Posted on 05/07/2004 3:17:29 AM PDT by JohnHuang2
As I wrote almost a dozen years ago in my first bestseller, "Ten Stupid Things Women Do To Mess Up Their Lives," the ultimate baseness and immorality of a culture depends on what women will themselves do and tolerate from their men. Since the 1960s, the so-called liberation of women has proven itself to be a liberation from just about everything that could possibly be of value for a women and for the society she influences by her choice in a man and her commitment to raising the next generation of citizens.
The first battle cries of feminism had to do with this amorphous misery of being a so-called "drudge" in the home – being a wife, mother and homemaker would somehow cause a woman to contract the "disease with no name." This disease supposedly represented the unhappiness due to routine housework and a lack of sense of meaningfulness, importance and power because she was not in rush-hour traffic dealing with an impersonal corporate structure.
The cure for this "disease" was to demean everything uniquely feminine, womanly and maternal, and to ultimately attempt to destroy the traditional culture of society and family – in other words, give up everything that was powerful and unique about being a woman.
One doesn't have to come from a religious fundamentalist background to recognize the incredible miracle of life's re-creation that takes place in a woman's body with pregnancy.
One doesn't have to be a religious fundamentalist to value the sacred nature of the human body – the female body in particular. In fact, 1960's feminists decried what they saw as the sexual objectification of women. Now, the feminists hold up the Britney Spears, Madonnas, Hiltons and so forth as powerful, significant, important role-models for girls. Fashions are slutty and skanky as even women with jelly-bellies wear pants that barely cover pubic (now public?) hair as they dress their young daughters to look like available Lolitas.
One doesn't have to be a religious fundamentalist to consider the nurturing of children of vital interest to a society. Yet, women have gladly opened their arms to embrace the hideous lie that hired-help is in any way equivalent to a loving mother in the raising of children.
One doesn't have to be a religious fundamentalist to consider that sexual intimacy is a special experience which not only excites and relieves tensions, but bonds a man and a woman together, elevating them both to something greater than their individual lives. Women have been sexually liberated into the notion of becoming unpaid whores – as early as middle school – where girls across the country go on their knees for boys, even in the classroom. Women hook-up and shack-up as casually as going out for a hamburger and movie used to be.
One doesn't have to be a rocket scientist to see how this has been profoundly destructive to the American family and the morale of young people, somewhat confused and still idealistic about having a loving, secure marriage and family.
When women call my radio program and start out by telling me how many children they have, I now have to ask: "How many different fathers?" and "How many marriages?" and "With whom does each child live?" and "Which child gets to see which mom or dad?" and "Are you shacking up or married to any of these men now?" This is maternal instinct protecting their young?
Of course, the best way to provide for and protect one's children is to provide them with a stable, happy nest, with a married mommy and a daddy who live for their family. But, according to Ms. Magazine's Gloria Steinem, "A woman needs a man like a fish needs a bicycle." With that attitude, women bounce from men to men like a frog in a lily-pond, denying their own need and the value of the marital covenant for their children. Groups of liberal and liberated women proclaim that "parents" can be any combination of adults – it really doesn't matter.
The ultimate in how low can women go is Barbara Walter's recent TV special where a child – shown full face on television and in print – is the prize in a contest for adoption. The child's proud and bold 16-year-old unwed, unattached mother (you see, folks, men have been taught that they need take on no responsibilities for their offspring or women) will select from a group of five couples which one will win her baby and be bothered by her continued (open-adoption) presence as they take responsibility for her irresponsibility by becoming virtual babysitters while she gets to pretend to be a responsible and involved "mother."
Wait! There is a cliff hanger! She could spend the special choosing and agonizing and then ... hold your breath ... decide not to give the child up after all! Such drama! Such ratings! Such shame. Then again, this is from the woman who gives you "The View" – which, for the sake of complete disclosure, I walked off during the middle of the show after they grossly mistreated me (you see, women with traditional values don't fall within their perception of the correct "View") and misrepresented my published book's subject matter.)
I am looking forward to part 2 of Ms. Walter's special. I can see it now: A bunch of young women have group sex with both men and women, they all get pregnant and give birth. The babies are all set down in the center of the stage ... lights dim ... dramatic music plays ... then there is a rush as whoever gives a damn gets to dash onto the stage and grab a baby for themselves. Now, they can raise the baby, but there won't be sequels here, or they can then use that baby in another of Barbara Walters' baby adopt-away (maybe) shows!
I'm calling my agent now.
Has anyone asked Matt on his opinion? *g*
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.