Patriarchy Reasserted: Part II

First, I define key terms central to this discussion including sex, gender and patriarchy.

In which her definitions are all biased towards the feminist-extremist view point...

On Sex and Gender:

The sex/gender distinction is conceptually important because it challenges the notion that hierarchical gender differences are determined by biological differences between women and men. If differences and hierarchical power relations between the sexes are primarily culturally constructed, they are changeable. If they are natural, on the other hand, it would be both impossible and morally wrong (unnatural) to change them.

Hierarchical power relations between the sexes are most definitely culturally constructed, and as the social engineers and feminist activists have already proven, they are most certainly changeable.

What this feminazi fails to realize is that the very reason why a culture such as that which evolved in what we now call "Western Civilization," was due in part to the hierarchical power relations that resulted in strong, Patriarchal-modeled nuclear families...and that changing that structure by changing the gender roles through subversion, propaganda and gender-biased laws have resulted in social chaos, the spread of broken homes and the proliferation of psychologically scarred children and the pathologies that are the hallmarks of a civilization in decline.

On Patriarchy:

Familial patriarchy refers to forms of family structure where men are the head of the household.

So far, so good...

Social patriarchy refers to a sex/gender system in which men dominate women and what is considered masculine is more highly valued than what is considered feminine.

Here's where she once again goes off into feminazi propaganda territory. In a Patriarchal society, that which is feminine is the most highly valued trait of all. It is the current feminist upheaval of traditional patriarchy that has degraded and demeaned all the defining characteristics of femininity; motherhood (the ultimate feminine trait) is cast as slavery, and being a housewife was compared to the lives of concentration camp inmates by the likes of such feminist luminaries as Betty Friedan.

Patriarchy is a system of social stratification, which means that it uses a wide array of social control policies and practices to ratify male power and to keep girls and women subordinate to men.

Again, this is simply a matter of perspective. It is not about ratifying male power, but rather placing legal and social constraints on female sexual behavior...because the lack of constraints leads to all sorts of social and familial chaos - which is exactly what we are seeing today.

So, one can see that by first starting out with the feminist defined terms with regards to gender, sex and patriarchy, she has already started out with feminist extremist bias that will no doubt reinforce her conclusion that Father's Rights groups are really NOT based on correcting injustices in divorce, custody and family laws, but only that Father's Rights groups simply are neanderthal Patriarch's who simply want to dominate and oppress women for no other reason than being motivated by misogyny.

Patriarchy Reasserted: Part I

I recieved an email today from Fidelbogen, The Counter-Feminist. He was informing me of a recent publication of an article by some femi-nazi, Women's Studies Lesbo-chick (degrading, misogynistic insults certainly intended...) from the University of Ontario Institute of Technology. It is based on the theory that the online existence of a Father's Rights movement is a backlash against feminism.

Her name is Molly Dragiewicz, and her paper, Patriarchy Reasserted: Father's Rights and Anti-VAWA Activism, actually references Fidelbogen's blog in her citations.

While you cannot see the entire PDF document online without becoming a paying subscription member of Sage Journals Online, I have obtained a copy for which I am now going to excerpt and "Fisk."

First, the abstract preview:

The backlash against gender-sensitive responses to women’s victimization, offending, and imprisonment is inseparable from contemporary reaction against feminism and other progressive movements. The backlash against the American Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) provides a prime example of this resistance.

Yes, the backlash against the VAWA does provide an example of resistance...but feminism is hardly progressive -- more like "regressive." As in, regressing back to the social order of Matriarchy and the wonderful results in which it entails.

Despite widespread support for VAWA and other policies designed to address violence against women, some constituencies object to their existence. The author investigates fathers’ rights rhetoric on VAWA as an example of anti-feminist backlash.

The basic contention is not that some constituencies object to the existence of policies designed to address violence against women...but rather the recognition that in the name of "addressing violence against women," the feminist-extremists have passed laws that are used to to disenfranchise men from their children, cause further social chaos by contributing significantly to the proliferation of broken homes and fomenting the criminalization of an entire class of men -- Fathers -- who are guilty of nothing more than having Wives that decide to use the legal powers afforded them via legislation such as VAWA to gain advantages in divorce proceedings and custody disputes.

The entire premise of this paper is plainly revealed by Dragiewicz's abstract, and it rests entirely on the following premises:

* That VAWA is designed to address violence against women (it's not);

* That Father's Right's groups are a fringe minority group, and that they represent a backlash to feminism -- not because VAWA has been used to unjustly strip Father's of their children and assets and further the institution of peonage that has become the current child support system -- but because anyone opposed to it SUPPORTS VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN.

