JESSE POWELL writes:

Men have a duty to provide for and protect women; this is the basic code of chivalry. Protecting women from domestic violence committed by men certainly falls under the “protect” aspect of any civilized chivalrous code. There is an attribute of chivalry though that is important to emphasize in the context of the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA): What chivalry dictates is decided upon by men. Chivalry encompasses the masculine duties towards women for the benefit of women that are defined and enforced by men. Read More »

THE Violence Against Women Act, the federal domestic violence bill, has destroyed countless homes, victimized many innocent men and employed thousands of feminist hacks on the public dollar. It’s one more example of how women and men with a pathological distrust of men and a belief in state control of the family have taken over our country. If you would like to know more about VAWA, which is currently up for reauthorization before the Senate, I recommend this recent piece by Phyllis Schlafly. I am posting in its entirety below.

Sen. Dianne Feinstein told The New York Times this week that renewed opposition to the bill “is part of a larger effort, candidly, to cut back on rights and services to women. We’ve seen it go from discussions on Roe v. Wade, to partial birth abortion, to contraception, to preventive services for women. This seems to be one more thing.” Feminists allow no challenge to their agenda without proclaiming an all-out war on women. All of the issues Feinstein refers to are features of feminist totalitarianism. Her comment is similar to a Communist bureaucrat saying that objections to his putting innocent people in jail are “one more thing” he has to cope with.

From Schlafly’s site:

The reauthorization of the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) passed out of the Senate Judiciary Committee on February 2 on a straight party-line vote. That proves again that the feminists control the Democratic Party, and also is a refreshing indication that Republicans are no longer intimidated by feminist demands. Read More »

LAWRENCE AUSTER writes:

As I have said before, the non-discriminatory principle at the core of modern liberalism means that every traditional institution and community, every nation, every culture, every religion, must be eliminated. In line with that principle, the UN-affiliated human rights organization Gherush 92 demands that Dante’s Divine Comedy be banned from classroom teaching because it is “offensive and discriminatory” against Muslims, homosexuals, and Jews. This is not, as one critic predictably calls it, “an excess of political correctness”; it is simply consistent liberalism. Which means that if people want such attacks on our culture to end, it is liberalism itself that they must reject.

On a side point, I recently re-read The Inferno, and I don’t remember any anti-Jewish material in it. However, when it comes his offensive treatment of Muhammad, Dante is spot on. See my entry, “Muhammad in Hell.”

Read More »

AN Oregon jury’s decision last week to award nearly $3 million to a couple who sued for wrongful birth in connection with their daughter with Down Syndrome was not the first award of its kind but it was still a stunning development. How can a health clinic be blamed for the birth of a child with genetic abnormalities? Why should anyone be blamed for the birth of a child with genetic defects? Only in a world where infanticide is acceptable does such an action make sense.

The decision will mean that doctors in states where “wrongful birth” suits (yes, there is such a thing as wrongful birth) are permitted will apply even more pressure to pregnant women to have risky prenatal tests and to abort if there are abnormalities. Read More »

EARLIER THIS month, Kathleen Sebelius, secretary of Health and Human Services, said Obama’s contraception mandate would not cost the country anything. Health dollars would be saved, she said, if fewer children were born. The Washington Times ran an editorial yesterday on her remarkably revealing statement. The editors wrote:

The secretary’s testimony reveals a diabolical view of the mission of Health and Human Services. For the agency, a human being now represents little more than a debit entry on a balance sheet. In other words, the fewer, the better. Accordingly, Uncle Sam recommends insurers achieve savings by preventing babies from being born and winding up in the expense column.

LAWRENCE AUSTER writes:

For those who may be wondering why there has been no activity at VFR for the last two days, the site is not functioning due to technical issues. To fix them, the Movable Type software that runs the blog needs to be upgraded. Yesterday I was working on that, but realized the job is beyond my abilities. I’ve asked my hosting service if they can do it for a fee. If the answer is no, I’ll have to find someone else.

RICK SANTORUM’S continuing success in the Republican race, with his victory in primaries in Mississippi and Alabama yesterday, is remarkable. Though Romney is still significantly ahead and took more delegates last night, Santorum has gained momentum. A candidate who has said that artificial contraception is harmful to women and society at large, who homeschools his large family, who is a devout Catholic and who receives an A plus [correction below] from Numbers USA on immigration policy has captured national attention and is holding it. If Santorum ran against Obama, opinions rarely voiced by major public figures would be aired.  That alone would be a great thing.

Truthfully, I am stunned by Santorum’s limited success. Santorum elicits intense hatred from liberals in Pennsylvania, where he lost the Senate race in 2008. But he also managed to alienate Republican centrist voters with his support for the war in Iraq. He is a flawed candidate, lacking in charisma, boyish in demeanour, but he is a man of principle. He will be hated – absolutely hated – by those on the left. But anyone who could change this country for the better would be despised.
Read More »

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: Read More »

IN THE latest thread on Kirsty Stewart, the Royal Air Force pilot who was reassigned due to stress, Henry McCulloch, a former American fighter pilot, responds to the point made by another RAF pilot that it is no longer shameful for a pilot to be overcome by stress.

