Daily Israel Report
Show More

OpEds


Op-Ed: The Pink Peril

This article is about militant feminism, the global political movement.
Published: Friday, February 15, 2013 11:13 AM


Feminism sounds like a good thing. Ask some people what feminism stands for and they will talk to you about lofty ideals of justice and equality. Equal wages for men and women. Women's right to higher education and career fulfillment. An end to violence against women. A more egalitarian family law system, to replace the much-maligned rabbinical courts and "patriarchal halakha" they embody and enforce. A woman's right to have an abortion, etc.


To many devoted wives and mothers, who are, one believes and hopes, disproportionately represented among Arutz Sheva's readership, "feminism" just means that they can work outside the house and their husbands can help inside the house, or that their opinions on worldly matters deserve to be heard without condescension.


This is not the "feminism" that this article is about, however. This article, rather, is about militant feminism, the global political movement.


Millions of dollars are spent annually on feminist activities in Israel alone, and feminists wield great power in academia and the press, as well as the judicial, police and welfare systems. Three of the four Jewish left-of-center parties are headed by women, and two of these women – MKs Yachimovich of Labor and Galon of Meretz – are veteran leaders in the militant feminist stream. The fourth left-of-center party, Yesh Atid, while headed by a man, has a sizable and influential cadre of feminist MKs in its ranks as well.


A movement as powerful as this should surely not be above criticism – and yet, try to say anything less than adulating about it, and you will be castigated as a male chauvinist pig, a misogynist and a potential wife beater or rapist.


Admit it – you have been mulling such thoughts yourself about me, as you read this article's title and opening paragraphs.

 
But the truth about political feminism needs to be told without fear; it must be heard and understood. Only people with truly open, curious and critical minds will be able to do this. Others, who believe everything they are told and are unable to rethink old perceived truths, need read no further. This article will only infuriate them and may cause dangerous short circuits in their preprogrammed mindset.


There is a huge, unbridgeable gap between "feminism" as a set of semi-abstract ideas and catch phrases like the ones listed in the opening paragraph, or the instances of common sense and decency between partners listed in the second, and the feminist movement in practice, as it manifests itself in its power centers. The idea of feminism as we tend to grasp it in our day-to-day lives, and the actual world of feminist bureaucracy, propaganda, indoctrination, agitation and subversion, are two completely different things.


They are as different as the idea of communism – which can also appear noble, in the abstract – and the practice of communism, which involves dictatorship, terrorism, brainwashing and mass murder. Yes, it would be great if poor people could stop being poor, if rich people shared their wealth with the less fortunate, if there were no unemployment, and if factory workers enjoyed the same conditions as top executives. In practice, however, the people who peddle this ideology are murderous scum, and countries that have survived communist regimes – or had to deal with such regimes as enemies – learned the hard way that they are better off without it.


The analogy to communism is not coincidental. For the movement we know as feminism – specifically, so-called "second wave" feminism, which became an integral part of western culture with the publication of Betty Friedan's 1963 bestseller "The Feminine Mystique," and her subsequent founding of the National Organization of Women – is a movement completely under the control of the political force that refers to itself, at least since the 1960s, as the New Left. This force is popularly referred to as Political Correctness, and its critics call it neo-Marxism.

Whatever you call it, there quite is a lot of red behind the feminist pink.

The intellectual centers for feminist indoctrination, and the factories for much of its disinformation and propaganda, are the so-called Gender Studies departments in the universities. In Israel, all of the universities except the newest one, Ariel, have such departments. These are pure hard-left bastions – even more so than political science and history departments: I doubt you will find a single lecturer there who has political leanings to the right of the radical stream in Meretz.


If you doubt the veracity of what I said about the connection between Marxism and feminism – and you know a woman who has studied "gender science" – simply ask her. There is a pretty good chance that her reply will be a resounding "Duh! Everyone knows that!". Many feminists who are aware of the Marxist connection simply say that it only goes to show that Marxism wasn't all bad. Some will tell you that there are different feminist streams, and that Marxist feminism was relevant in the early Soviet Union, but is irrelevant today (This is partly true, but it is also true that Soviet feminism provided a core of ideas and experience around which the western feminism we know was constructed). But I believe that only a minority will completely deny the connection.


If they do deny it, ask them what they think about the statement that opens the book "Feminism, Marxism, Method, and the State"  by leading feminist intellectual, Catherine MacKinnon: "Sexuality is to feminism what work is to Marxism: that which is most one's own, yet most taken away." Why would a top feminist thinker open a central feminist tract with such a homage to Marxism, if the relationship to Marxism were not a central element in feminism?


Since Marxists speak in code, let me decode MacKinnon's opening statement for you, or rather – rephrase it from a critical perspective. Essentially, MacKinnon is pointing to the fact that, just as earlier Marxists created "class consciousness" to divide nations along the seam line between the working class and "bourgeoisie," feminists create "gender consciousness" to divide nations along the seam line between women and men.


There are, in fact, two kinds of politics in the western world: the old politics, and the new politics. The anti-traditionalist Left created the new politics in the 1960s and has been playing the new political game ever since. The traditionalist Right is almost completely blind to the new politics and continues to play by the old rules. The result is a gradual erosion of the Right's power. This process has brought us to the point at which we are today. In the United States, it has brought us the Obama-Clinton regime. In Israel, it is tearing apart the traditionalist and nationalist camp, infiltrating the judiciary, subverting the press, emasculating the military and the police, and creating an instability that will be fatal if unchecked.


Knowledge is power, and it is time to empower the traditionalist Right by learning the secrets of the new politics – including the true nature of the feminist establishment. The excellent 12-minute presentation by the brilliant Bill Whittle, embedded below, is a great way to start that learning process. I strongly recommend that you view it. Then, let it grow on you for a while. 

If you, the reader, open yourself up to materials that shed light on the foundations of the feminist movement – like the Whittle video or the slightly longer Free Congress Foundation video that it quotes extensively – I believe that over time, you will come to change the way you view the "feminist" messages that surround all of us in western culture.
 

One thing that you will find is that issues like "the pay gap between men and women," "violence against women," "a woman's right over her body" and others are framed and raised in certain ways by specific forces, not in order to facilitate a genuine, informed discussion but in order to manipulate the masses, make political hay, receive funding, and foment distrust and hatred between adults of both sexes, at the expense of social order and the well-being of the children we love.