« Is The Global Jihad Entering An "11th Hour" Phase? | Main | Michael Graham & CAIR »

July 29, 2005

Feminist Hypocrites

Living in San Francisco(not for much longer, thank God!) and "getting out quite a bit" I meet a lot of so-called feminists on a pretty regular basis. I have yet to meet one that is not a liberal, and I have yet to meet one that is not a hypocrite.


Here are women living in a free country, so free that it permits them to openly and vitriolically lambast their government, their president and the "reigning" GOP with a tenacity a hundred times more than would be needed to land them in a prison, a torture chamber or both in a lot of countries, including some of those that support global terrorism.  

These American feminists enjoy the right to go out without a father or brother escort without worrying about getting a critical, bloody beating or worse from male family members, and they can go out without having to cover their faces. These American feminists enjoy the right to go as far as they wish in both education and career venues under the law of the land. They are accepted as leaders in business, politics and in the military.

They purport to champion the cause of women's rights and equality, all a lie as they take the stand of the Angry Left, protesting and obstructing wherever possible our efforts to liberate Muslim countries in which the women are both treated and viewed as fifth class citizens, slaves to husbands, brothers and even sons who can beat them or even kill them with impunity, where a woman who is not appropriately attired is pelted with fruit, rocks, whatever comes to hand, beaten by religious police or viewed as eligible for rape.

Why do these feminists not give the proverbial "flying fuck" about these women in Muslim countries? Because they hate Bush. Bush doctrine has freed women in Iraq and Afghanistan and caused women in other repressive Islamic countries to start rethinking their situations, and had Clinton had the spine to do what needed doing during his second term in office and beaten Bush to the punch, you can bet these same feminists would have been singing his praises.

Unfortunately, Slick Willy's lightweight handling of terrorism and his obstructionism of national security operations(ie interagency cooperation between external intelligence and internal security agencies) were strong factors in the ability of terrorists to bring us 9/11.

But that's what it's all about where feminists are concerned: Supporting our liberation of these societies and the resultant freeing of their female populations would mean supporting a Bush agenda. Rather than do that, the rank and file feminist would just as soon see her millions of "sisters" continue to be repressed, veiled, beaten, disrespected from birth to death. Is hypocrisy a strong enough term, do you think?


Perhaps one reason most Islamic nations are so backward is because they don't allow their women to contribute, and that means they exclude potential major assets for bettering their lot and coming into the modern world.

Women in free countries have more than proven their value to our societies as a whole, in business, politics, science, journalism, culture, and there have been quite a few women inventors. Check out the site, it's definitely worth reading and there are several pages listing women through U.S. history and their inventions in a wide variety of areas.

One of the most enjoyable and thought-provoking novels I've read in quite awhile was Dan Brown's The Da Vinci Code. I think the concept of the Sacred Feminine is very real. Being Jewish, I can tell you that in my religion, women are considered very special and their contributions on all levels are welcome. A woman of our faith doesn't need liberal feminists to do her talking for her. The Jewish-cum-atheist women or those who denounce Judaism or even deny God's existence for social convenience, on the other hand, feel the need to support feminist movements that no longer serve any purpose save espousing the farthest left causes that come down the pike, whether they have anything to do with women's rights or not. Of course, today it seems like all liberal based organizations are united in their War On Bush, and national security, the liberation of oppressed peoples and all other considerations be damned.


Women from both sides of the aisle who lean toward supporting groups like NOW should really give more thought to the actual level of sincerity these people have evolved to, and to what they actually support before sending them money or signing petitions on their behalf.

The feminist movement of today cares less about women's rights and more about liberal political agendas. Period.


Posted by Seth at July 29, 2005 08:41 PM


These women also don't know how to enjoy themselves. They are so caught up in their own imagined miseries of life...they cannot relax and just have fun with life. I hate them! LOL they give us real women a bad name. Dammit.

