FANATICAL FEMINISM

Red Deer Express, March 5^th, 2014. Even as early as the mid-seventies, feminism was rearing its ungodly head in classrooms in Canada. I remember it well. Now boys and men are being elbowed out of the way as if they were imposters to humanity.

If, out of deference to women, men stepped to the side, that would be okay. But what, other than coercive, plaintive feminism, resulted in all three flag-bearers being women? I don’t care much for sports, and did not watch more than a few minutes of Olympic coverage. But this news clip furnishes one more example of feminist fanaticism. Notice that it is not enough to figure out how well Canada did for medals won. No, there must be a ‘gender analysis’ to figure out that Canadian women did better than Canadian men. This kind of focus is what divides the genders and occasions backbiting between the sexes. It is, to speak like a feminist for a second, sexist.

There are so many other examples of fanatical feminism in Canada, especially via CBC Radio, our national broadcaster. On Canada Reads 2014, the yearly forum during which the merits of Canadian novels are debated, CBC was careful to give women participants and authors a fighting chance. Out of five debaters, three were men; out of five books debated, three were authored by women. Nice and even. Isn’t it pathetic that CBC has to yield fifty percent or more to women in order to keep the feminists from bellyaching? But does it work? Does it prevent the feminists from squawking? At some point during the debate one of the women complained of sexism when it didn’t go her way. It is always sexism to a feminist when women are not on the winning side. Incidentally, the man who won Canada Reads 2014 was an Indian defending a book that was written about Indians and that was authored by an Indian. He used the word ‘Indian’ as if it is still normal and appropriate to do it. So white persons may do it too. I will continue to do so no matter what. 

Here is another example of what I’m talking about, from CBC’s The Current, March 21^st, 2014. Only politicians, pundits, and feminists would be keeping count of how many women premiers there are in Canada. I learned on The Current that this country, up until recently, had six premiers governing eighty-five percent of the population. Who but fanatical feminists would keep track of exactly what percentage of the population is being governed by women? Normal people would not even think about doing so. Now that the number of women premiers are down to three, the fanatical feminists are out with the numbers, and complaining about the feminist drop. One of the politicians who balked at Premier Redford’s governing style said that she’s not a nice lady. According to CBC Radio, that statement must be full of gender discrimination. He said what he said in the most inoffensive way imaginable, yet because he opposed a woman he must be against her gender. It is not possible to criticize a woman without feminists yelling sexism and misogyny. What could he have said to avoid the accusation? Should he have said ‘not nice’ and left out ‘she is’ and be perceived as an imbecile speaking nonsense? As soon as it is a ‘she’ who is said to be ‘not nice,’ it must be a misogynistic statement.

Here is another example, from Eleanor Wachtel’s Writers and Company. On March 16^th, 2014, she hosted a panel of women who were invited to discuss George Eliot’s Middlemarch. One woman pointed out that both George Eliot and her husband were adulterous. A second woman pointed out the double standard that was in effect at that time: the adulterous husband could show himself in high society, while his adulterous wife could not, which is what gave her more time to write. To this point, one of the women returned something like, “Of which we can all relate.” Let’s examine that statement. First, it is not true that such a double standard was in effect for all women in the Victorian scene. Second, the quip that the women on this panel can all relate is an admission that these women must be adulterous also, or something comparable thereto. Feminists don’t mind labeling themselves today, as long as the label is about the subversion of traditional mores.

Feminists are bitter against every segment of society that they are not the rulers of. On the extremely gay-friendly, feminist-leaning program called Q (which letter I think secretly stands for queer), a discussion was opened up on November 18^th, 2013 regarding women sports reporters. The discussion was prompted by a critical comment by a male newscaster about women not belonging in his ‘sandbox.’ What was he objecting to? He was objecting to women asking irrelevant questions to male athletes like, “If you were an animal, what kind of animal would that be?” The opinion on the Q panel was that more women sports reporters are needed, and that those in charge of hiring reporters should, if they lack female applicants, go out and rustle them up. Do you see how fanatical feminism is? Feminists will be bitter until they take over. And even if they take over, they will remain bitter, for it is the nature of a feminist to be bitter, mad, militant, nasty, unfair, and mean.

Examples of fanatical feminism are not lacking from CBC Radio. I could come up with at least one example per day, I think. And it is the CBC, probably more than any other medium in Canada, that pushes for the dominion of women over men.

Militant feminists operate like so: they collaborate; they fabricate lies; they segregate whoever they can’t recruit; they ignite a cause; they litigate; they celebrate; and they congregate anew to rehash their bitterness.

It is said by the Lord that he has this against the church of Ephesus: “thou hast left thy first love.” This concerns the spiritual wellbeing of a congregation. In an earthly sense, feminists are those who have, like Eve did, left their first love, man, and they have not returned and are not looking back. They are against man even while they confess their love. They are making war even while they are on the make. They are angry, malicious, vengeful, and determined to get man’s portion in addition to their own, and to go on madly demanding more than man has left to give. Every person who leaves his or her first love will end up in a bitter spirit until a return to first love is commenced. Feminism is a bitter religion because it goes against the grain of what woman was made for and what can make her happy (in the natural, not spiritual, sense): being ‘an help meet for him’ (Genesis 2.18.) 

Here is an example from March 20^th, 2014 of how women feel their biblical need for men so much that they will risk their hearts and fortunes in order to get one. I don’t remember what show I heard this on. But I heard it on CBC Radio. The topic was middle-aged women frequenting Cuba in search of romance and love with desperate Cuban men (men who are desperate for a better class of life.) Of course, liaisons like that are likely to end in women being used. But even after confessing to being dumped after spending much time, effort, and cash to get her Cuban interest into Canada, the woman would not admit that she was tricked. When asked about what the chances are that she was used, she replied, ‘fifty/fifty.’ And the CBC feminists did not correct her on that. Why not? Because they are fanatics who refuse to admit that women are so desperate for men that they will risk being used on the outside chance that they might land one. Why are the women at the CBC so willing to do a story on this topic? Because they think it is a sign of liberation that women would launch out like that in order to gain a man. But it is also because the women at the CBC are continually experiencing this felt-need for men as well, which is a biblical need right out of Genesis 2.18.