men. That means Republicans interested in crafting pro-family policy must focus on the well-being of America’s boys and men.
Democrats have spent decades supporting policies that make men and fathers economically and socially obsolete. They’ve promoted the notion that families and societies flourish when women are empowered, even to the detriment of men. For instance, they see the fact that women outnumber men in the college-educated labor force as a win for gender equality.
It’s not all progress, however, from the perspective of modern feminists. So-called access to abortion, a major plank in the women’s empowerment agenda, was dealt a serious blow when the Supreme Court’s Dobbsv. Jackson Women’s Health Organization decision struck down Roe v. Wade and returned the issue of abortion to the states.
This seismic shift, combined with the economic challenges brought on by Covid-19 shutdowns and parental discontent with public schools, has opened the door for some conservatives to seek to rebrand Republicans as the party of families.
The initial push for this political pivot came from Republicans in the U.S. Senate. The most recent iteration of Utah Sen. Mitt Romney’s proposed Family Security Act would provide between $250 and $350 a month per child, based on age. Florida Sen. Marco Rubio’s Provide for Life Act would expand the child tax credit, enable parental leave, expand support for pro-life crisis pregnancy centers, and fund mentoring services for low-income mothers. Conservative social commentators have also made the case that limited government and support for families are compatible policy goals.
Whatever the merits of these efforts, the success of pro-family policies will depend on more than bipartisan support in Congress. The social and economic outcomes conservatives want to see must start with the understanding that men and women are not generic, interchangeable parts in the machinery of family life.
Recognizing Roles
Men have played the role of provider throughout human history, though in recent decades that role has been shared. Still, no culture teaches that it’s a woman’s responsibility to take care of an adult male and the children they have together. This is why women generally seek men who earn more than they do. One analysis of U.S. Census data found that female physicians married men in the same field. Male doctors, however, often married nurses and teachers.
This is not an argument against women in the workplace. It’s an appeal for conservatives to recognize that disregarding the natural order in the name of “women’s empowerment,” whether through public policy or cultural norms, will make it harder for Americans to form strong, stable families.
Conservative politicians and pundits need to become comfortable talking about what boys and men need in terms of education, economic opportunity, religion, social norms, and relationships.
Their political speeches, op-eds, and podcast appearances need a renewed emphasis on vocational education that is aspirational, not framed in terms of a fallback option for young men who are unable — or unwilling — to attend college. Conservatives need to speak with a similar sense of clarity and concern when it comes to men, sex, and family formation.
Every conservative bill, statute, policy, or regulation that directly affects families should include some version of the following statements:
Children have a right to the love and support of the man and woman who created them.
The ideal family structure for every child is to be raised by his or her married biological parents in a stable and loving home.
Men, not the state, are ultimately responsible for the children they father.
These self-evident truths should function as the “iron triangle” of social conservatism. Men need something they are willing to both live and die for. The responsibilities that come with a family give them both.
Critics on the left — as well as some on the right — will undoubtedly accuse conservatives focusing on men of promoting a regressive return to the rigid sex roles of the 1950s. What they fail to realize is that the sexual revolution and 60 years of liberal social policy did not destroy patriarchy — they distorted it by minimizing the importance of men while maximizing the influence male-dominated institutions have in every area of American family life.
Different Forms of Patriarchy
“Bureaucratic patriarchy” was introduced through the war on poverty’s expansion of the welfare state and policy incentives that provided aid and basic necessities for unmarried mothers. It has grown because of the symbiotic relationship between elected officials seeking votes, social service administrators overseeing the poverty economy, and single mothers who need financial support.
Conservatives have a hard time criticizing “corporate patriarchy,” by contrast, because it promotes financial independence for women and exploits conservative deference to the private sector. A recent video from the pro-life organization Live Action satirizes an unfortunate reality brought about by the right’s allegiance to corporations: Many businesses would rather fund abortions than paid maternity leave for their female employees. Perhaps business executives are simply taking cues from Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen, who said, “eliminating the right of women to make decisions about when and whether to have children would have very damaging effects on the economy and would set women back decades.”
The advent of “trans patriarchy” further complicates the pro-life, pro-family movement because men who believe they are women are committed to erasing biological sex altogether. In addition to attacking the foundation of human existence itself, this deformed version of patriarchy also seeks to usurp the family’s role as the primary shaper of children’s values.
Many conservatives fail to see how the daycare-to-demisexual pipeline was built over time by politicians increasing funding for childcare and schools, corporations offering generous benefits in exchange for employee loyalty, and gender ideologues who want access to shape the next generation of children.
The actors involved in all three deformed patriarchies are cruel taskmasters because they take a utilitarian view of women and children. A man who accepts his God-given responsibilities has a completely different orientation toward his family. His relationship with his wife is a covenant, not a contract. His children are the fruit of that union and the linchpin to multi-generational prosperity. They’re not mere “consequences” of sex and burdens to be overcome for the sake of economic productivity.
In a sense, some form of patriarchy is inevitable. The question conservative policymakers need to answer is which form they believe produces the best outcomes for men, women, and children. This is why clear thinking about families must be preceded by honest reflection on the different natures of men and women and how they can be harnessed to fortify American households. That is why now is the perfect time for conservatives to lean into the connection between strong men and stable families.
Delano Squires is a research fellow in the Richard and Helen DeVos Center for Life, Religion, and Family at The Heritage Foundation. Follow him on Twitter @DelanoSquires.
Forcing children to sleep and undress next to kids of the opposite sex effectively puts up a ‘Christian kids need not apply’ sign on public recreation activities.
This spring I got an email from 4-H, a club I participated in as a child, effectively communicating that my Christian family need not apply to summer camps and other activities sponsored by the quasi-public organization. (County governments often sponsor 4-H activities.) This email was signed by a 4-H staffer who put pronouns in his signature and told me, “Youth are assigned cabins based on gender indicated on the 4-H camp application and registration,”suggesting children were roomed by gender identity rather than sex.
