Date: January 14, 2002
"Beneath the Surface" The Continuing Rejection Of Feminism
In what is coming as less and less of a surprise to anyone with an IQ over 70, the mantra of the hard-core feminists who claim that romance is dead is continuing to fall on increasingly deaf ears as more and more American women are rejecting the lie that feminism has become. The fact is that romance is dead only for those people saying it and only because they choose for it to be dead in their lives.
Do not get me wrong; feminism started out with the noblest of intentions. But like all too many good ideas, radical elements within the ranks hijacked it, and those who had their own agenda drove out those who sought to keep its original intentions intact. Gloria Steinem felt that a woman needed a man as much as a fish needed a bicycle. Well, apparently the fish got his bicycle when Gloria married in a private ceremony in Oklahoma not too long ago. Other pioneers in the feminist movement have come to the realization that they had blind spots in their thinking and that in the process of winning their so-called ‘battles’, they lost the war. Look no further than the proposed Equal Rights Amendment, which despite being given an illegal three-year extension for ratification still died three states short of the needed 38 to become the law of the land.
Not only is the mainstream of society rejecting the sacred cows of feminism hand over fist, so is Hollywood. There has been a list – long and illustrious I might add, of films – all of which have been a repudiation of feminism in one form or another. Those films include, but are not limited to:
In each of these films we saw that people – male and female, have a basic longing not only for companionship, but to love and be loved – to hold and to be held. From the earliest days of human existence, it has been known that it is not good for man (or woman) to be alone. The New Testament (King James Version) clearly states in 1 Corinthians 11:11, “Nevertheless neither is the man without the woman, neither the woman without the man, in the Lord.”
Whether one accepts the tenets of Christianity or not, this principle carries with it an inherent merit. Feminism is a repudiation of one of the most basic human needs, so one can understand when its critics level charges that the upper echelons of the feminist movement are (pardon the pun) top-heavy with man-hating lesbians.
With disclosures in the not too distant past by former National Organization of Women (NOW) president Patricia Ireland that she has had a female partner – in addition to her husband, one cannot help but wonder what the real feminist agenda is. Perhaps it was one of seeking to rationalize a lifestyle that they knew deep down inside of themselves they knew to be wrong, but who the heck knows?
Unlike Nixon, Ford, Carter, Reagan, Bush I or Bush II, Clinton was a throwback to earlier days in that he just could not keep his pants on. NOW and other feminist outfits went after former Senator Bob Packwood (R-OR) and drove him out of the Senate for “trying to kiss” a couple of interns. Clinton, on the other hand, not only had a track record for affairs of state (both in-state and out-of-state), he had a full-time detail during the campaign dedicated to handling “bimbo eruptions”. These women were coming out of the woodwork everywhere. It wasn’t who Bill Clinton slept with; it’s who he didn’t sleep with.
To make matters worse, this little bombshell came out not too long ago, that being, an explanation for the silence on NOW’s part during Bill Clinton’s sex scandals. Tammy Bruce, former President of the California chapter of NOW, has shed some light on the subject. According to Bruce, “The National Organization for Women received ‘grant’ money from the federal government (under the Clinton Administration) at some very opportunistic times. The first being during the Paula Jones lawsuit, in which the feds decided to give NOW $500,000, then again during the Lewinsky investigation when they ‘granted’ the organization $200,000. This was apparently enough to keep these liberal chicks ‘hush.’”
For the record, Tammy Bruce is no Conservative. Not by any stretch of the imagination! She is a self-proclaimed lesbian and activist for that cause. She did, however, have extensive inside knowledge of the inner workings of the NOW organization that she spells out in her new book: “The New Thought Police: Inside the Left’s assault on free speech and free minds.” The fact that NOW is supporting Andrea Yates in defense of charges of Capital Murder of her five children in Texas only serves to reinforce just how ‘out of it’ they have become.
In an article I wrote in November of 2000 that only reinforces just how widely feminism is being rejected by women and society at large, I mentioned how societal attitudes have been shifting towards marriage and the family in many respects – how being married is now being seen as more “in vogue” – well, the fact is, it was never out of style to begin with as the numbers have borne out quite nicely. Yes, people may be waiting a little longer than they use to before marrying, but they nonetheless see marriage as an important part of their long-term plans for personal fulfillment and emotional and I’m sure spiritual growth as well.
This is something I doubt the hard-core feminists will ever get. These are the ones that Rush Limbaugh refers to as feminazis. These are feminists with a capital “F”. They do not seek to listen to reason; they want it either their way or no way at all, and in many respects, these are the ones to be the most feared.
Why, you may ask? Because in all too many cities, states, provinces and countries – which is by no means limited to the United States and Canada, these Feminists have the judges right by where they want them. These same judges also happen to be running scared of what will happen to them if they do not kowtow to the radical feminist agenda of sticking it to men for its sake alone.
Like the 63% of the German people who opposed the advent of Adolf Hitler before it was too late, the men’s groups seeking to restore the pendulum to an equal balance are far too fractured to put minor temporary differences aside and stamp out the larger threat that these radical feminist groups will continue to pose. If left unchecked, men – and more importantly, fathers, will continue to lose ground in the legal system, lose access to their children and be seen by their vengeful ex-wives as nothing more than gold-plated piggybanks that can be shaken down at will – on demand, whenever either they or the state get the itch to so act.
This is but one of many areas that need correction in the interests of one and all – especially children, who are all too often the only true innocents involved, and are almost always used as pawns and/or weapons by one or both feuding parents who are often more childish than the children themselves. At least the child has an excuse – they’re only a kid.
Clearly, this has got to stop, and nowhere is the time more important than now.
Timothy Rollins
You can e-mail your comments to Timothy at tim@opinionet.com
About Timothy Rollins.
Copyright © 2002 by Timothy Rollins. -Published with permission
OpinioNet Contributed Commentary - Timothy Rollins <tim@opinionet.com>
You remember NOW, don’t you? All those years they railed against public figures – men, who wrongfully used their positions to take advantage of subordinate women in the workplace? For a long time, they had a legitimate grievance against lecherous hypocrites who were talking the talk but not walking the walk. Then, something happened – their boy (Bill Clinton) got himself elected President of the United States, not just once, but twice.
Presidential Seal
NOW’s hypocrisy really came out in full bloom during the Clinton impeachment hearings. I was at church one Sunday while my then-wife stayed home with the baby and was watching “Meet the Press” on NBC. Patricia Ireland (pictured, left) was the guest and Bill Clinton and I believe Paula Jones were the topic of conversation. Ireland had the temerity to say, “The first one is free”. Such a remark by one who purports to support the cause of women’s rights only serves to set back that cause 40 years, thus negating any and all progress that may have been made in that time.
Patricia Ireland
This article may not be reproduced in any form without the expressed written consent of its author.
Read other commentaries by Timothy Rollins.
All Rights Reserved.
© 2002 by OpinioNet(tm), All Rights Reserved