When I read this abstract at the beginning of the paper, I suspected that she was framing the debate into terms that define the backlash against feminism as nothing more than a bunch of men that want to oppress, dominate and violate women. Reading the rest of her paper confirmed what I ascertained from the very first: she had a pre-determined conclusion and the entire paper is nothing more than confirmation of her own bias.

In short, this paper is nothing more than an exercise in regurgitating Women's Studies propaganda in a pathetic attempt to sidestep and ignore the very real and legitimate reasons as to why anyone, male or female, would participate in a "backlash" against feminism and/or unjust and unconstitutional legislation like VAWA.

The following is her statement of purpose for the rest of the article:

In this article, I investigate fathers’ rights (FR) rhetoric on VAWA as an example of antifeminist backlash. First, I define key terms central to this discussion including sex, gender and patriarchy. Second, I describe the method I used in selecting my sample for analysis. Third I establish the theoretical bases for my analysis, including patriarchal peer support and backlash. Fourth, I present the key themes that I uncovered in FR resistance to VAWA, including calls for formal equality, calls for the reassertion of patriarchy, and objections to women’s authority. Finally, I conclude with remarks about the importance of considering FR backlash and suggestions for additional research.

The rest of my forthcoming postings on this topic will be based on deconstructing her arguments as the pertain to each of her five objectives in this article.

To be continued...

20 Years of Rush on the Radio

Rush Limbaugh has just celebrated 20 years of broadcasting his right-wing, conservative talk show.

I haven't listened to the man behind the golden microphone at EIB headquarters in a long, long time. However, it is most certainly fitting to pay tribute to the man that gave us the gift of coining the term "FemiNazi" and his hilarious bumper music before giving his latest FemiNazi Updates:

{background music - some lesbo, Lilith Fair folk singer}
"Men...what are they good for..."

{The strident harangue from a femiNazi Rally on a microphone}
"We're Fierce! We're Feminine! And we're in your F-F-A-A-A-A-C-C-C-E-E-E-E!"

I used to chuckle every time he played that clip.

We also must give him credit for being the first major media figure to speak the truth about Feminist extremists:

“Feminism was established to allow unattractive women easier access to the mainstream.”

Of course, the most fitting tribute to celebrate 20 years of the Right Wing King of the AM Radiowaves was given by another famous anti-feminist, conservative pundit (who herself once stated that she would give up her right to vote to reverse Women's Suffrage because she recognizes the truth that her fellow female voters are responsible for the continued advancement of socialism and feminism in public policy and legislation,) Ann Coulter:

The Other Inventor of Radio

08/01/2008

The story of Rush Limbaugh reminds me of a movie you wouldn’t believe could ever happen in real life. Forging his own path against all odds and under constant attack, in the end, the hero triumphs!

I knew about the prominent Limbaugh family before I ever heard of Rush. I clerked for a federal appeals court judge in Kansas City after law school, and every lawyer in the Midwest has heard of the Limbaughs–the Limbaugh judges, the Limbaugh lawyers, the Limbaugh courthouse.

But Rush spurned the law, spurned college and went on radio. He wanted to be on radio, so that’s what he did. He was a conservative, so that’s what he was.

As obvious as it seems now that Rush would be a huge success on radio, it was far from obvious for many years. He was fired repeatedly, until, eventually, his distinctive brand of conservative talk radio that no one believed would work, worked.

When Rush came along, it’s not just that there was no conservative talk radio to speak of. AM radio was dying. And the idea of a national show three hours a day at a time of day when Republicans are at work must have seemed ludicrous to even his friends.

But the moment Rush became a huge success, liberals said he was just in it for the money!

Yes, what surer path to fame and fortune than announcing that you are a conservative and taking on the entire mainstream media while being repeatedly fired?

Perhaps some of Rush’s imitators are in it for the money, but when Rush was coming up, there was absolutely no reason to believe three hours of conservative talk radio was the path to big bucks. (Judging from Air America radio, liberals sure aren't going into talk radio for the money.)

This is why I have a rule: Never trust a conservative public figure who hasn’t been fired, at least once, for being a conservative. Apparently, we can trust Rush!

By being the first and the most successful public conservative, Rush made it leagues easier for those of us who followed him. Among other things, he flushed out liberals and forced them to deploy all their idiotic talking points against him. By now, we’ve heard the same denunciations so often, we can lip-sync liberal attacks on us.

