DANIEL S. writes:

While establishment feminism is often a force of left-wing social engineering and base power-mongering, it can all too often descend into an absurd narcissism that reveals how ridiculous, if still very dangerous, the movement is. Mark Steyn brings to our attention the following statement by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton:

Clinton specifically mentioned Georgetown contraception activist Sandra Fluke while praising women “who are assuming the risks that come with sticking your neck out, whether you are a democracy activist in Burma or a Georgetown law student in the United States.”

A selfish, parasitic left-wing activist is placed on the same level as democracy activists imprisoned by a military dictatorship. It reminded me of your recent comments:

Though heavily subsidized by multinational corporations and sponsored by Newsweek, the main organ of feminist propaganda in America, the convention of global goddesses persists in evoking the idea of an embattled movement. Women of immense wealth and influence get away with claiming they are oppressed by linking their cause with the African peasantry or basket-weavers in Bangladesh. Women who ride in limousines and wear artificial, Botox smiles claim victimhood by pointing to their Third World sisters.

The feminists wallow in playing the besieged victim of (nonexistent) authoritarian, theocratic misogyny, cynically linking themselves to genuinely oppressed non-Western peoples, all the while they seek to use the power of the state to smash those who stand in their way (especially the Catholic Church). Steyn’s observation here is similar to yours:

I wonder if Mrs. Clinton gave a moment’s thought to how revoltingly insulting that comparison is to “democracy activists in Burma.” On the one hand, Zin Mar Aung, who spent eleven years in jail for writing a letter. On the other, one of the eternal children of American entitlement, attending an elite law school whose graduates proceed smoothly to jobs with a starting salary of $160,000 yet demanding the government pick up the tab for her birth control — which, even if one accepts her absurd figure of $3,000, amounts to less than the first week’s salary of that first job.

Such is the absurd (and very dangerous) mentality of American feminism.

                                                 — Comments —

MarkyMark writes:

As one who contemplated law school and researched it thoroughly, I perhaps have a better handle on the legal world than most of your readers do. Back when times were good, a JD from Georgetown would have landed a lucrative legal job. Georgetown is a ‘T14’ law school, so doing well (top 1/3 to top 1/4 of the class with law review) and graduating with a JD from there would have gotten you a $160K legal job. In the wake of the economic turmoil, that is no longer the case. It’s so bad out there now that even graduates from Harvard, Yale, and Stanford (the top three law schools) are having trouble finding jobs!

Having said that, Miss Sandra Fluke will be well taken care of. She admitted to having a ‘public interest scholarship’ to attend Georgetown. That means she has a ‘non-profit’ organization backing her; you can bet that this ‘public interest’ organization is feminist in nature. Though it’s called a non-profit, you can bet your bippy that it’s leftist advocacy organization receiving tax payer funds to engage in political campaigning, a la the Southern Poverty Law Center or NOW. Miss Sandra Fluke was groomed for this ‘mission’; this episode at Georgetown was PLANNED & DELIBERATE! If contraceptives were of such concern, there are other, top law schools in the Northeast that would have allowed her to practice in Washington, DC; she could have attended Duke or Penn, both of which place graduates along the I-95 corridor. No, Miss Fluke attended Georgetown with the express intent of infringing on  religious freedom.

Since Miss Fluke was a ‘good soldier’ for the leftist, PC fascist cause, she will be well taken care of. She’s had a scholarship from a ‘non-profit’ organization or NGO of some sort; you can bet that this organization is feminist in nature. As a reward for her ‘good deeds’, she will be rewarded with a nice job at a feminist organization like the Tahirih Justice Center, NOW, etc. While she may not make as much as she would at a big, private firm, she’ll do fine. She’ll also be seen in the news again; she’ll get plenty of face time from a sympathetic, leftist media in the future; she’ll be quoted whenever women’s (read feminist) issues are at the forefront of the news. In addition to drawing a nice salary from her job, she’ll be a feminist poster child in the media, making her feel all important.

Those are my thoughts on Sandra Fluke. I did a post on her here. I didn’t delve into the moral or ethical sides of the issue; I merely pointed out that, if she were a serious law student, then she shouldn’t have TIME for sex or advocacy. In any case, Sandra Fluke was a plant; she was a pawn used by a leftist, PC fascist organization seeking to destroy the First Amendment; she attended Georgetown with the express purpose of challenging their policies on birth control. She was a feminist activist before attending Georgetown, so that tells you all you need to know.

Lawrence Auster writes:

Regarding Daniel S.’s point that American feminists equate their situation with that of oppressed Third World women, the problem is that American feminists and liberals do actually believe that the “oppressions” suffered by American women are similar to those suffered by Third World women.

See this video of the Bill Mahr program from February 2011. Mahr comments, in the aftermath of the mob sex attack on NBC correspondent Lara Logan in Tahrir Square, that Muslim men treat women very badly. One of his guests, PBS host Tavis Smiley, replies that women in the U.S. are also treated very badly, and the audience applauds. As the discussion proceeds, it becomes evident that Mahr is the only person present who does not share the view that the American oppression of women is the equivalent of the Muslim oppression of women.

The response of Smiley and the audience explains much about liberal attitudes. For one thing, if Muslims mistreat women no worse than America does, there is no reason to oppose the growing numbers and and power of Muslims in our society.

It also provides a new answer to the old question: Why, given women’s inferior status under Islam, do feminists not oppose the Islamization of the West? My long-time answer has been: Feminists seek to destroy the West, and so they see Muslims, who also seek to destroy the West, as their allies. But the new answer is: Feminists believe that America oppresses women as much as Islam does; therefore there is no reason, from the feminist point of view, not to allow America to be Islamized.

In any case, that a significant part of the American population believes such insanely negative things about America is one of the things that has recently brought me to the view that our path to national suicide is not going to be reversed.

Please follow and like us: