The general political and military strategy that Bolsheviks (communists) and feminists have used and are currently using are: 1. Terrorism (political correctness in the USA-Political, economic, social, cultural, and legal discrimination and oppression of individuals and/or groups that oppose their totalitarian means and ends); 2. Political indoctrination ( for example, the many women's study groups, clubs, and political organizations in universities, in government, and otherwise); and, 3. Sustained guerilla warfare (in many forms-political, economic, cultural, legal) against the Caucasian European male culture (affirmative action-for example). "General Giap had studied the military teachings of Mao Zedong, who wrote that political indoctrination, terrorism and sustained guerrilla warfare were prerequisites for a successful revolution." 1.
Repeating what was stated in the chapter on Feminism, the Vietnam War and the Vietnam Veteran in order to provide further back ground for this chapter:
"In a recent book, "Red Feminism: American Communism and the Making of Women's Liberation", (2002) feminist historian Weigand states: "ideas, activists and traditions that emanated from the Communist movement of the forties and fifties continued to shape the direction of the new women's movement of the 1960s and later."
In fact, Weigand, a lecturer at Smith College, shows that modern feminism is a direct outgrowth of American Communism. There is nothing that feminists said or did in the 1960's-1980's that wasn't prefigured in the CPUSA of the 1940's and 1950's. Many second-wave feminist leaders were "red diaper babies," the children of Communists.
Communists pioneered the political and cultural analysis of woman's oppression. They originated women's studies, and advocated public daycare, birth control, abortion and even children's rights. They forged key feminist concepts such as "the personal is the political" and techniques such as "consciousness raising."
---Communist women formalized a sophisticated Marxist analysis of the "woman question." The books In Women's Defense ( 1940) by Mary Inman, Century of Struggle (1954) by Eleanor Flexner and The Unfinished Revolution (1962) by Eve Merriam recorded women's oppression and decried sexism in mass culture and language. For example, Mary Inman argued that " manufactured femininity" and "overemphasis on beauty" keeps women in subjection."
"Feminism's roots in Marxist Communism explain a great deal about this curious but dangerous movement. It explains:
A. Why the "woman's movement" hates femininity and imposes a political-economic concept like "equality" on a personal, biological and mystical relationship.
B. Why the "women's movement" also embraces equality of race and class.
C. Why they want a revolution ('transformation") and have a messianic vision of a gender-less utopia.
D. Why they believe human nature is infinitely malleable and can be shaped by indoctrination and coercion.
E. Why they engage in endless, mind-numbing theorizing, doctrinal disputes and factionalism.
F. Why truth for them is a "social construct" defined by whomever has power; and, appearances are more important than reality.
G. Why they reject God, nature and scientific evidence in favor of their political agenda.
H. Why they refuse to debate, don't believe in free speech, and suppress dissenting views.
I. Why they behave like a quasi-religious cult or like the Red Guard.
It is hard to escape the conclusion that feminism is Communism by another name. Having failed to peddle class war, Communism promoted gender conflict instead. The "diversity" and the "multicultural" movements represent feminism's attempt to forge "allegiances" by empowering gays and " people of color." Thus, the original CPUSA trio of "race, gender and class" is very much intact but class conflict was never a big seller.
The term "politically correct" originated in the Russian Communist Party in the 1920's. It's usage in America today illustrates the extent to which society has been subverted. Feminist activists are mostly Communist dupes. The Communist goal is to destroy Western Civilization, which is dedicated to genuine diversity (pluralism), individual liberty and equal opportunity ( but not equal outcomes).
We have seen this destruction in the dismantling of the liberal arts curriculum and tradition of free speech and inquiry at our universities. We have seen this virus spread to government, business, the media and the military. This could only happen because the financial elite, in fact, sponsors Communism." 2.
End of Long Quote
"Cultural Marxism" and " Political Correctness" have become the norms in the USA and the West in general.
The internet article, "The Origins of Political Correctness" by Bill Lind which appeared in Accuracy in Academia describes and defines both "Political Correctness" and "Cultural Marxism".
A partial quote from the same article states:
"Third, just as in classical economic Marxism certain groups, i.e. workers and peasants, are a priori good, and other groups, i.e., the bourgeoisie and capital owners, are evil. In the cultural Marxism of Political Correctness certain groups are good – feminist women, (only feminist women, non-feminist women are deemed not to exist) blacks, Hispanics, homosexuals. These groups are determined to be “victims,” and therefore automatically good regardless of what any of them do. " Similarly, white males are determined automatically to be evil, thereby becoming the equivalent of the bourgeoisie in economic Marxism." 3..
"Misandry is the hatred or dislike of men or boys. Though the concept is ancient, the word did not appear in most dictionaries until the second half of the 20th century. It was commonly seen as a neologism in the early 1970s. Misandry was formed from the Greek misos (hatred) and andros (man). Misandry is the antonym of philandry,the fondness, love, or admiration of men." 4.