Naturally, I was concerned that my tween daughter and son might be roomed overnight with an emotionally disturbed camper or counselor if I enrolled them in this camp. Based on numerous reported stories, I know that if this did happen, the camp likely would not even tell me, so I’d only hear about it after the fact from my kids. When I emailed again to confirm I was understanding this correctly, the staffer refused to answer definitively whether campers could be placed in private facilities such as bedrooms and bathrooms with transgender individuals. That’s an unacceptable risk to children’s well-being, as well as a lawsuit waiting to happen.
Given how socially contagious LGBT identification is, it’s not just about transgender issue but also exposing children to sexual information and pressures far earlier than they are ready. Hand in hand with grouping children by gender identity is forcing conversations about what that means, which pushes children earlier and earlier to declare and investigate sexual behaviors. This is destabilizing to their identity, not “affirming” it.
Given 4-H national’s commitment to the toxic “diversity, equity, inclusion” ideology, the fact that my Christian kids now cannot equally access lots of their programming due to 4-H’s choice to sexualize their activities was no surprise. But I still wanted to see in writing that my red county in my red state was indeed giving tax breaks and other government privileges to an organization that might room children overnight with troubled people of the opposite sex against their parents’ will. The answer is yes. (Thanks, Republicans!)
Everywhere We Go, Someone Wants to Talk Dirty to My Kids on the Public Dime
It’s not just places kids get naked. It’s everywhere. I cannot take my children to the public library anymore, either, because the shelves are so full of pornographic and hostile books that it’s not a safe place for them. There, too, self-righteous LGBT activism has resulted in effectively banning my children from yet another public place and weaponizing my own tax dollars against my children’s safety. The shelves and displays in our library are full of books telling my children lies such as that “men can become women” and “some boys have girl brains” and “gender is a social construct.” I’m happy to have these conversations with my children when they are ready, but I know my six-year-old, and he is not ready. My eight-year-old is not ready, and neither are my 10- and 11-year-old, frankly. It’s grotesque and evil to put books at their eye level that deliberately aim to confuse them about something so deep and important. To do this is to usurp not only my parental wisdom and authority over my own children but to usurp my children’s right to an innocent, emotionally secure childhood.
It Won’t Happen, And When It Does, You Bigots Will Deserve It
These all prove that rapidly rewriting American laws to ignore sexual differences has effectively banned Christian families from equal participation in public facilities and activities. It’s not just Christian families, it’s any family that thinks it imprudent to lodge their sometimes-undressed daughters with an emotionally traumatized male at summer camp or to obtain swimming lessons at a public pool. This all descends from the massive bait and switch inherent to the LGBT policy agenda. We were told it was only about extending government sanction to what consenting adults do behind closed doors. We were told it was about allowing people to visit loved ones in hospice and inherit without legal difficulties. It wasn’t going to affect our families, remember?
Anyone who raised concerns about how calling sexual activities that cannot create a family “marriage” would affect children, faith, and families was smeared as a know-nothing bigot. Anyone who wanted to logically think through how legally equating men to women in the social keystone of marriage would have a domino effect on many other laws and social arrangements was also smeared as a hateful bigot, all the way up to highly intelligent and reasoned Supreme Court dissents. It’s the same toxic play we’ve seen work ever since: Anyone with a contrary opinion or even unanswered questions is not engaged, but simply smeared.
Men and Women Are Different, And That Matters
The fact is that equating homosexual relationships to marriage very often requires explaining adult sexual behaviors to tiny children. Erasing the differences between the sexes in marriage also leads irrevocably to erasing the differences between the sexes everywhere else, from bathrooms to pools to summer camps. Breaking down all sexual differences also results in discrimination against religious expressions that acknowledge men and women are different, and these differences are divinely ordered.
Thus upending the natural sexual order has resulted, not in the falsely promised “equality,” but in simply flipping which social system will rule. For what we were prevented from discussing or even seeing was the fact that these two regimes — treating the sexes as different and complementary versus seeing them as neutered and interchangeable — are mutually exclusive.
You cannot have both transgender swimmers and single-sex sports competition. You cannot have both the sexual profligacy pushed by the dominant LGBT activist class and protect children from sexualized childhoods and predatory social situations. You must have one or the other.
In the absence of clarity about this reality combined with effective use of power on reality’s behalf, abrasive, antisocial activists have fully taken over every public space. Any further sorties are merely tinkering around the edges of their all-encompassing kingdom.
Children Are No Longer a Protected Class, They’re Targets for Groomers
So instead of achieving equality, what we have really achieved is the subversion of children’s developmental needs to adult desires. Instead of equality, we have replaced legal preferences for the only sexual arrangement that produces the most stable future citizens — lifelong married biological parents — with legal preferences for sexual arrangements that harm children and send religious folk to the back of the public bus.
Therefore, all who believe in protecting children from marinating in sexual imagery and ideas everywhere they go are the new underclass in our political regime, and in many cases no Republican officials will even recognize our legitimate concerns, let alone fight for our daughters. That’s certainly the case here in Indiana, where Republican Gov. Eric Holcomb won’t sign bare-minimum legislation protecting girls’ sports and nobody is even talking about making our libraries, camps, and pools safe for families (even though that’s one of the few value-added policies a state like Indiana can offer its citizens).
Many of our major public and private institutions are making the public square completely hostile to a happy childhood and faith. Their “solution” to alleged bigotry was institutionalizing actual bigotry. “Our kind” aren’t wanted in “their” territory, you see. Maybe we would be allowed to have separate pools and summer camps funded by our own money, as long as the ACLU doesn’t sue them out of existence like they do Christian hospitals and foster care agencies.
