Posted on 03/26/2002 4:07:23 PM PST by Starmaker
Egads.
I was aware that mainstream Feminists, such as the members of the National Organization for Women, NARAL, and Voters For Choice enjoyed defending filicide and abortion. Whether it's a baby being drowned, a la Andrea Yates, or Planned Parenthood dismembering prenatal innocents, Feminists are really into the whole killer mom motif. They like it, it thrills them.
Thankfully, there are millions of good women like those at the extraordinary Concerned Women for America, whom I adore, who are better than that.
But the nihilistic Feminist crowd still obsessively plunges into degeneracy.
Just recently, their deified icon, Gloria "I Hate All Men" Steinem, decided to speak. That, of course, meant that something stupid was about to be recorded for posterity.
Sure enough.
Steinem decided to defend Gay Priests.
Now personally, I believe that the Catholic Church should ordain/hire/retain only married priests.
Marriage is a good thing when between good people, and thus wedded priests could set an example for their congregations.
Saint Peter was married.
That said, the absence of marital status is no excuse for criminal conduct.
Gloria contends that it is.
She bashed the Catholic Church, faulting it for the priest's conduct and saying, "it's almost natural that some of them will then seek control over people lower down in the power structure."
By "them" she means the Gay Priests.
By "people" she means the boys who were the victims of the Gay Priests.
But there is nothing "natural" about what the Gay Priests ("them") did to the boys (the "people") they horribly attacked over the decades.
Nothing.
Children should have nothing to do with anything illicit. Their innocence should be respected and protected.
However, like with abortion, filicide, custody, etc, Feminists prefer the ideologically-lesbian perspective (and it's current realization in law) over the actual best interests of children.
Thus Steinem's interest in siding with the Gay Priests. According to her theory, the "patriarchal" Catholic Church 'controlled' the Gay Priests, and the Gay Priests resented it and thus sought to control others.
There are some flaws with her theory.
Firstly, the problem would have been stopped a lot sooner if certain high-ranking Church officials had exercised some control and kicked the Gay Priests to the curb early on, rather than doing what they did, which was to simply execute a series of transfer orders. They shifted the problem around, when what they needed to do was excommunicate the problem and take appropriate legal steps way back when. In sum, the Church exercised too little control, not too much. And some major house-cleaning has to occur because of that.
However, it is important to note that the majority of Catholic priests are non-offending decent people. They were a part of the same Church Steinem dismisses as "patriarchal". Yet they were not party to illicit conduct at all.
Thus, the fault lies not with the overall church, but with the particular offenders and with those who transferred the offenders around instead of kicking them out.
So why is Steinem, who very clearly regards logic itself to be a patriarchal construct, defending the offenders?
Because they are, indeed, Gay Priests. And because the victims were boys.
A decent person condemns criminal conduct regardless of the victim's gender.
Not Feminists. Whenever boys are victims, they treat the crime much as a white racist treats a crime against Black Americans: as though it were of lesser importance.
And that's just wrong.
All victims, regardless of gender or race, deserve equal justice, and respect, and protection.
But back to Steinem.
She'll defend anyone who is gay, no matter what their crime. This is the same mentality that buried the horror visited on Jesse Dirkhising.
Because they're gay.
Why do Feminists see gayness as something to defend?
In short, feminism is Marxism.
It's secondary goal is to sublimate motherhood to the collectivist "it takes a village to raise a child" motif.
It's primary goal is to deconstruct the essentiality of fatherhood, and the active, equal involvement of fathers in the raising of their children.
Under the Marxism of feminism, "patriarchy" is the societal structure under which fathers' rights to be equally involved parents, and the corresponding rights of their sons and daughters to have their fathers present in the home and in their lives, are legally recognized and sanctioned.
These rights lead to the nuclear family: a tight, independent unit of the kids, dad, mom, and often in-laws.
The independence of the nuclear family in turn leads to a desire on the part of that family to own their own home, and land, and to support themselves without having to depend on government largesse (in modern parlance, "welfare").
And these private-property-owning nuclear families are the core of civilized societies.
Such civilized societies, such "patriarchies", are what the very politically influential Feminists want to deconstruct.
Anyone looking at the astronomical increase in pre-and-post-marital fatherless homes over the last 30+ years has to acknowledge that the Feminists have succeeded in writing their views into law, and into case law.
In order to deconstruct fatherhood, the nuclear family in which both parents spend a lot of positive time with their kids, and civilized society in general, Feminists have to attack something very basic: Men being attracted to women.
Of course, men will be attracted to women, and women to men, no matter what Feminists do. However, the basic paradigm of men being attracted to women is something that Feminists can and do still undermine in various ways.
And one of those ways is by devaluing the masculinity which tends to be a part of hetero men.
Masculinity is NOT a role. It's a quality. That's a critical difference.
A quality which Feminists eternally deride.
However, in order to deride a thing, it's opposite must be endorsed. Point, counterpoint, that sort of thing.
So in order to undermine the greatness of men being attracted to women (which leads to marriage, which leads to children and the nuclear family, which leads to an embrace of private property, concrete values, and independence), Feminists have to push the opposite.
And the opposite is gay men.
When gay men are normalized, even idealized, straight men, the ones who are attracted to women (with all the anti-collectivism that brings) are coerced into being effeminized.
Which is exactly what is happening in our society.
We see it in guys who are afraid to say, "Hey, nice necklace!" to female co-workers for fear of being sued for harassment.
We see it in guys who capitulate in custody cases, for fear of standing up against their ex-wives.
We see it in "sensitivity training", which many middle management men sign onto in their workplaces, hoping, whipped beyond measure, that if they feed the Feminist Crocodile, It will eat them last.
We see it in the portrayal of TV fathers as milquetoast goofballs, clown-ized out of the rugged, fearless masculinity that is every real man's birthright.
And all of that, and more, is what the Feminist movement wanted.
And that, in a Marxist, whipped nutshell, is why deified Feminist icon Gloria Steinem defends Gay Priests.
And really, why I bother to write a column each week.
Feminism/Marxism is evil.
It's worth stopping.
How do we stop it?
Four ways.
#1: Go give your kids a hug. Right now. Read #2 thru #4 later. Especially fathers. And then read them a story, and teach them to sing along with your favorite C.D.s; if they think you're silly, they'll love you for it all the same. Repeat tomorrow, and every day. All of life begins there.
#2. Talk with your friends, and your church, about what can be done to restore a better America, like the kind Norman Rockwell painted. Go to a church council meeting with 10 things the church could do to help; be prepared to lead your top 3 yourself, and recruit friends to help you. Second to shoring up the family, we have to reclaim the churches. Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, Muslim, Hindu, et al. It's time to socially engineer family values. Churches have passively allowed too much garbage for too long. Speak up. And never shut up. Never.
#3. Get politically involved. Send $20 to a non-RINO, legitimate conservative candidate. And then get your money's worth and talk their ear off til they effect real change. Pass around petitions. Doing so takes very little time, and is surprisingly effective.
#4. Drop me an e-mail line, and let me know that people in other states are working to reverse the trend of Feminist-Marxist sociocultural degeneration. Doing so won't change the world, but I'll feel better. Insofar as changing the world goes, just act on #1 thru #3 above, because as a set, they can indeed change the world. And now is the time to do so.
Have a good week: next week's column is on the First Amendment.
To comment on this article or express your opinion directly to the author, you are invited to e-mail Isaiah at isaiah_flair_2002@hotmail.com .
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.