But when Rush started out doing conservative radio, there was no Fox News, there were no other national conservative talk-radio hosts, there was no Drudge Report. Rush just had to stand there taking bullets by himself.

And he had no shortage of critics, on the left and a few envious souls on the right. They’ve never changed, even as Rush became more and more popular and other conservatives followed Rush into various branches of the media and they too became more and more popular. Luckily, Rush's critics have tended to disappear when their newspapers fold or their columns get cancelled, but new ones always pop up spouting the same drivel.

Back in 1991, The Syracuse, (N.Y.) Post-Standard unleashed almost all of the standard liberal clichés against conservatives in a single editorial denouncing Rush. I have categorized them here:

1. His shtick is getting tiresome. “By next year at this time, we may be saying, ‘Rush who?’"

(Actually, by that time the following year people were saying “They're paying Rush Limbaugh how much?" and asking ,“The Syracuse Post-what?”)

2. Thinking conservatives reject him. “He bills himself as a conservative, although thinking conservatives, after an initial chuckle or two, should want to put as much distance between him and themselves as possible.”

(That would explain the 22 million listeners every week, the top-selling newsletter, and the two No.1 bestselling books.)

3. He makes personal attacks! “His favorite technique for discrediting an idea with which he disagrees is to make petty personal attacks against the people who espouse that idea.”

(Yes, who can forget Rush's bestselling Book "Al Franken Is A Big, Fat Idiot"? Wait –that wasn’t his book? What liberals mean by a “personal attack” is any comment about a liberal. )

4. He’s mean. “He is not a nice man, and he doesn't pretend to be. . . . And he's nasty.”

(This would explain the legions of female callers who breathlessly call Rush every day, cooing, gushing, and all but proposing to him over the airwaves. Of course, if by "nice" liberals mean "someone who cares about what liberals think," then they’re right: Rush is not nice, not nice at all. Neither am I!)

5. He’s a fraud who just does it for the money. “Limbaugh admits he's in it for the money.”

(This is as opposed to newspaper editors and reporters who work pro bono.)

6. He’s not as good as [fill in the blank] “Plainly, he's no Edward R. Murrow.”

(And yet, he’s inexplicably more popular than Murrow was.)

7. He’s more like these other losers. “Limbaugh reminds us of Morton Downey, Jr., the celebrated TV hatemonger of a few years ago.”

(Really? Okay, name one similarity. Besides the fact that Rush Limbaugh and Morton Downey, Jr. are both more popular than the Syracuse Post-Standard.)

Even writing a cliché, The Syracuse Post-Mortem couldn’t get it right. They missed liberals' famed “fact-checking” of conservatives and the deft counterargument: “he’s stupid.” So, I’ll add two more from the standard attack on conservatives:

8. He gets his facts wrong! A 1994 article in Newsweek claimed to have found a study showing that “Limbaugh often disdains facts.” Among the examples was this quote from Rush: When "the [black] illegitimacy rate is raised, the Rev. Jackson and other black leaders immediately change the subject."

But according to Newsweek: “For years, Jesse Jackson and others have decried ‘children having children.’"

(Say, wasn’t there a story recently about Jackson threatening to cut someone’s “n--s off”? Oh yes, I remember now! That was what Jackson said he wanted to do to Obama for talking about the black illegitimacy rate.)

9 He’s stupid! Or as Ken Bode put it in a 1993 New York Times article: “Mr. Limbaugh is not hobbled by intellectual consistency.”

(22 million listeners a week.)

Attacks like these gave the rest of us something to aspire to! Conservatives, if you’re not being called a mean-spirited has-been, who’s in it for the money, engages in personal attacks, gets his facts wrong and plainly is “no Edward R. Murrow”–you ’re not doing it right.

Liberals have had nearly two decades to come up with some fresh libel of conservatives, but it’s always the same thing. Thank you, Rush Limbaugh! This has been a big help.

Like Jerry Seinfeld’s mother, who can’t understand why everyone doesn’t love Jerry, my mother is constantly perplexed by any criticism of me. I always tell her: “Remember how much you love Rush Limbaugh, Mother, and think of all the terrible things they’ve said about him. Notice how no one ever criticizes Rich Lowry.

This always works, but it makes me wonder: What did Rush tell his mother?

Mr. Limbaugh, for everything you've ever said to expose and ridicule the idiocy of feminism, socialism and collectivism...

...DITTOS!