Current feminist radicals: puppets, airheads, and bullies on the shoulders of giants

By Gabriel Garnica


I admit that my first exposure to feminism was of the militant, radical, vulgar, crude variety which assumes men are trash until proven otherwise and unborn children are burdens unless wanted. Growing up in the 60s, I came to associate feminists as angry women who burned their bras and spewed hatred of males, childbirth, and motherhood, in that order. Since then, however, I have come to realize that it is ignorant and inaccurate to lump all feminists under this negative perception. There are intelligent, classy, brave, and very loving feminists who simply want mothers, wives, and women in general to be treated with the respect and appreciation which they so richly deserve. These incredible women are able to demand respect without resorting to vulgarity, crudeness, angry defiance, hatred, hypocrisy and, perhaps most importantly, without throwing out the baby with the protest water. Just as importantly, they are able to respect men's views on the subject without mocking them or pretending that ovaries are necessary ingredients to discuss feminism, childbirth, pregnancy, motherhood, abortion, or the right of the unborn to remove the un-.

We have seen feminism mutate from its most literal meaning as the struggle for social, political, and economic equality of the sexes to that of any organized action on behalf of women's interests and rights to, ultimately, painting such interests and rights as whatever the liberal agenda defines them to be. Thus, we see the Left's pathetic hypocrisy trio when it comes to feminism.

The first lie is that the only way in which women can empower themselves is to become like men, free of the "burden" and "chain" of pregnancy and motherhood and free to covort and indulge sexually as men supposedly all do. The second lie is that the Left owns the copyright on what "women's issues," "women's rights," and "feminism" itself really mean, as if any conservative woman is, by definition, a traitor to her gender. The final and most absurd lie, evolving from the first two, is that feminism must, by definition, be pro-abortion.

The absurdity of the above three lies perpetuated by liberal feminism is that they pretend to promote the autonomy, capacity, intelligence, and empowerment of women precisely by waving flags of victimhood, dependence, incapacity, and downright simple-mindedness as evidence of their claims. Simply put, the radical feminists of today, either advertently, or inadvertently, proclaim women as smart and strong enough to be dumb and weak! If done advertently, this absurdity reeks of conniving and cunning deception. If done inadvertently, however, the foolishness takes on an ironic stupidity that even the most creative fiction writer would hesitate to throw across a paper.

No further evidence of this gaping disparity in class, intellect, reason, and common sense is necessary than in comparing the incredible pioneers who shaped the first wave of feminism with those women who represent what liberal, radical feminism has become today. On one hand, we have pioneers such as Susan B. Anthony, Elizabeth Cady Stanton, Mary Wollstonecraft, Dr. Elizabeth Blackwell, Dr. Charlotte Denman Lozier, Victoria Claflin Woodhull, and later, Dr. Mildred Jefferson, who all, in one way or another, demonstrated and indicated their disdain for treating the unborn and children as disposable, collateral damage on the road to the kind of twisted independence which today's radical liberal feminists promote. We can say that each of the above women contributed unique talents, courage, determination, achievement and, above all, values, to prove that women can and should demand respect and equality while never relinquishing the God-given blessings and transcendent gifts which will forever make them uniquely special. Not surprisingly, today's radical feminists deny the evidence of the above pioneering women's anti-abortion beliefs. After all, if they can deny the personhood and humanity of an unborn child and pretend that sonograms make no difference, pushing aside or twisting history is as easy as taking life from a baby.

Feminist icons Anthony and Stanton referred to abortion as infanticide; Wollstoncraft, a writer, referred to prenatal infanticide as the consequence of tampering with nature; Blackwell, the first woman to receive a medical degree from an American college, called abortion the "gross perversion and distortion of motherhood"; Lozier, an early female medical pioneer, gained fame upon defending a woman from abortion; Woodhull, the first woman to be nominated for a run for President of the United States, was an early anti-abortion feminist, journalist, stockbroker, and publisher. More recently, Jefferson, the first black woman to graduate from Harvard Medical School, was co-founder of The National Right to Life Committee in addition to being awarded 28 Honorary Degrees. These women, in one way or the other, were passionate advocates for the truth that true feminism and abortion are totally incompatible in any sane discussion.

If the above transcendent women represent the historical roots of feminism from before the 20th century and well into that century, then what shall we call individuals such as Margaret Sanger, Betty Friedan, Gloria Steinem, Hillary Clinton and their ilk, who have dragged feminism toward the scalpel instead of away from it? I suggest that we refer to these second wave, radical, liberal feminists as the very weeds which have sprung to strangle and debase the beauty that was and still can be the feminist cause.

The current crop of liberal feminists such as Sandra Fluke, Wendy Davis, Amanda Marcotte, and Mireille Miller-Young paint the tragic image of what the radical, liberal wing of today's feminism spews. Fluke, the long time liberal activist planted by the Democratic Party as an innocent victim of contraception insurance policy at Georgetown, turned out to have close ties to powerful, wealthy Democratic operatives and funders, as well as radical socialists. It is an understatement to say that Fluke's associations, background, and intentions reek of socialist propaganda, radical activism, and deception. Likewise, she apparently discussed her financial difficulties while spending spring break in California with her boyfriend, the son of a rich, radical socialist, Democratic contributor. Not surprisingly, this liberal fraud had to revise and spin her previous statements as she and her handlers realized that the public was not buying her innocent social messiah fable. Fluke's handlers, as well as the general public, have slowly discovered that this empty liberal agenda puppet causes more harm than good, especially when she speaks.