"Julie M. Thompson, a feminist author, connects misandry with envy of men, in particular "penis envy", a term coined by Sigmund Freud in 1908, in his theory of female sexual development." 5.
"Nathanson and Young argued that "ideological feminism" has imposed misandry on culture. Their 2001 book, Spreading Misandry, analyzed " pop cultural artifacts and productions from the 1990s " from greeting cards for what they considered to be pervasive messages of hatred toward men. Legalizing Misandry (2005), the second in the series, gave similar attention to laws in North America." 6.
" In 2002, pundit Charlotte Hays wrote "that the anti-male philosophy of radical feminism as filtered into the culture at large is incontestable; indeed, this attitude has become so pervasive that we hardly notice it any longer. Wendy McElroy, an individualist feminist, wrote in 2001 that some feminists "have redefined the view of the movement of the opposite sex" as "a hot anger toward men seems to have turned into a cold hatred." She argued it was a misandrist position to consider men, as a class, to be irreformable or rapists. McElroy stated "a new ideology has come to the forefront...radical or gender, feminism," one that has joined hands with [the] political correctness movement that condemns the panorama of western civilization as sexist and racist: the product of 'dead white males'. " 7.
" Religious Studies professors Paul Nathanson and Katherine Young made similar comparisons in their 2001, three-book series,Beyond the Fall of Man, which treats misandry as a form of prejudice and discrimination that has become institutionalized in North American Society." 8.
" Charles E. Corry, Ph.D., in his article."Why Radical Feminists Concern Us." begins by noting the schizophrenic nature of feminism-it is, at its root, a departure from reality. He states, "Feminist theory is an unstable dialectic. Truth, justice, logic, history, scientific evidence, repeatable results, reproducible research, observations of natural phenomenon, all these are simply words to radical feminists. Words that they believe are designed to cover up a monstrous oppression of women under the masks of religion, marriage, and motherhood that cloak the patriarchal family. "Psychologists call this need to have reality match your preconceived notions regardless of the evidence "fantasy thinking." More down-to earth folk call it "building castles in the air."
Therefore, says, Corry, "The only acceptable theories are those that give power to women." Of course, the question remains-once women are "empowered", what will they do with all that power? On my morning walks with my Chow, she occasionally takes off after a passing car, barking with incredible ferocity. I sometimes mildly rebuke her with the question, "What are you gonna do if you catch that car?" Feminists are left in the same predicament-because since feminism is an ideology capable only of deconstruction, chaos, and destruction, Then it follows that feminists with the kind of "empowerment" encouraged by their ideology are capable only of tearing down-not rescuing, building up, or making whole.
Corry quotes that aforementioned Dale O'Leary:Feminists "became convinced that the previous Marxist revolutions had failed because they had failed to target the family. And Corry himself states, "Make no mistake, we are engaged in an epic battle between two incompatible ideologies with fundamental different views of the rights of the individual and the power of the state, with the future of civilization at stake." Emphasis added. So feminism is not about equality-it is rather about warfare; a continuing bitter battle to the death in which the enemy is the family and society. Only when the family is completely destroyed, and society with it, will feminism have accomplished its goals." 9.
End of Long Quote
Then, there is the "The War Against Women" announced by many feminists in many different contexts,
(The following quote refers specifically to a Royal Canadian Commission on Gun Control in the specific context of violence against women, which was published in 1991 as a government report called The War Against Women):
"-------Consequently, all of history can be seen as a conspiracy of men against women, a conspiracy to keep women helpless by threatening them with violence. Almost by definition, women were classified as innocent victims and men as evil oppressors.. Because the rhetorical gauntlet had been thrown down, as it were, everyone had to take this title seriously. Unfortunately, not many questioned its legitimacy in the first place.
Obviously,there was no literal war going on between men and women. ---
Metaphors are analogies, not equations, and on the collective level this metaphor works more effectively in reverse. It could be argued that ideological feminists acting in the name of women have declared war on men. The former are heavily armed, as it were, with very sophisticated political and academic weapons. They have organized themselves politically in opposition to " the patriarchy." More specifically, they have established a wide variety of organizations to coordinate their efforts and achieve their goals. They have leaders to represent them. They raise money through private agencies and government bureaucracies. They are proud to acknowledge their affiliations and goals. And, one of these, for a particular group of women, is to establish the idea that men are responsible for virtually all of human suffering. This parallels with ideological wars of the twentieth century, albeit metaphorical ones, are not exactly hard to imagine.