Posted by: Raven at August 1, 2005 01:14 AM

They are pretty pathetic. What gets me is that their orgs, like all other liberal orgs, prove their insincerity by going off their stated mission tracks and putting all their resources into political agendas that have little or nothing to do with the goals that attracted their initial bases of support.So you get someone who's a NOW supporter, for example, not even realizing that his/her monetary contributions and the added strength of petition signatures(the number of signatures on petitions can be used, when "presented right", to cite the strength of numbers of a movement's supporters) are going into other liberal causes that he/she might not espouse.The feminist movement has gone so far off the beaten track that whatever else they may be speaking for, it's not women's equality.And yes, thank God for real women. Living in this convoluted enclave where feminazis run unchecked and rampant, knowing you all are out there brings a great measure of gratitude, warmth and relief. :)

Posted by: Seth at August 1, 2005 05:29 AM

You know, I enjoy traveling around the blogosphere meeting all kind of folk, those I agree with and not. Thus, I've stumbled upon your little corner of the world.But I do not enjoy your writings, they're shallow, full of faulty logic and demagoguery and just plain poorly written. I'm hoping it's an act, this bile you spew, out of a sick sense of humor or pathos or some such.Nonetheless, I encourage you to seek God, to release the bitterness within you and turn from your wicked ways. God have mercy on us all.I bid you, adieu.

Posted by: Dan Trabue at August 3, 2005 04:42 PM

To use a fun Reagan quote, Dan:"There you go again."One of the purposes of "comments" is to avail readers of a blog of the opportunity to state their opinions in response to the corresponding post.I see no opinion on the post in question, only more of the same as in your previous comment.Do you actually have an opinion, or are you just a spewer?Are you one of those assholes who, having no friends, no opinions and probably no balls, spends his time trolling around the blogosphere in between child porn sites and venting your frustrations re your undoubtedly miserable existence?Talk to me, dude. Or not.

Posted by: Seth at August 3, 2005 10:16 PM

Brotherman, I've "met" a good number of people this way and have enjoyed discussing our differing opinions. It's just that there sites are less bile-filled than yours.I'm honestly not trying to be insulting. I'm saying that your tone seems condescending and it's hard to isolate a tone and address it. But, for instance, you state:"Why do these feminists not give the proverbial "flying fuck" about these women in Muslim countries? Because they hate Bush."This belittles all women opposed to Bush suggesting1. that they are heartless and 2. that they only believe what they believe because they hate Bush.How does one address that? I'm sure you recognize the logical problem with such a suggestion? "All" of any group rarely believes one way. People dislike Bush's policies for many sound moral and logical reasons. Myself, I'm relatively indifferent towards Bush, the man.His policies on the other hand are murder. If you're one given to religious talk, his policies are evil.I'm not addressing Bush the man here, I don't hate him (although it is the human condition to be wont to dismiss angrily or with humor the ones we strongly disagree with). And, while I'm not a woman, to paint with such broad stripes is not helpful to the conversation and gives the impression that you're not interested in having an honest conversation.If you're honestly interested, then I'll give it a second chance. I'll address your comments for the specifics, not the ridiculous tone.And I apologize if I read you wrong....Peace.

Posted by: Dan Trabue at August 4, 2005 05:33 PM

I don't know where you live, but I live(not for much longer) in the liberal capital of the universe. Every liberal cause there ever was has a protected home here. I know a number of hard core feminists and they all have the same "opinion": If Bush decides to do something it's automatically evil, and if you dig deep enough into it, Haliburton will emerge. They also subscribe to many liberals' stated opinion that Islamic terrorism is Bush's fault, as though nothing, no, no terrorism was directed at America or Americans during Clinton's watch.If Bill Clinton had taken us to war in Iraq, the media and the left in general would have supported him. Since Bush took us to war, it's "for the oil" and "Bush lied."These are the arguments I hear, or the basis for long and whining roads of discussion.So here's where my use of the term "hypocrite" emerges. The so-called champions of women's rights have a choice: They can either support the liberation and democratization of countries where women, whose equal rights they claim to engender as their mission are being freed from lives of no rights at all. Or, they can toe the party line: Bush stole the first election, so everything he does is illegal. We can't support Bush's War On Terror, because it's not the correct political thing to do. That is how these liberals out here think, at least a good 85% of the many I've talked to.Bottom line: Sorry, Muslim ladies, but freeing you interferes with our internal political agenda. Maybe some other decade.In my book, that's the kind of thing that makes someone a hypocrite.I am a Bush supporter, big time, but I don't necessarily support everything he does. If I don't like what I see happening with a given issue, I'll say it.People whose words are their only substance are not very substantial people.