Unlike Sandra Fluke, who was a nobody before the Left propped her up for her 15 minutes of fame, if not relevance or common sense, Wendy Davis was already a Democratic politician from Texas when her infamous filibuster against abortion restriction measures was twisted into a noble crusade by the predictably abortion-favoring media, who likewise anointed this female empty suit the new Joan of Arc for women's rights. That is until her litany of lies and distortions regarding her background came to light and, instead of owning up to these deceptions, she accused her disabled opponent of not knowing about personal struggles, implying that she had to overcome more than he ever did, not to mention underground evidence that her backers mocked her opponent's disability with no consequence. To put the cherry on the insolent sundae, Davis basically said the pro-life women are too stupid to fully understand the totality of abortion.

Not to be outdone by Fluke or Davis, Amanda Marcotte, the infamous American feminist blogger, has compared unborn children to bacteria, pregnancy to a cold, babies to human waste, abortion to cavity removal, and described babies as "time-sucking monsters". One can actually feel IQ points melt away while reading her vacuous and inane rubbish posing as thought. She makes Bill Maher sound like Einstein.

Last but, sadly, not least, Mireille Miller-Young, a feminist and pornography ( I am not kidding) studies professor at University of California Santa Barbara first mocked, then stole a poster from, and finally assaulted two pro-life students, with much of the events caught on tape. Ridiculing the students and citing her many degrees, Young tried to incite the crowd against the students and, when that did not work, she became violent and threatening, arrogantly grabbing one of the students' posters and walking away with it with two of her students, eventually assaulting the pro-life students when they tried to get back their poster. Upon facing assault, vandalism, battery, and robbery charges, the professor continued to defiantly defend her actions.

So, let us see what the present voice of radical, liberal feminism is. First, it is a fraud, as Fluke and Davis have demonstrated through their lies and distortions. Second, it is utterly ignorant and vulgar, as Marcotte has depicted so well. Third, it is violent and aggressive, as Young has clearly shown. Fourth, it is arrogant, insolent, disrespectful, and patronizing, as Marcotte and Young have demonstrated. Fifth, it mocks and is oblivious to the downtrodden even as it pretends to champion them, as Davis has proven. Sixth, it is built on hypocrisy, selfishness, ego, and twisted entitlement, as all of these radical feminists have shown. Seventh, it is grounded in bullying, as all of these women, in one way or the other, demonstrate. It is no coincidence that Planned Parenthood has swooped down on Texas to push for the election of Davis as its next governor, regardless of the fact that polls show most Texans want this spoiled liar in the Austin about as much as they want to replace college football with chess. Eighth, it is populated by drones who are either empty-headed puppets eager to fill their listeners with socialist rhetoric posing as social justice or, in the alternative, obnoxious bullies ready to mock and patronize anyone who dares to contradict their selfish entitlement and ego projection. Sometimes, when we are particularly lucky, we get radical feminists who are both.

These hypocrites pretend to empower women when all they do and say implies that women are powerless, unable to use their own minds to make decisions for themselves. They argue that women are victims even as they victimize, mock, and attack any woman who dares to contradict their script. They chant empty rhetoric about choice and privacy even as they ignore the choices of those women who speak out against abortion, and promote a culture which invades the most intimate power of a woman to nurture life. They often mock religion, demanding that religious people keep their rosaries out of their ovaries even as they have no problem with abortionists turning their ovaries into killing fields.

The fame of our pioneering feminists rested on their courageous and passionate mission to defy the culture around them, regardless of the costs, By contrast, the fame of this current crop of radical feminists does not rest not on the moral or intellectual value of their flimsy rhetoric, pompous posturing, fictional nobility, or elitist self-absorption. Rather, in a very fascinating irony, the fame of these current radicals rests on a carefully selective balancing act by their adoring and protective mainstream media.

On one hand, this media will fawn over the most inane and pathetic morsel they can scrape. On the other hand, this same media will virtually ignore the most blatant stupidity, obnoxious comment, utter vulgarity, or hateful violence these women can exhibit. Simply put, the pioneers earned their glory through their own merits, while these radicals have been gifted their fame, or shielded from their sins, by a protective media. How else can any sane person explain Sandra Fluke being considered for Person of the Year by Time Magazine, Wendy Davis being painted as an example to women everywhere, Amanda Marcotte winning prizes for any writing, and Mirielle Miller-Young not being publicly criticized for mocking and assaulting students? Imagine what would happen if a conservative professor grabbed a pro-abortion poster from a student while pushing and mocking that student.

It is the unique irony of American history that precisely those pioneers who exhibited the most profound greatness wore the most noble humility, while those currently exhibiting the least merit, class, and moral values wear the most insolent and arrogant entitlement.

Despite the despicable, arrogant, and defiant vulgarity of this radical feminism, as well as its utter ignorance, selfishness, and depraved patronization of women, babies, and men, there is hope in the scores of young people of both genders who dare to believe that women can promote and defend the rights of women to be respected, appreciated and heard without treating the beauty of womanhood, motherhood, and childhood into dumpster material or political fodder. The pioneering and perceptive vision and spirit of the early feminists lives on in the hearts, minds, and souls of those who see women as much more than vagina monologues.

© Gabriel Garnica