What we weren’t told was that letting homosexuals out of the closet would require stuffing all the children and Christians inside.
Joy Pullmann is executive editor of The Federalist, a happy wife, and the mother of six children. Sign up here to get early access to her next ebook, “101 Strategies For Living Well Amid Inflation.” Her bestselling ebook is “Classic Books for Young Children.” Mrs. Pullmann identifies as native American and gender natural. She is also the author of “The Education Invasion: How Common Core Fights Parents for Control of American Kids,” from Encounter Books. In 2013-14 she won a Robert Novak journalism fellowship for in-depth reporting on Common Core national education mandates. Joy is a grateful graduate of the Hillsdale College honors and journalism programs.
In a seemingly never-ending sea of hot topics, gender equality is always near the forefront. Whether it’s called ‘women’s rights,’ ‘female empowerment,’ or ‘the feminist movement,’ it’s all pushing the same agenda. According to society, if you’re not crying ‘I am woman, hear me roar,’ then you’re not supporting other women. Well, I respectfully disagree.
According to mainstream media, to be a woman who supports women, you must be: pro-choice, pro-LGBT, and celebrate all-female life choices. You must think Cardi B grinding on Megan Thee Stallion (ask yourself why that’s her stage name) on national television is sexual empowerment. You must watch your step as to not cut yourself on the remnants of the shattered ceiling of Kamala Harris becoming the first female Vice President. Meanwhile, don’t forget to cheer while Miranda Hobbs has a sexual awakening and leaves her husband for a non-binary comedian (a female named Che, formerly known as Cheryl) on the new Sex and the City reboot, And Just Like That…
To the overly aggressive agenda-pushing media and entertainment industry, I say no. No, I will not support abortion because it is murder. I will not perpetuate the LGBT movement because there are two genders and woman was made for man and vice versa. I’m never going to celebrate someone holding public office that I fundamentally disagree with regardless of their gender. I’m never going to cheer as a family is torn apart, regardless of the circumstances. (I’m aware there are valid reasons for divorce — I’m not referring to that here.)
I will not compromise my morals under the guise of women supporting women. This does not make an anti-feminist. It means that I am rooted in my beliefs and I’m not wrong for saying such.
Every religious stand in this country, great or small, is met with a deafening outcry denouncing the cause. So, where are the Christian women? Where are the fierce, Bible-believing wives and mothers? Why is it acceptable to tolerate the outcry of every opposing thought that hits the airwaves but the conservative, family-centered matriarch is expected to sit down and shut up? If the church is not influencing our nation, then conversely, one can assume the nation is influencing the church.
God created man in His image. Then from the ribs of the man, He created woman. Genesis 2:21-24 tells us how He brought the woman out of the man and now they are one flesh. This is the nucleus of the family unit. This was God’s design. When you step back and look at the many movements concurrently running through our society, you’ll discover they all seek to destroy the Biblical family unit. If you remove gender from society, then you remove the image of God. That is the ultimate goal after all — to remove Christ and His influence from the world.
Ephesians 2:2 tells us that Satan is the prince and the power of the air meaning that he rules on the earth. He has tremendous influence and reach on the earth but that doesn’t mean that Christians are expected to sit back and endure silently. Matthew 5:13-16 tells us that we are salt and light, and we are to let our light shine before others so that they may see the Father through us. Salt retards corruption and light outshines the darkness. We have a purpose and it’s to spread the message of Jesus Christ to a fallen world.
Truthfully, a God-fearing woman is the ultimate feminist. There is nothing more feminine and empowering than finding your God-appointed mate and creating life out of that love. Proverbs 31:10-31 describes a Godly wife and mother. The world has this distorted view of Christian women as lowly, meek pushovers who are afraid of their powerful husbands. While this might be the case for some, I assure you that is not what God intended. There is no gender priority according to God. One can simply not exist without the other. We were created with a specific design in mind. We were created uniquely and with specific responsibilities for home and for the body of Christ.
Christian friends, we need to be strong advocates for Christ and His design. The world’s effort to derail Christianity will only increase so now is the time to be rooted in our dedication to the Lord.
Ladies, be proud of being a Christ-centered woman. Love your husband unapologetically. Raise your children to know and love Jesus. Men, love and respect your wives and guide your families according to His Word. It takes strong men and women to boldly speak the truth in a dark world. Rise up and be proud of exactly who Christ created you to be.
Erica Caudill is a lifelong Christian who runs a blog. She is a married mother of two children. She can be reached at mrscaudill@me.com.
One self-described radical feminist is speaking out against the Women’s March for its failing to focus on actual women’s issues.
Phyllis Chesler, a long-time feminist and a professor of psychology and women’s studies, called the march “a con job” and criticized it for its unfit leadership.
In an opinion piece published by Fox News on Saturday, Chesler voiced her disapproval of the latest wave of feminism. She wrote that the marches are “stage events, not revolutions,” and lamented the loss of “a vibrant and radical feminist movement.”
Advertisement – story continues below
Now 78, Chesler is considered part of “second-wave feminism,” the movement that ushered in the sexual revolution (and legalized abortion). She believes that the current feminist movement is no longer really concerned with women’s issues. Instead, feminism is now about “intersectionality” and identity politics, at the cost of real women’s liberation.
“The Women’s March addresses things like ‘immigration reform’ and ‘police violence against black men;’ they say they are ‘anti-racists,’ more than they are ‘anti-sexists;’ and they prioritize ‘queer and transgender’ politics, but never plain old garden variety women’s issues,”Chesler wrote.
