It was 1969. Kate invited me to join her for a gathering at the home of her friend, Lila Karp. They called the assemblage a “consciousness-raising-group,” a typical communist exercise, something practiced in Maoist China. We gathered at a large table as the chairperson opened the meeting with a back-and-forth recitation, like a Litany, a type of prayer done in Catholic Church. But now it was Marxism, the Church of the Left, mimicking religious practice:
“Why are we here today?” she asked.
“To make revolution,” they answered.
“What kind of revolution?” she replied.
“The Cultural Revolution,” they chanted.
“And how do we make Cultural Revolution?” she demanded.
“By destroying the American family!” they answered.
“How do we destroy the family?” she came back.
“By destroying the American Patriarch,” they cried exuberantly.
“And how do we destroy the American Patriarch?” she replied.
“By taking away his power!”
“How do we do that?”
“By destroying monogamy!” they shouted.
“How can we destroy monogamy?”
Their answer left me dumbstruck, breathless, disbelieving my ears. Was I on planet earth? Who were these people?
“By promoting promiscuity, eroticism, prostitution and homosexuality!” they resounded.
They proceeded with a long discussion on how to advance these goals by establishing The National Organization of Women. It was clear they desired nothing less than the utter deconstruction of Western society. The upshot was that the only way to do this was “to invade every American institution. Every one must be permeated with ‘The Revolution’”: The media, the educational system, universities, high schools, K-12, school boards, etc.; then, the judiciary, the legislatures, the executive branches and even the library system.
It sounds ludicrous. It’s so much easier to understand “the sexual revolution” as the confluence of lots of cultural changes, urged on by the triumph of unrestrained desire over common sense. But … on the other hand, destroying the family would weaken the nation, and we do have enemies.
My opinion is that these little commie cell groups just happened to be aligned with what was happening culturally for lots of other reasons. IOW, yes, there was a conspiracy to destroy the American family, but they were riding a wave rather than causing one.
Yes, I suppose I do mean it in the butterflies and flowers sense, that I wish all the rain drops were lemon drops and gum drops (provided they fell slowly) and, for that matter, wouldn’t it be nice if bunnies could talk and lions lay down for a tofu sandwich with the lambs. But what I really mean is that I’m sick of how easily the word “hate” is being used today.
Taylor Swift says haters are gonna hate, but I think the real truth is that haters are gonna accuse other people of hate.
People throw the word around so much that it’s become commonplace, and you don’t even have to defend it any more.
At lunch one day this week I picked up the print edition of The Washington Post and saw this headline: “The affable, youthful face of hate in America.”
It took quite a few inches of text before I got any clue why the Post thought the guy was a “hater.” I have absolutely no interest in defending him, but in the back of my mind I’m thinking, “yeah, this is just the left hating on people they disagree with.” Because that’s usually the way it goes.
If you’re going to accuse somebody of being “the face of hate in America,” don’t you think you ought to explain why he deserves such a title?
Apparently not to the editors at the Post. Accusing somebody of hate is just an everyday thing.
Pigweed messages me today and says I have to listen to Milo Yiannopoulos’ podcast interview with Ann Coulter. I dutifully download it to Podcast Addict and plan to listen to it this evening.
Then I get home and my daughter says she was listening to some internet thing about “broadcasting from Mordor, the Borg cube and Voldemort’s castle” or something like that, saying that it was aimed at “the ultimate nerd.” I figure it was … some nerd thing.
Later in the evening it comes time to empty the dishwasher, so I fire up the podcast player, and … the Mordor thing is the introduction to Milo’s broadcast.
Broadcasting live from Mordor, the Borg cube and Voldemort’s lair all at the same time …
It’s pretty funny stuff, but … be warned. It’s PG-13.
Ann Coulter excuses Trump’s … Trumpishness … by saying “In order to have a guy who has the [courage] to take on the entire conservative media … the entire liberal media, the entire Republican establishment … you’re going to have to live with some rough edges.” (That’s not an exact quote.)
Take on conservative media? Surely you jest, Ann. They’re all in the tank for Trump, right?
No. She says you have to follow the money, and when you do you realize that most of conservative media doesn’t earn its keep in the free market but relies on a sponsor, and most of those sponsors are very anti Trump.
I’ve read that sex-selective abortion is fairly common. There’s a proposed bill called the Prenatal Nondiscrimination Act (PRENDA) that would prohibit abortions sought solely on the basis of the race or sex of the unborn.
I don’t know how you would enforce such a thing. I can picture the abortionist saying, “The government requires me to ask you this question. If you want to have the abortion, all you have to do is answer no. So here’s the question: ‘Is the sex or race of the child your only reason for having an abortion?'”
Anyway, however all that works out, some feminists are upset that the bill, aimed to prevent discrimination on the basis of race and sex, is racist and sexist. (You have to major in women’s studies to understand that kind of logic.)
It’s just another example of feminist insanity, I suppose, but that’s no more interesting than a dog barking. What grabbed my attenion as I read this story over my eggs this morning is the way crazy assumptions go unchallenged. One of the protesters said this.
Even though it is cloaked in language of civil and women’s rights, this bill is antithetical to gender and racial equality.
Notice how “gender and racial equality” is assumed to be a goal. Or, IOW, if something is against gender and racial equality then it has to be a bad thing.
I’m for racial equality, but gender equality is simple nonsense. It’s a phrase devoid of meaningful content whether you approach it biologically, sociologically or legally.
The first two categories are obvious, so I won’t bother to argue them, but some might object on the third point. “Men and women are equal before the law,” they might say.
Except that they’re not.
Some people point to the fact that women get lighter sentences for the same crimes, but IMO that’s not inequality as a matter of law, but inequality in application. (Unless the sentencing guidelines are actually different by sex, but I don’t think they are.)
The two best examples of gender inequality as a matter of law are the right to vote and the right to custody of a child.
Women have an unqualified right to vote. Men can only vote if they register for the draft. That’s not “gender equality,” but you don’t see feminists campaigning against it. (Yes, a few do, but the majority do not.)
When it comes to custody of children …
“[s]ince 1920, it has been assumed that women, by nature, are better suited to love and care for children”
So, “gender equality” is rubbish from start to finish, but it’s an example of the lie that, repeated often enough, goes unchallenged. No Congresscritter would have the courage to stop a feminist in her testimony and say that “gender equality” is nonsensical and not a legitimate standard to apply when evaluating a new bill.