The use of military language is dangerous, however, because it encourages people to take extreme positions. Once war is declared, people have no choice but to defend themselves. And once this rhetoric is endorsed by the state, what had been a psychological and moral conflict becomes a legal and political one. But raising stakes is a risky business. The women who proposed this government study wanted to send several messages, To women they wanted to say, "The best way to defend ourselves as a class is to attack men as a class." To the nation, they wanted to say, "Women are justified in attacking men, because we do so in self defense." To men, however, they wanted to say, "We consider you enemy aliens, and if the best defense is an attack, then so be it. In that context, why should men not take legal steps to protect themselves? Do we really want to move into a situation like that? If not, we will have to abandon the rhetoric of war." 10.
End of Long Quote
"And of course, a cursory consultation of the DSM-IV-TR, the diagnostic manual of professional psychology and psychiatry, reveals in the diagnostic criteria for Antisocial Personality Disorder such character traits as " a pervasive pattern of disregard for an violation of the rights of others...[including] failure to conform to social norms..., deceitfulness.., irritability and aggressiveness.., reckless disregard for the safety of self and others, consistent irresponsibility...[this trait I consider to be the "holy grail" of feminism- the goal toward which feminism as a political philosophy is intended to move all women who imbibe of its teachings],[and] lack of remorse, as indicated by being indifferent to or rationalizing having hurt, mistreated, or stolen from another."
" Further, " These individuals may blame their victims for being foolish, helpless, or deserving their fate; they may minimize the harmful consequences of their actions; or they may indicate complete indifference.... Individuals with Antisocial Personality Disorder frequently lack empathy and tend to be callous,cynical, and contemptuous of the feelings, rights, and sufferings of others. They may have an inflated and arrogant self-appraisal.... These individuals may be irresponsible and exploitative in their sexual relationships. They may have a history of many sexual partners and may never have sustained a monogamous relationship. They may be irresponsible as parents...."
Could a more cogent evaluation of feminism have been written if feminism were the conscious object of that evaluation? Does not feminism justify its mistreatment of men with a hearty "they deserve it" for the perceived slights of 200 years ago? Is anything more callous, cynical, and contemptuous of the feelings, rights, and sufferings of others than the woman who will carve a living child out of her womb or slanderously have a spouse imprisoned for mere convenience's sake? Is more arrogance possible than that contained in the glib assertion,"Women can do whatever men can do!-while simultaneously having standards lowered across the board so that women can qualify? Is anything on earth more exploitative of sexual relationships than the woman who uses the family law system to marry and then divorce-divorcing both herself from a man and a man from his wealth? And many sexual partners-is any comment needed?---
Feminism is incapable of building. It is incapable of making a positive contribution to society because it is, at its root, anti-social. This is a significant principle from many different perspectives. From the political perspective, rest assured that there will never come a day when feminism will actually achieve its goals and will turn to build a better world from the strong foundation of its positive accomplishments.11.
End of Long Quote
Restating what was previously stated to add emphasis:
"Metaphors are analogies,not equations, and on the collective level this metaphor (The War Against Women) works more effectively in reverse. It could be argued that ideological feminists acting in the name of women have declared war on men. The former are heavily armed, as it were, with sophisticated political and academic weapons. They have organized themselves politically in opposition to "the patriarchy". More specifically, they have established a wide variety of organizations to coordinate their efforts to achieve their goals. They have leaders represent them. They raise money through both private agencies and governmental bureaucracies. They are proud to acknowledge their affiliations and goals. And one of these, for a particular group of women, is to establish the idea that men are responsible for virtually all human suffering. The parallels with the ideological wars of the twentieth century, albeit metaphorical ones, are not exactly hard to imagine.
The use of military language is dangerous, however, because it encourages people to take extreme positions. Once war is declared, people have no choice but to defend themselves. And once this rhetoric is endorsed by the state, what had been a psychological and moral conflict becomes a legal and political one. But raising the stakes is a risky business. The women who proposed this government study (resulting in The War Against Women rhetoric) wanted to send several messages. To women they wanted to say, The best way to defend ourselves as a class is to attack men as a class. To the nation, they wanted to say, Women are justified in attacking men, because we do so in self-defense. To men, however, they wanted to say, We consider you enemy aliens, and if the best defense is to attack, then so be it. In that context, why should men not take legal steps to protect themselves? Do we really want to move into a situation like that? If not, we will have to abandon the rhetoric of war." 12.
End of Long Quote
Give the aforementioned, the following is an appropriate quote from William Shakespeare's play, " Julius Caesar":
Another general shout!
I do believe that these applauses are
For some new honors that are heaped on Caesar.
Why,man, he doth bestride the narrow world
Like a Colossus, and we petty men
Walk under his huge legs and peep about
To find ourselves dishonorable graves.
Men at some time are masters of their fates.
The fault, dear Brutus, is not in our stars
But in ourselves, that we are underlings.
Brutus and Caesar-what should be in that "Caesar"?" 13.