MIKE ADAMS has a piece at Townhall relevant to the recent discussions here about the “reproductive freedoms” of college women.  I disagree with his point that university students in America should be fighting for women’s rights in Islamic countries, but his other points about the deliberate corruption of students by Women’s Resource Centers are excellent. The piece is titled “Hannah and Her Blisters.” He writes:

Dear Concerned Grandparent:

I am so sorry to hear that your granddaughter has dropped out of school less than halfway through her course of study in English Literature at a public university supported by your tax dollars. I am especially sorry to hear that she has contracted herpes and that, just before Christmas, she spoke of ending her life.

Your granddaughter is like a lot of decent Christian girls who go to college with a solid Christian upbringing. But, then, after being exposed to the influence of radical feminism on campus they begin to “fall away.” In the case of Hannah it was certainly no accident. It was a result of the persistent intentional conduct of the administration.

Let me elaborate on the common theme behind all of the following incidents you described to me:

– Your granddaughter was told by her dormitory resident assistant to question the sexual moral code her parents used to “restrict her sexual freedom.”

– She was given condoms by an administrator on the way to her class in the psychology building where she saw signs saying “You’re never too drunk to put on a condom” and “Feeling spunky? Better wrap up his monkey.”

– She saw assistants from the women’s center putting condoms on a vibrator just in front of the school cafeteria.

– She was compelled to attend The Vagina Monologues by her English professor.

– She was told by her Sociology professor that marriage is an oppressive institution imposed upon women by a sexist patriarchy – all for the benefit of men.

In other words, she was told to sleep around (even when drunk), to supplement masturbation with “safe sex,” and, finally, to be proud of her vagina throughout a lifetime of having endless sex partners outside the parameters of marriage.

All of this was supposed to make her happy but, of course, all of it was a lie. That is because the common theme in everything she hears from feminists is that true happiness could only be achieved by focusing on her sexuality and her sex organs.

I was so upset by the story of Hannah that I spent an entire afternoon calling Women’s Resource Centers (WRCs) across America to see whether any of them were involved in activities that do not involve sex organs and sexual intercourse.

I only managed to call twelve WRCs across America in the few short hours I had to explore this issue. I focused on these four questions:

1. Do you hand out condoms to students encouraging them to engage in casual premarital sexual intercourse?

2. Do you sponsor The Vagina Monologues – a play encouraging women to focus upon and, indeed, be proud of their sex organs?

3. Do you sponsor any programs that deal with the worldwide exploitation of women for sexual purposes – for example, child sexual slavery and child prostitution in Southeast Asia?

4. Do you sponsor any programs that condemn the mistreatment of women in radical Islamic nations? Specifically, do you focus on the sexual exploitation of women in the name of Islam?

I don’t have to tell you the gist of what I found. You can probably guess. But I’ll share the results anyway:

83% of the WRCs reported handing out condoms to female students encouraging them to engage in casual premarital sexual intercourse.

100% reported sponsoring The Vagina Monologues – a play encouraging women to focus upon and, indeed, be proud of their sex organs.

17% sponsored programs that deal with the worldwide exploitation of women for sexual purposes – for example, child sexual slavery and child prostitution in Southeast Asia.

0% who claimed to sponsor programs that deal with the worldwide exploitation of women for sexual purposes – for example, child sexual slavery and child prostitution in Southeast Asia – were able to name a single program they sponsored that dealt with the issue.

0% sponsored programs that condemn the mistreatment of women in radical Islamic nations. None focused on the sexual exploitation of women in the name of Islam.

The results of this small and unsophisticated survey would not change much if the sample size were increased tenfold to 120. One still would not be able to find much evidence that WRCs are interested in doing things for women who are truly suffering from inequality. Nor would one find many that disagree with the importance of enjoying sex and loving one’s vagina.

This all begins to make sense when you refer back to a recent column I wrote, which offered a new definition of feminism in the 21st Century. In the column, I defined feminism as a movement that seeks unlimited rights for women without corresponding responsibilities via the suppression of criticism of feminism. [cont.]

— Comments —

Alexandra writes:

This story is ridiculously off the mark. Nothing that happened to Hannah is the school’s fault. Don’t blame the women’s centres for providing education and resources to ensure that young men and women who choose to have sex do so safely and enjoyably.

Blame Hannah’s parents for not being emotionally available to her during what was surely an overwhelming change, being away from home and independent for the first time. Blame them for not talking frankly and openly to their daughter about sex before sending her out into the adult world. Blame them for not giving her a sense of self independent of her religious beliefs that would enable her to critically think through social and moral dilemmas (i.e. how to respond to The Vagina Monologues and other aspects of her college experience that challenged her established worldview). Blame them for not teaching her to set limits and stay focused on her academic goals. Blame them for instilling her with a fear and shame of her sexuality so powerful, she apparently felt compelled to end her life over her perceived sexual misdeed.

Where are her parents now? Embracing their daughter, reassuring her that her life isn’t over because of one mistake and helping her resume her academic career? Or embroiled in selfish moral outrage and reinforcing her fear that she is “ruined”?

Laura writes:

I do blame her parents for sending her to this Institute of Higher Degradation, but the idea that they could have countered the sea of propaganda and peer activity that she encountered is extremely far-fetched and shows incomprehension of the psychological make-up of the average teenager away from her parents for probably the first time.

Nice try, but there is no evidence that Hannah tried to end her life because she was ashamed. Where in this glorified whorehouse would she possibly have encountered the notion of shame? How could sexual shame have stood a chance no matter what her parents thought or told her? Perhaps her desire to die had something to do with having contracted a sexual disease that was once only common in prostitutes or having lost her virginity to some drunk.

Hannah is an adolescent, not an adult. Many girls, despite the ministrations of Women’s Centres, which are about as interested in the welfare of women as thieves and pickpockets are interested in the welfare of people with full wallets, don’t enjoy losing their virginity in casual sex, which is never safe and rarely satisfying. No matter what her parents did, I doubt she would have responded appropriately to that monument of artistic perfection, The Vagina Monologues. Most girls lack the self-confidence and bravery to tell an English professor point-blank that she could benefit from some retraining in her chosen field.

Alissa writes:

At first sight, I believed Alexandra was enacting satire but alas I was mistaken. She’s a true believer.

Laura writes:

Alexandra’s point seems to be that a woman is entitled to guilt-free sex in college. But a woman’s shame over casual sex is caused by her sense that it violates her chief goal: to love and be loved.

Mary writes:

Alexandra’s effortless recitation of tired, boilerplate feminist talking points leads me to believe she herself received, from a young age, the type of indoctrination she claims would have helped this poor young college student. So, mingled with my mother’s outrage toward her is a mother’s pity for her. To assert that this young woman’s parents should themselves have sexually initiated and toughened, prepared and pragmatized their own daughter, by methodically “unteaching” her any religion she may have been raised with so she could “critically think through social and moral dilemmas” (?!), thereby making her ready for inevitable college sexual encounters, is beyond ignorance and belongs in the realm of the cult; for only would belonging to a cult excuse this level of misguided and illogical thinking, so detached as it is from common sense and the most basic insight into human interaction. Very interesting and telling are, mixed in with all the nonsense, Alexandra’s acknowlegement that there is such a thing as a moral dilemma, and her cold, clinical disection of the victim’s (yes, she is a victim) situation, with it’s complete absence of compassion. Anyway, thanks to Alexandra for clarifying that feminism is quite possibly a cult, and that young women like her simply need to be deprogrammed.

Alexandra apparently remains blissfully unaware of the misery caused by the thinking she encourages, misery started in college but not ending there. Wendy Shalit’s wrote her first book, “A Return to Modesty”, after attending one of the nations top colleges and remaining a virgin, while observing all around her rampant eating disorders, depression, prozac prescriptions, hooking up, crying jags – all at a college with cutting edge views on gender equality and reproductive freedom (the book is a great read and takes a fresh look at modern sexual mores, but does use some blunt language).

The piece that beautifully illustrates the misery found 20 years after college is the recent article in the Atlantic, “All the Single Ladies” (on the cover as “What Me Marry?”), written by a woman apparantly so indoctrinated herself (a la Alexandra) that she posed for the cover picture even after she described a romantic life of poor decision making, promiscuity and missed oportunities. The piece functions as a cautionary tale. I found it hard to slog through the whole thing, but there are some money quotes:

“In 2001, when I was 28, I broke up with my boyfriend. Allan and I had been together for three years, and there was no good reason to end things…My friends, many of whom were married or in marriage-track relationships, were bewildered. I was bewildered. To account for my behavior, all I had were two intangible yet undeniable convictions: something was missing; I wasn’t ready to settle down…The period that followed was awful. I barely ate for sobbing all the time…Today I am 39, with too many ex-boyfriends to count…After the worst of our breakup, we eventually found our way to a friendship so deep and sustaining that several years ago, when he got engaged, his fiancée suggested that I help him buy his wedding suit. As he and I toured through Manhattan’s men’s-wear ateliers, we enjoyed explaining to the confused tailors and salesclerks that no, no, we weren’t getting married. Isn’t life funny that way?…”

Please follow and like us: