Trying to create a distinction between different schools or waves of Feminists or trying to distinguish between "radical" and "mild" Feminists is like distinguishing between "partly pregnant" and "wholly pregnant", "a little bit dead" and "a lot dead".
Dale O'Leary, in The Gender Agenda: Redefining Equality, p. 24, defines that which men and women should be protecting instead:
The "family" in all ages and in all corners of the globe can be defined as a man and a woman bonded together through a socially approved covenant of marriage to regulate sexuality, to bear, raise, and protect children, to provide mutual care and protection, to create a small home economy, and to maintain continuity between the generations, those going before and those coming after.
It is out of the reciprocal, naturally recreated relations of the family that the broader communities—such as tribes, villages, peoples, and nations—grow.
F.L. Morton & Rainer Knopff, in The Charter Revolution & The Court Party (p.75), state:
Contemporary (or second wave) feminism has aptly been described as "Marxism without economics", since feminists replace class with gender as the key social construct. Of course, what society constructs can be deconstructed. This is the feminist project: to abolish gender difference by transforming its institutional source — the patriarchal family. Certain streams of the Gay Rights movement have taken this analysis one step further. The problem is not just sexism but heterosexism, and the solution is to dismantle not just the patriarchal family but the heterosexual family as such.
Alison Jagger, in Political Philosophies of Women's Liberation: Feminism and Philosophy (Totowa, NJ: Littlefield, Adams & Co. 1977) made the destruction of the family clear:
"The end of the biological family will also eliminate the need for sexual repression. Male homosexuality, lesbianism, and extramarital sexual intercourse will no longer be viewed in the liberal way as alternative options... the very 'institution of sexual intercourse' where male and female each play a well-defined role will disappear. Humanity could finally revert to its natural polymorphously perverse sexuality".
Feminism, by definition, is anti-family and anti biologically defined roles, i.e. man has a willy and woman - the place it goes. The fact that other forms of interaction require Vaseline show them to be deviant. If one definines sanity as adopting modes of behaviour which will not in themselves and in the long term, to the exclusion of other modes, destroy the fabric of society, then unsustainable modes are therefore insane.
Rabid Feminism is insanity taken to extremes, for example the oft-quoted Marilyn French:
All men are rapists and that's all they are. They rape us with their eyes, their laws, and their codes.
... or her own desire to dominate men is explained here:
Men's need to dominate women may be based in their own sense of marginality or emptiness; we do not know its root, and men are making no effort to discover it.
The sweeping, all-encompassing generalizations aside, these statements can have no other effect than to marginalize men, one half of humanity and are fundamentally insane. Minette Marrin stated in her article on rape that it could only lead to misogyny.
Melissa Scowcroft asks the question - who is responsible for the breakdown of society:
So, who or what is culpable? Well, feminism, of course - specifically ideological feminists, who, with their "relentless hostility towards men as a class of enemy aliens," have brainwashed the populace into the belief that "the only good man is either a corpse or a woman." The result, Nathanson and Young contend, is a level of anti-male sentiment that justifies comparison to Jewish persecution.
Christina Hoff-Sommers argues, in Who Stole Feminism: How Women Have Betrayed Women, that feminist misandry leads directly to misogyny by what she calls "establishment feminists" against (the majority of) women who love men.
Elizabeth Fox-Genovese also wrote scholarly and popular works on Feminism itself, and through all of her writings, she alienated many rabid Feminists and attracted many conservative Feminists."Sad as it may seem, my experience with radical, upscale Feminism only reinforced my growing mistrust of individual pride." She argued for common snese values between men and women.
Camille Paglia was described as one of the world's top 100 intellectuals by the UK's Prospect Magazine, and is a strong critic of much of the feminism that began with Betty Friedan's 1962 The Feminine Mystique, and compared Feminists — whom she considered to be victim-centered — to the Unification Church.
Judith Levine, in My Enemy, My Love commented:
Man-hating is an emotional problem inasmuch as it creates pain and hostility between women and men. But it is not an individual neurosis à la 'Women Who Hate Men and the Men Who...' Man-hating is a collective, cultural problem — or to refrain from diagnosing it at all, a cultural phenomenon — and men, as the object of man-hating, are part of it too.
And this is the essential problem with all Feminism because it distances one half of the partnership from the other, creating confrontation when the logical and generally accepted efficacious method is consultation and dialogue.
Lillian Csernica puts it more strongly:
There's a certain school of thought among feminists which preaches the unbridled hatred of men. This attitude really bothers me. Adherents of this school insist men are all would-be rapists and sadists just waiting for the chance to throw off their civilized masks and torture their wives and daughters. Since many feminist attitudes are taken as matriarchal gospel, it follows that all men should therefore be distrusted and despised.
This is insane. This is like saying all women should be suspected of keeping an ax in the broom closet just because Lizzie Borden allegedly hacked her parents to death.
Then she says something even more interesting:
I have always preferred the company of men. If that makes me a traitor to my own sex, that's because my own sex isn't such great company these days.
And that's the thing. Feminism, in its underlying humanistic Marxism is, by definition, humourless. There is a serious agenda of the destruction of society to achieve and there is no place in this for fun. Ms Csernica is quite right when she says that such women are no fun - who would want to spend 30 minutes with such as them being earbashed on how women are so much better than men?
I know it's true - I don't need it shoved down my throat.
Feminism runs hand in hand with political correctness and Diane Ravitch, in 2003, quoted guidelines by New York publishing houses for prospective writers:
"Topics not to include are: abortion, death or disease, criminals, magic, politics, religion, unemployment, weapons, violence, poverty, divorce, slavery, alcohol or addiction. Women cannot be depicted as mothers or caregivers or doing household work. Men cannot be depicted as lawyers, doctors or plumbers. African citizens are not to be portrayed in a negative light. None of these things can be themes in any publications handled by us."
It's not just the insanity - it's also unmitigated arrogance which produced this introduction to A Feminist Companion to Shakespeare by Dympna Callaghan:
The question is not whether Shakespeare studies needs feminism, but whether feminism needs Shakespeare. This is the explicitly political approach taken by all-women team of contributors to A Feminist Companion to Shakespeare.
Choice magazine, who should have known better, called it a classic of Feminist Shakespeare criticism.
This is also the current story of higher education [known as hijacked education] and I ran a series of posts on this. Heather MacDonald, for example, at City Journal, wrote: "The Feminist takeover of Harvard is imminent," striking fear in the hearts of all right-thinking women (and men).
Blogger Sisu, of Harvard, commented:
Faust runs one of the most powerful incubators of Feminist complaint and nonsensical academic theory in the country. You can count on the Radcliffe Institute’s fellows and invited lecturers to proclaim the “constructed” nature of knowledge, gender, and race, and to decry endemic American sexism and racism.
Fellow blogger Teresa summed up such people this way:
The very fact that rabid feminists (like any other rabid political type group) believe they know what's better for us and want to manage our lives, should make any educated person cringe.
Because she is so enamored of her own world view, she wants to "make" people see the world as she does. This precludes any rational discussion over whether her views are valid or not. Why should such a person be leading an institution where the primary goal should be rational inquiry?
The second to last word will be Dale O'Leary's from The Gender Agenda: Redefining Equality (p. 23):
Whatever positive image the word feminist may have had, it has been tarnished by those who have made it their own, and I, for one, am content to leave the militants in full possession of the term.
I agree wholeheartedly. That is what Feminism really means - a socialistic, mediocracy-tending, prescriptive and proscriptive, one size fits all, destroyer of families and of the fragile relationship between men and women which has its own problems without these piranhas gnawing at its flesh.
It's slightly misquoting the estimable Juliet Pain, which I hope she'll forgive, when she concludes:
Relationships forged out of this obligatory and mutual distrust are so often going nowhere, right from the start.
Joy, fun, laughter, mutual respect and happiness have no place in the Feminist dystopia - only gloom and hatred. They need to be quietly and impacably opposed in their destructive agenda by sane people, while there's still hope.