Mr. McCulloch writes:

Grounding oneself because of stress or PTSD is an admission of a failing: that a pilot cannot manage operational stress and perform his flying duties.  That is not, unless it’s actually an excuse to shirk duty, a moral failing. But neither is it something to celebrate; it is an abandonment of duty – even if a necessary one. Read More »

JAMES P. writes:

My local “ecumenical” church (which I do not attend) recently sent out a newsletter with a photo in the top left corner of two black children apparently swimming in a lake in Africa. The newsletter did not pertain to children, or Africa, in any way. It advertised a “healthy eating” seminar. Apparently they simply think that black children embody the apotheosis of Christian goodness, and therefore should decorate all their publications. The “what we believe” section of the Church website mentions “diverse” or “diversity” in almost every sentence.

IBTISAAM BENZOIN writes:

I recently read the following in the comments section of a feminist blog post, whining about how the American government is not doing much (i.e. flexible working arrangements, extened maternity leave etc.) to promote combining work and raising children: Read More »

IF YOU APPROVE of the views expressed at this website, please consider making a donation and supporting its continued existence. Thank you to those who have given in the past.

Helen Kendrick Johnson

OHIO STATE Senator Nina Turner is the first recipient of this website’s Helen Kendrick Johnson Award. Johnson was one of many nineteenth century and early 20th century female anti-suffragists who believed women should not be given the vote or hold major office. The Helen Kendrick Johnson Award goes to a woman who proves that Mrs. Johnson was right.

Turner, a Cleveland Democrat, recently proposed a bill in the Ohio senate that would require men to see sex therapists and obtain notarized affidavits attesting to impotence in order to receive prescriptions for Viagra. The reason for the bill is not to protect the health of men or to reduce use of the potentially harmful drug. It is a spiteful response to a Ohio bill limiting abortion rights. In Turner’s view, abortion is a matter of “reproductive health” and any bill protecting the unborn is an assault on women’s health. Thus she has responded with a bill pertaining to the reproductive organs of men.

Turner told Business Week:

We want to make sure that men, vulnerable, fragile men, who are not capable of making decisions for themselves, understand all of the side effects and the implications of these types of drugs.

Turner is a living, breathing argument for the all-male franchise. The more she speaks, the more she damages the reputation of women everywhere.

Read More »

J.K. BALTZERSEN writes:

If a man desires that his wife cooks him food, irons his clothes, does the dishes, cleans the house, etc., one need not look far for those who decry him as pathetic, sexist, disrespecting of women, in need for a replacement mom, doomed to be forever single, etc.

However, if a woman desires that her husband does the work with the hammer, the wrench, the saw, etc., lifts the heavy stuff, fixes the car, etc., why is there not a similar decrying of her as pathetic, sexist, disrespecting of men, in need for a replacement dad, doomed to be forever single, etc.?

Read More »

AT City Journal, Laura Vanderkam writes about the online math tutorials of Salman Khan, which can be found at KhanAcademy.org. The lessons are free. With the Internet and video and audio technology, parents now have a remarkable number of low-cost alternatives to traditional schooling. It is possible to receive a first rate education, from kindergarten through college, for very little money at home.

SAGE McLAUGHLIN writes:

In keeping with your repeatedly-stated theme that feminism brings “glitter and drama” to a fortunate few, but only personal and material impoverishment to most women, here is interesting commentary by James Taranto, copied in full.

He wrote:

Marriage and male responsibility for families were once the norm at all levels of American society. Feminism was supposed to liberate women from dependency on men. Instead it has helped to create a two-tiered culture in which the norm is for women to be “chained to a desk,” but those who hit the jackpot in the mating game can realistically aspire to escape that status. Nice going, ladies. Happy International Women’s Day.

Read More »

VINCENT C. writes:

AT THE third annual Women in the World Summit in New York yesterday, Nancy Pelosi called for more power for women. Echoing the claims of the suffragettes, Pelosi asserted that women make better decisions than you-know-whom. “Many ills, one cure—the increased participation of women in leadership and the decision-making,” Pelosi said.

Her shameless denunciation of men and appeal for power was characteristic of this glitzy gathering of elite women in New York. Never in the dark bowels of patriarchal history have men ever gathered like this and openly trumpeted their power as men. The convention, which features feminist celebrities such as Angelina Jolie, Christine Lagarde and Madeline Albright, is all high heels, hot air, and self love. The call for a global women’s movement creates fumes of feminine self-approval above the streets of Manhattan.

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.

Pelosi wants more women in government and leadership positions (the point is, of course, that women have been held back from these positions) but seems uncomfortable with the processes of representative democracy. She said the recent controversy over contraception calls for a new direction.

“We need to take the opportunity to make the changes necessary so that nobody has to fight this fight again,” she said.

I wonder how this remarkable idea could be achieved. Is there a way to make all future generations as blind as this one? Is there a way for Pelosi to rule forever?

Whenever large numbers of women get together to claim they should occupy the corridors of power they unwittingly prove why they should never rule the world. Authority to them is all privilege and no responsibility. Their overweening vanity could never make the world a better place.

Read More »