She complained about how the leaders of the Women’s March are branded like actors and reality show celebrities, unlike the members of grassroots movements Chesler was a part of. Chesler expressed disapproval of modern feminism’s convoluted identity politics, where members get points for their minority statuses. She also bashed the march for its anti-Semitism, pointing to claims that Jewish leaders were pushed out of the group. Chesler believes that the few Jewish members of the march’s committee, “have mainly been chosen as window dressing and as proof of intersectionality.’”
She argued that current feminist leaders’ obsession with inclusiveness trumps their concern with women’s rights in Third World countries. Chesler called out Women’s March leader Linda Sarsour for failing to condemn the human rights abuses in Muslim states.
“Sex trafficking? Child marriage? FGM? Forced face veiling? Honour killing? None of these issues are being addressed by the American Women’s March leadership,”Chesler wrote.
Many conservatives have voiced similar confusion over the broad range of issues that are now being grouped under the name of “feminism.” However, the fact that Chesler’s criticism comes from an old-school feminist’s perspective says a lot about how far gone the modern feminist movement has come. The left is imploding on itself. Liberals can’t sustain coherence with their identity politics-focused model because it’s inherently divisive. Leftists compete with each other to see who’s more oppressed, and bash anyone they deem “privileged.” They demonize Americans by carelessly throwing around labels like “racist” and “Nazi,” and are therefore deathly afraid of the labels being turned on them.
As Chesler wrote, this comes at the price of real crises that need attention. Tied up in their own identity politics, liberals are often silent on the issues they should be helping, like the sexist practices rampant in radical Islam.
Feminism is no longer feminist enough for people like Chesler. Some African-Americans are no longer considered“black enough” for liberals. Prominent gays and lesbians are criticized for not advocating for gay rights in the politically correct way. And even old-line feminists are starting to notice.
Alright, all you pink, knit kitty hat-wearing, genitalia-costumed protesters — what do you have to say about THIS?
In a fantastic and unbelievably timely piece in the Christian Post, journalist and radio show host, Julie Roys writes about feminism and sexual predators.
It is an incredibly well-written indictment of modern feminism and their role in aiding and abetting sexual predators in Washington, Hollywood, and the rest of American society.
(FYI for all the offense-mongers out there, this article was written by a female ClashDaily Editor.)
Roy cites 5 big reasons why feminism has contributed to the sexual exploitation and harassment of women.
1. Not calling out sexual predators that are ideological allies
Roys enumerates the ‘feminists’ that had jumped to the defense of Bill Clinton in the 90s amidst the allegations of sexual assault:
In the 1990s and subsequent decades, feminism revealed itself to be shockingly Machiavellian. At a critical time, when the nation’s attention was trained on the plight of women exploited by a powerful man, feminism essentially told female victims to suck it up and move on. Is it any wonder that women like actress Natalie Portman have been rendered numb to the sexual harassment they’ve routinely endured?
Portman recently disclosed that when the allegations against Weinstein first surfaced, she thought, “Wow, I’m so lucky that I haven’t had this.”Then on further reflection she realized she’s been the victim of sexual harassment a hundred times, but had learned to dismiss it as “part of the process.” “I’ve had discrimination or harassment on almost everything I’ve ever worked on in some way,” she said.
Feminism also told powerful predators like Bill Clinton that if they support liberal causes, they can have their way with women and feminists will have their back. Is it any wonder that the Harvey Weinsteins of this world took this message and ran with it?
And then, Roy levels the knockout punch:
Let’s face it. We’re in this current cultural moment because of feminists, not in spite of them!
She’s absolutely right.
2. Abortion
But it’s not just feminists’ protection of predators that has contributed to the epidemic of sexual harassment and abuse in this country. The entire ideology of feminism renders women as tools for men…
…Women don’t want abortions; men do. In fact, a study reported in the Medical Science Monitor found that 64-percent of women who abort feel pressured to do so. Similarly, Frederica Matthewes-Green, who talked to hundreds of women about their decision to abort for her book, Real Choices, found that women aren’t having abortions because they are poor, or because a child would interfere with school or career plans. They’re having abortions because the men in their lives tell them to do so.
Matthewes-Green reported that 88-percent of the women she interviewed said their trip to the abortion clinic was not a choice, but a capitulation. They didn’t feel empowered; they felt isolated, overwhelmed and sad.
Mathhewes-Green said that women don’t choose abortion like an ice cream cone or a Porsche, she went so far as to illustrate the ‘woman’s choice’ like an ‘animal caught in a trap that wants to gnaw its own leg off’.
Yet, abortion is still a pillar of the feminist movement.
Yet abortion remains enshrined as the holy grail of feminism. The National Organization of Women (NOW) names so-called “reproductive justice” as one of its five main campaigns. Reproductive Rights is also cited as one of the Women’s March main “unity principles.”
Feminism’s commitment to abortion is downright fanatical. As one of Hillary Clinton’s biographers, Dr. Paul Kengor, once wrote, “(Abortion) is Hillary’s hill to die on. I believe Hillary Clinton would give her life for Roe v. Wade.”
But that’s not the entirety of Roy’s ire. She’s not just writing about feminists past, but also feminists present.
3. Making women the functional equivalents of men
As much as feminists want to claim that women are identical to men — NEWSFLASH! They’re not.
It’s ok that there are differences in the genders.
Abortion is necessary to achieve feminism’s goal of making women the functional equivalents of men. But women aren’t the functional equivalents of men. Perhaps someone should inform feminists that women have a womb; we nurse babies; and we’d prefer to have our unique maternal functions protected, rather than obliterated.
We’d also prefer feminists to call predatory men to account – not just the Bill Clintons and Harvey Weinsteins, but the “Alexes” and “Martys.” These are the guys who bragged to a Vanity Fair reporter about their “Tinderellas,” the dozens of girls they’ve slept with and discarded after finding them on dating apps like Tinder and Hinge.
Feminists should be up in arms over the wanton abuse of women inherent in the current hookup culture; instead so-called “third-wave” feminists are actually promoting it.
These “sex-positive” or “porn-positive”feminists are so deceived that they actually think freely prostituting one’s body is somehow in women’s best interests. Heavily influenced by the message of the sexual revolution, these daughters of second-wave feminists believe sexual freedom is essential to women’s freedom and, as a result, oppose controlling or limiting sex in any way.
You know like ‘feminist’ and 2018 Grammy nominee Cardi B and others that are peddling sex as a pastime or a way to wealth and fame.
5. Sex/Porn Positive ‘feminists’ strong-arming anyone that disagrees with them
Just like with abortion, if you disagree with feminists on their view of casual sex and that women view sex differently than men do, they’ll disavow you.
Sadly, their errant ideology is killing them. As a female student at Boston College told Vanity Fair, “Sex should stem from emotional intimacy, and it’s the opposite with us right now, and I think it really is kind of destroying females’ self-images.” Her classmate agreed and added, “But if you say any of this out loud, it’s like you’re weak, you’re not independent, you somehow missed the whole memo about third-wave feminism.”
Source: The Christian Post
Feminists in Stockholm are leaving areas like the notorious migrant-heavy no-go zones of Husby and Tensta because they say religious fundamentalists now rule those suburbs.
Nalin Pekgul is a self-described feminist and former member of parliament for the left wing Swedish Social Democrats. For over 30 years, she lived in the Stockholm suburb of Tensta but says that she no longer feels safe there. She claims Muslim fundamentalists have taken over and she doesn’t feel she can visit the centre of Tensta without being harassed, Swedish broadcaster SVT reports.
According to Ms. Pekgul, the situation for women in public life in the area has deteriorated over the past several years. She noted that there has been a rise in religious fundamentalism amongst the men in the area, many of whom come from migrant backgrounds. Pekgul attempted to combat the trend by organising coffee shop meetings but soon abandoned the idea.
“In Tensta I am a known face and I have no desire to stir up trouble when I get harassed,”Pekgul said explaining why she no longer goes into the centre of the suburb. When asked if she will remain in the suburb, she said: “I always hope that it will blow over. One should never forget that the vast majority here are cursing the fundamentalists.”
Zeliha Dagli, a former Left Party politician, did end up moving from the no-go suburb of Husby. Dagli described Husby as having self-appointed “morality police”who attempt to control women’s behaviour in the area. Aggression toward feminists, in particular, became an issue she said. “There were rumours that we wanted to take away women’s veils,” she said. “They said that I should keep myself, and then I did not feel so safe anymore.” Dagli now lives in the inner city area of Stockholm and says she is happier that she can wear or say what she wants without fearing for her safety. She said she would consider returning to Husby, but only if the area became safer for her.
Husby, like the no-go suburb of Rinkeby, is heavily populated by migrants, many of them from countries in Africa and the Middle East and many of them Muslim. In May of last year, a Norwegian film crew was attacked by a group of locals in Husby while they were attempting to interview Swedish economist and author Tino Sanandaji.
Sanandaji, a Kurdish Iranian immigrant, has been slammed by many in Sweden for his new book Mass Challenge which describes the problems Sweden has faced because of mass migration. One library in Stockholm even refused to stock the book accusing it of being racist.
American filmmaker Ari Horowitz was also attacked in Husby last year during an investigation into Swedish no-go zones.
Follow Chris Tomlinson on Twitter at @TomlinsonCJ or email at ctomlinson@breitbart.com
NY Post and Daily Mail articles focus attention on Rasmea’s involvement in second phase of Women’s March.
On February 12, 2017, we reported on the next phase of the so-called Women’s March, Women’s March calls for General Strike and Day Without A Women. In that post, we called attention to the fact that Rasmea Odeh was one of the organizers, along with other radicals like Angela Davis, via Algemeiner:
A convicted Palestinian terroristwas among the eight feminist activists who called earlier this week on American women to join a March 8 international strike — which organizers are calling a protest “against male violence and in defense of reproductive rights.” ….
In a Guardian op-ed published on Monday — attention to which was brought on social media by investigative journalist and author Gary Weiss — Odeh, joined by Linda Martín Alcoff, Cinzia Arruzza, Tithi Bhattacharya, Nancy Fraser, Barbara Ransby, Keeanga-Yamahtta Taylor and Angela Davis, wrote that the goal of the planned protest is to “mobilize women, including trans women, and all who support them in an international day of struggle — a day of striking, marching, blocking roads, bridges, and squares, abstaining from domestic, care and sex work, boycotting, calling out misogynistic politicians and companies, striking in educational institutions…Let us use the occasion of this international day of action to be done with lean-in feminism and to build in its place a feminism for the 99%, a grassroots, anti-capitalist feminism — a feminism in solidarity with working women, their families and their allies throughout the world.”
As reported by The Algemeineron Monday, Odeh will be a featured speaker at the upcoming Jewish Voice for Peace (JVP) 2017 National Member Meeting — set to be held in Chicago from March 31 to April 2.
Legal Insurrection readers, of course, are very familiar with Rasmea from our many dozens of posts about her history and trials. For those of you who have not been following the case, here is a very brief summary:
Rasmea Odeh is the military member of the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP)who was convictedin Israeli in 1970 of the 1969 bombing of the SuperSol supermarket in Jerusalem, and the attempted bombing of the British Consulate.