Posted by: Seth at August 4, 2005 08:58 PM

Seth, I take my proverbial hat off to you. You dealt with Dan T beautifully. Much better than I've handled him.BTW, isn't it funny how rude people end a virulent diatribe with "peace".

Posted by: NYgirl at August 5, 2005 08:06 PM

So, NY Girl. You and Dan are previous acquaintances?

Posted by: Seth at August 6, 2005 09:52 AM

NYgirl, HOW was I rude? I explained that I was not trying to be insulting. I explained my dilemma in trying to address why I found Set's comments condescending, I explained my position on Bush (don't hate him, but have problem with his policies) and I apologized if I misunderstood Seth.I find this very interesting. Did you all catch that study that was released last year that said Conservatives and Liberals "hear" the news differently? The one that said, conservatives can sit in front of the TV and listen to a news report where they say that world support for Bush's Iraq invasion was very low, and then, when asked what was on the news, the conservatives say that the world is firmly behind Bush?Again, I'm not teasing or being sarcastic or anything like that hear. I'm just honestly bewildered. It seems we're reading the same words and seeing two very different things.Thanks for providing me the opportunity to visit and dialog...Peace to you and yours (and when I say "peace," I mean that I wish for peace and goodness in your lives). (OK. That was sarcasm, but with a good-natured intent.)

Posted by: Dan Trabue at August 7, 2005 09:33 PM

Dan, when you walk into someone else's blog, you are walking into their "home". It is considered good manners not to insult your host, while in their home. It is his blog & in his blog, he has the right to write what ever he wants, just as you have the right to write what you want in your blog.Despite saying that you did not mean to be insulting, your words are clearly insulting & you show no respect for your host.

Posted by: NYgirl at August 8, 2005 09:56 PM

Despite saying that I did not mean to be insulting, my words are clearly insulting? Allow me to return to my previous question:Did you all catch that study that was released last year that said Conservatives and Liberals "hear" the news differently? The one that said, conservatives can sit in front of the TV and listen to a news report where they say that world support for Bush's Iraq invasion was very low, and then, when asked what was on the news, the conservatives say that the world is firmly behind Bush?Do you think this is one of those instances that you're hearing/reading something that just isn't there? Or are you suggesting I'm being subconsciously insulting?Yes. I'll admit that my first two posts were insulting, in response to the insulting tone of this blog. But I apologized for those and in my conversations since with Seth, I've not said anything that I intended to be insulting. Does it cross your mind that it is insulting to call people liars? I'm telling you I'm being sincere and you say, naw, he's not sincere. Not that I mind being insulted. Bring it on. I'm just very interested in the communication or lack thereof between those perceived to be on the left and on the right.

Posted by: Dan Trabue at August 9, 2005 05:02 PM

Dan, I thought I explained my position a few comments ago, that is clarified what you seemed to have misconstrued in my original post.I don't know if you've ever spent any time here in S.F. If you haven't, my trying to explain further is pointless. I mean that. This city is owned and operated by the most leftward of lefties, anything that says America is evil is obviously true, no fact checking necessary, Bush is the enemy of all mankind, etc.These people would gladly watch half of America die a slow, horrible death if it could be construed that it is Bush's fault. They cheer whenever we lose soldiers in Iraq, because in their minds it corroborates their "Bush lied, people died" slogan. This is the home of the environmental terrorist, the "animals before people" crowd... Tell me, is there an Anarchist's Bookstore in your town?The real issue, I think, is that you are thinking "inside the box" while the people I described in my post threw the box away a long time ago(sorry, I mean they put it in the blue recycle bin).

Posted by: Seth at August 9, 2005 06:23 PM