[Vigil in memory of Edward Joffe and Leon Kanner, DePaul University, outside fundraiser for Rasmea Odeh]
Rasmea claims she was not involved in the supermarket bombing, and was convicted only because she gave a false confession after 25 days of sexual torture. Previously, we have explored the factual conflicts in Rasmea’s story, including that she confessed the day after arrest, not 25 days later; bomb-making material was found in her room; she received an open trial observed by a representative of the International Red Cross who described the trial as fair; and perhaps most important, Rasmea’s co-conspirator, Ayesha Odeh (not related), described in a 2004 interview for a pro-Palestinian filmmaker how Rasmea was the mastermind behind the supermarket bombing. After serving nearly a decade in prison, Rasmea was released in a prisoner release for an Israel soldier captured in Lebanon. While she was imprisoned, the PFLP formed the “Rasmea Odeh Brigade” to try to free her and others by taking hostages, and Rasmea was on the list of prisoners whose release was sought by the Black September terrorists who took Israeli athletes hostage (and killed them) at the 1972 Olympics. Yet Rasmea claims she was not involved in terror organizations and was just an innocent political activist when arrested by the Israelis. Rasmea eventually made her way to the U.S. in the mid-1990s. Rasmea gave false answers on her visa application, and in 2004 on her naturalization application, by denying (among other lies) that she EVER (bold and CAPS in original) was convicted or imprisoned. Rasmieh was convicted of immigration fraud in November 2014.In December 2016, the trial court ordered a new trial so that Rasmea could testify that she only confessed because of 25 days of torture which caused her to suffer PTSD. That PTSD, Rasmea’s expert will testify, caused Rasmea to “filter” the questions on the immigration forms such that “EVER” was understood by her to mean only since coming to the U.S. in the 1990s. Thus, Rasmea will argue, she did not “knowingly”give false answers, which is an element of the criminal offense.
The expert testimony, which amounts to junk science, never should have been allowed and Rasmea should not have been given a new trial, for reasons we have explained before. But the Judge ruled as he did, and it’s moving forward to a new trial in January 2017.
At that re-trial, unlike the first trial, Rasmea’s guilt or innocence of the bombing will be an issue, though it still isn’t an element of the immigration charge, because Rasmea claims she only confessed due to 25 days of torture. (Whether she did the bombing or not, she still needed to disclose the conviction and imprisonment.) The prosecution has argued in court papers that Rasmea is lying, and that the prosecution will prove so in the next trial.
Rasmea’s status in the radical communityis rising, as we noted in The Sickening Deification of Rasmea Odeh. So it is no surprise that Rasmea has injected herself into the Women’s March movement. But that association is causing a stir.
Instead of milling around Washington, organizers have in mind a “general strike” called the Day without a Woman. In a manifesto published in The Guardian on Feb. 6, the brains behind the movement are calling for a “new wave of militant feminist struggle.” That’s right: militant, not peaceful.
The document was co-authored by, among others, Rasmea Yousef Odeh, a convicted terrorist. Odeh, a Palestinian, was convicted in Israel in 1970 for her part in two terrorist bombings, one of which killed two students while they were shopping for groceries. She spent 10 years in prison for her crimes. She then managed to become a US citizen in 2004 by lying about her past (great detective work, INS: Next time, use Google) but was subsequently convicted, in 2014, of immigration fraud for the falsehoods. However, she won the right to a new trial (set for this spring) by claiming she had been suffering from PTSD at the time she lied on her application. Oh, and in her time as a citizen, she worked for a while as an ObamaCare navigator.
The Daily Mail also had a story, since Rasmea also tried to bomb the British Consulate:
The Daily Mail gave us a nice shout out:
Her lawyers claimed that her confession was tortured out of her by Israeli military. However, according to a 1970 report in The Jerusalem Times – reprinted on conservative site Legal Insurrection – a Red Cross representative – Guy Wintelir – testified that the trial had been fair.
I worked in National Security at Breitbart, which made me very grateful to live in America. Every day I covered stories describing actual oppression of females. I bet you anything those females would love to have the cost of their birth control as their only worry.
Those marches made me ashamed of my sex since governments in other countries actually treat its female citizens like second class citizens. I will concentrate on three countries: Saudi Arabia, Iran, and India.
Saudi Arabia
A major American ally. While the country has slowly started making ways out of the stone age, they still live in one. Saudi law prohibits females from leaving the house without a male guardian. The females cannot travel or even conduct any official business without this guardian’s permission. This guardian must also make medical decisions for the female.
Yes, Leftists. In Saudi Arabia, a male MAKES YOUR MEDICAL DECISION. Last time I checked you guys did not need a male guardian to give you permission to even go to a doctor.
Oh, those disgusting vagina hats you wore? Good luck doing that in Saudi Arabia! Over there, females must keep their bodies covered except for hands and eyes. Now, in some areas a female can have her face uncovered. SO RADICAL, RIGHT?!
Did you enjoy socializing with the males who marched alongside you? In Saudi Arabia, sex segregation is a top priority. In fact, if someone catches you talking to a non-relative male, you can receive charges for adultery or prostitution! In June 2010, the courts sentenced four men and eleven men because they had the nerve for socializing at a party. Yeah, they got lashes and time in jail.
Did you drive to the marches? Because females in Saudi Arabia basically cannot drive. There are no laws, but restrictions basically make it impossible for females to enjoy driving a car. The governments force these citizens to receive a local license to drive and the places do not issue them to females. Rural areas allow a little flexibility.
I saw that the march in DC gave the metro a historic day. Yeah, Saudi Arabia does not like for its females to enjoy public transportation because God forbid they mingle with non-related males. THE HORROR.
I could go on, but let’s move to another country.
Iran
Ironically, females worked hard to overthrow the government in 1979. The result gave females an oppressive government with little rights.
Work in the government? You must abide by the Islamic dress code. The previous government banned the hijab, but this new government forced ALL females to wear it. No choice. So you go from one extreme to the other. How lovely. The government banned females from becoming judges. Females must wear the hijab out in public. Want an education? You have to wear the hijab to school.
Females cannot play sports! To make it worse, females cannot even watch the males play these sports.
Guess what happened in 2015? Iran proposed bills to OUTLAW VOLUNTARY STERILIZATION. Yup! LITERALLY NO BIRTH CONTROL. Females cannot even receive information about ways to prevent pregnancy.
The Comprehensive Population and Exaltation of Family Bill (Bill 315), which is due to be discussed in parliament next month, would further entrench gender-based discrimination, particularly against women who choose not to or are unable to marry or have children.
The bill instructs all private and public entities to prioritize, in sequence, men with children, married men without children and married women with children when hiring for certain jobs. It also makes divorce more difficult and discourages police and judicial intervention in family disputes opening women up to increased risks of domestic violence.
India
India remains one of the most dangerous places on this planet for females. In 2011, a poll placed it at number four. Acid attacks help keep India high in the poll because any female from any class can have this attack, mainly used as revenge. Thing is, many of the attacks go unpunished.
The government outlawed child marriage, but no one enforces it! A family can marry off their young daughter to a disgusting old man. The girl better not fight back or else the family will punish her. Then there are those pesky dowry gifts. If a female violates the marriage contract, husbands have been known to kill or punish the female. Her family rarely comes to her aide because she has shamed them.
In rural areas, females often face punishment if males in their house commit a crime:
In August, village leaders in Uttar Pradesh state allegedly ordered the rape of two Dalit sisters to pay for the “sins” of their brother who had eloped with a higher-caste woman. These unofficial village councils, called Khaps, made up of men from dominant castes who often enjoy political patronage, are known to issue edicts restricting women’s mobility and rights, and condemning couples for marrying outside their caste or religion.
India has registered an almost 800 percent rise in the number of killings in the name of “honour” reported last year, according to figures presented in parliament.
Indian police registered 251 cases of honour killings in 2015, compared with 28 cases reported in 2014 when the government began counting them separately from murder, according to a statement this week by Junior Home Minister Hansraj G Ahir to India’s parliament.
These silly females actually thought they could marry outside of their class or clan! HOW DARE THEY TRY TO HAVE FREEDOM AND CHOOSE THEIR OWN HUSBAND!!! Yes, their families will kill or harm them if they do something like this.
So there you have it, females in America. Keep whining about your birth control and no abortions on demand. You have NO idea what oppression feels like. You have NO idea what it feels like to be treated like a second class citizen. I suggest you study up on the rest of the world and get some perspective before you lecture about the alleged horrible way females are treated in America.
“The ‘Women’s March’ is an extension of strategic identity politics”
Predictably, the “grassroots” and “spontaneous” women’s march wasn’t so grassroots, after all. It may have started as such, but things changed rather quickly. Ultimately, more than 50 groups, PACs, and assorted organizations backed by billionaire agitator George Soros were deeply involved in the march.
A self-declared “life-long liberal Democrat who voted for Trump” uncovered the tangled web of the money trail for the New York Times. Asra Q. Nomani explains that “the march really isn’t a ‘women’s march.’ It’s a march for women who are anti-Trump. As someone who voted for Trump, I don’t feel welcome . . . .”
Part of the problem, she contends, is that the march is neither the spontaneous grassroots rallying cry for women nor the nonpartisan love-fest it was portrayed as being. She decided to “follow the money” and discover what, if anything, that would reveal.
Following the money, I poured through documents of billionaire George Soros and his Open Society philanthropy, because I wondered: What is the link between one of Hillary Clinton’s largest donors and the “Women’s March”?
I found out: plenty.
By my draft research, which I’m opening up for crowd-sourcing on GoogleDocs, Soros has funded, or has close relationships with, at least 56 of the march’s “partners,” including “key partners” Planned Parenthood, which opposes Trump’s anti-abortion policy, and the National Resource Defense Council, which opposes Trump’s environmental policies.
The other Soros ties with “Women’s March” organizations include the partisan MoveOn.org (which was fiercely pro-Clinton), the National Action Network (which has a former executive director lauded by Obama senior advisor Valerie Jarrett as “a leader of tomorrow” as a march co-chair and another official as “the head of logistics”). Other Soros grantees who are “partners” in the march are the American Civil Liberties Union, Center for Constitutional Rights, Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch. March organizers and the organizations identified here haven’t yet returned queries for comment.
On the issues I care about as a Muslim, the “Women’s March,” unfortunately, has taken a stand on the side of partisan politics that has obfuscated the issues of Islamic extremism over the eight years of the Obama administration.
“Women’s March” partners include the Council on American-Islamic Relations, which has not only deflected on issues of Islamic extremism post-9/11, but opposes Muslim reforms that would allow women to be prayer leaders and pray in the front of mosques, without wearing headscarves as symbols of chastity.
Partners also include the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC), which wrongly designated Maajid Nawaz, a Muslim reformer, an “anti-Muslim extremist” in a biased report released before the election. The SPLC confirmed to me that Soros funded its “anti-Muslim extremists” report targeting Nawaz. (Ironically, CAIR also opposes abortions, but its leader still has a key speaking role.)
The list is extensive and Soros ties are often a few steps removed, but Nomani persevered, discovering still more ties and hitting a nerve sufficiently hard enough to evoke a formal response from Soros’ Open Society Foundation.
Nomani continues:
Another Soros grantee and march “partner” is the Arab-American Association of New York, whose executive director, Linda Sarsour, is a march co-chair. When I co-wrote a piece, arguing that Muslim women don’t have to wear headscarves as a symbol of “modesty,” she attacked the coauthor and me as “fringe.”
Earlier, at least 33 of the 100 “women of color,” who initially protested the Trump election in street protests, worked at organizations that receive Soros funding, in part for “black-brown” activism. Of course, Soros is an “ideological philanthropist,” whose interests align with many of these groups, but he is also a significant political donor. In Davos, he told reporters that Trump is a “would-be dictator.”
At the bottom of Nomani’s article is an editor’s note:
EDITOR’S NOTE: This story has been updated to include a statement from the Open Society Foundations.
Here is what was apparently added:
A spokeswoman for Soros’s Open Society Foundations, said in a statement, “There have been many false reports about George Soros and the Open Society Foundations funding protests in the wake of the U.S. presidential elections. There is no truth to these reports.”
She added, “We support a wide range of organizations — including those that support women and minorities who have historically been denied equal rights. Many of whom are concerned about what policy changes may lie ahead. We are proud of their work. We of course support the right of all Americans to peaceably assemble and petition their government—a vital, and constitutionally safeguarded, pillar of a functioning democracy.”
Nomani concludes with the following observation:
Much like post-election protests, which included a sign, “Kill Trump,” were not “spontaneous,” as reported by some media outlets, the “Women’s March” is an extension of strategic identity politics that has so fractured America today, from campuses to communities. On the left or the right, it’s wrong.
But, with the inauguration, we know the politics. With the march, “women” have been appropriated for a clearly anti-Trump day. When I shared my thoughts with her, my yoga studio owner said it was “sad” the march’s organizers masked their politics. “I want love for everyone,” she said.
Wanting “love for everyone” may well be a genuine desire among many Democrats. However, even the most well-meaning marches rooted in identity politics are not the path to that worthy goal.
While I understand Nomani’s frustration that her group was appropriated, complaining that a “women’s march” was hijacked by other left-wing groups and thus not a pure “women’s march” about women is a step shy of a meaningful condemnation of identity politics.
Until they realize that “love for everyone” entails breaking through the barriers imposed by identity politics, they will continue to be used, “organized,” and funded by persons and groups whose agenda is based on anything but love.
“They insist that women’s choices are not truly free.”
There’s nothing more offensive to me than an article that leaps off the cliff in the first sentence by dropping the “as a woman, I…” bomb.
It doesn’t matter how the sentence ends; what matters is that the author, whoever she may be, believes that on some level her gender proves her point for her.
We’re meant to accept everything that follows because to dissent is to deny not only her opinion, but her equal footing in society.
Women in America are the freest in the world, yet many feminists tell us women are oppressed. They advocate this falsehood through victim mentality propaganda and misleading statistics, such as the gender wage gap myth. In five minutes, American Enterprise Institute’s Christina Hoff Sommers tells you the truth about feminism.
One of the biggest mistakes the GOP has ever made is to think of women as this mysterious demographic, unattainable and uncomprehending in their pearls and their Ann Taylor sweater sets. For too long, we’ve let the left control the narrative and push this toxic idea that women are somehow “less than” because of policies Republicans support.
Like Christina says in the video, women today are the “freest and most liberated in human history.” Women like Susan B. Anthony, Elizabeth Cady Stanton, and the founders of the first female fraternities are remembered not because they asserted their gender as the worthiest part of themselves, but because they asserted their personhood in a world that resisted their participation in history-making.
I can’t be the only one who believes that Susan B. Anthony would literally gag on her own irrepressible anger if she saw this happening in society:
From spearheading a constitutional amendment securing the right to vote, to dressing up as vaginas and yelling at passers by about coat hanger abortions, you’ve totally come a long way, baby.
Totally.
Meanwhile, women as a group are doing great, but modern feminists are so wrapped up in their own dogma that they literally are incapable of acknowledging how far we’ve come:
These feminists hardly acknowledge women’s progress. Yes, they concede that some advances have been made, but the fact that most women reject their activist brand of feminism and think of themselves as “free” is for this crowd proof of just how entrenched patriarchy and inequality truly are. Women are so oppressed, they don’t even know it.
Feminists do everything they can—even going so far as to use flawed statistics on the gender wage gap, depression, eating disorders, and even criminal victimization—to convince women that “their choices are not truly free.”
American Family Association
American Family Association (AFA), a non-profit 501(c)(3) organization, was founded in 1977 by Donald E. Wildmon, who was the pastor of First United Methodist Church in Southaven, Mississippi, at the time. Since 1977, AFA has been on the frontlines of Ame
NEWSMAX
News, Opinion, Interviews, Research and discussion
Opinion
American Family Association
American Family Association (AFA), a non-profit 501(c)(3) organization, was founded in 1977 by Donald E. Wildmon, who was the pastor of First United Methodist Church in Southaven, Mississippi, at the time. Since 1977, AFA has been on the frontlines of Ame
American Family Association
American Family Association (AFA), a non-profit 501(c)(3) organization, was founded in 1977 by Donald E. Wildmon, who was the pastor of First United Methodist Church in Southaven, Mississippi, at the time. Since 1977, AFA has been on the frontlines of Ame
You Version
Bible Translations, Devotional Tools and Plans, BLOG, free mobile application; notes and more
Political
American Family Association
American Family Association (AFA), a non-profit 501(c)(3) organization, was founded in 1977 by Donald E. Wildmon, who was the pastor of First United Methodist Church in Southaven, Mississippi, at the time. Since 1977, AFA has been on the frontlines of Ame
NEWSMAX
News, Opinion, Interviews, Research and discussion
Spiritual
American Family Association
American Family Association (AFA), a non-profit 501(c)(3) organization, was founded in 1977 by Donald E. Wildmon, who was the pastor of First United Methodist Church in Southaven, Mississippi, at the time. Since 1977, AFA has been on the frontlines of Ame
Bible Gateway
The Bible Gateway is a tool for reading and researching scripture online — all in the language or translation of your choice! It provides advanced searching capabilities, which allow readers to find and compare particular passages in scripture based on
What Did You Say? 
You must be logged in to post a comment.