FEMI-COMMUNISM: PART TWO
By Harmony Daws
12 Oct 10
It’s come to this. Pop superstar Beyoncé hip-thrusts surrounded by half-naked girls and sings, “Who run the world? Girls! Who run this motha? Girls!” Ignore for a moment that Beyoncé is wearing fake Caucasian hair and the clothes of a whore, surrounded by exploitatively-dressed young women and using a mother-bashing expletive to celebrate “girl power.” In North American politics, she is right.
Women have rewritten divorce and custody laws in their favor, graduate and vote more often than men and now have sole power over their offspring. Feminism has sought to erase the reality that women are specially and uniquely needed in the home by their children or husbands, describing such a life as slavery. Even worse, it tells massive and sweeping lies about men, male sexuality and male roles throughout history—painting average men as pigs and brutes who suppress their wives, beat their children and will rape if given half a chance.
It can’t be argued that men possess a depraved human nature; but second-wave feminism denies that women do as well, elevating the identity and rights of women while continually denigrating men. It’s particularly obnoxious because it denies what is so great and wonderful about men: their drive, doggedness, vision, initiative, curiosity and courage.
Why exactly do men rule virtually all societies, and continue to dominate women in the top intellectual and political fields despite Western feminism? Men rule because they deserve to. Throughout history, men have done 95% of the most unpleasant, difficult and dangerous work. They fought the bloody battles, blazed trails through terrifying wilds, worked filthy underground mines and built the cities brick by brick. They have surrendered their lives to singular obsessions with atoms, antibodies, exploration and art. Above all, they have labored twelve to sixteen to eighteen hours a day, day in and day out, to feed their wives and children. The notion that women have been the only beasts of burden in patriarchal manors is a myth that can’t withstand any serious scrutiny, yet is widely repeated.
Today, men still do the vast majority of the most unpleasant, difficult and dangerous work—and they always will. Women spend more time bearing children, caring for children, forging communities and making homes—and we always will. Given the option since the sixties, women still choose easier and lighter careers and spend less time doing them than men. Dr. Warren Farrell’s book Why Men Earn More documents that women do earn about 80 cents for every dollar earned by a man, not because of discrimination. Men do more nasty, hazardous and inconvenient work, with harder-to-attain skills, for longer hours and bigger risks. We women are not paid less for the same work. We don’t do the same work! (And, seriously, when is this myth going to die? Businessmen don’t care more about personal prejudice than the bottom line. If female labor was really cheaper, CEOs everywhere would hire women over men.) Men now aren’t even recognized for their heroism, faithfulness and willingness to literally slave for women and children. Indeed they are actively slandered as oppressing women and receiving an unfair advantage when they are, in fact, daily disenfranchised of the rights they work so hard to deserve.
Feminist Carol Hanisch has been credited for first using the phrase, “the personal is political,” in 1969. This concept is at the heart of both feminism and its progenitor, Jewish cultural Marxism. It means involving the state in family affairs, overriding individual rights to conscience or individuality. Feminists were downright proud of how communism inspired and influenced their cause. In 1968, Hanisch wrote a paper called “Women of the World Unite—We Have Nothing to Lose But Our Men,” a direct spin-off of the Communist Manifesto. Feminists showed incredible short-sightedness as they bragged about their sisterhood with a regime responsible for at least 94 million deaths during the 20th century.
Indeed, women have repeatedly shown themselves vulnerable to the emotion-stirring claims of socialism. Conservative scholars John Lott and Larry Kenny argue that the federal government mushroomed in scope and power in the twentieth century almost entirely because of the female vote! Women seeking legal freedom from their husbands were delighted at the promises of government to aid them through welfare and woman-privileging family law. Women were also especially prone to vote for the welfare state, often uneducated, unwilling or unable to see past heart-rending social inequalities to the far greater injustices that always proceed from overgrown government. As one measure, the federal government spent nearly 55 times more on each American in 2004 than it did in 1910! This sounds like an improvement only to those unfamiliar with the economic and personal devastation accomplished by government redistribution of wealth. It is fitting that big government today is called “the nanny state”—giving a female face to the changes for which women have voted. A 2009 Gallup poll revealed that women, regardless of age or race, are significantly more likely than men to vote Democrat.
In 1991, Secretary of Health and Human Services Donna Shalala fantasized aloud about the ultimate outcomes on children of the feminist nanny state for which Democrat women vote. After school, her imaginary girl of the future “will play gender-neutral games in government day care and think of herself as part of the world, not just her town or the United States." Feminists have been clear that ultimately children should be removed from homes with “oppressive” patriarchs and “gender stereotyping.” The state will be a more fitting parent for citizens of the future. In this way, feminism could not bear more resemblance to Jewish cultural Marxism, with its goals of completely uprooting all that has been planted by Christian, capitalist patriarchy.
The majority of women, whether they subscribe to feminism, cooperate seamlessly with the agenda laid out for us. Big media paints a nauseating image of skirt-chasing men, constantly reminding us of their whorish ways. The truth about everyday families is far less known. It is women who file for at least two-thirds of all divorces in the United States. Is this because of their husband’s oppressive, abusive ways? A paper in the American Journal of Law and Economics analyzed 1995 divorce statistics. The state with the best records was Virginia. In this state, only six percent of divorces were filed because of domestic violence. As far as adultery goes, women were guilty as often as men! A law professor commented that severe exploitation of wives is the reason for divorce less than 20 percent of the time.
Analysts believe the biggest reason women are more willing to file for divorce is that they know they will get the kids. Family law gives all the force and weight of this heart-rending decision to the woman. Again, men are legally hamstrung by a system birthed in communism to destroy a civilization built by Christians. The concept of caring mothers rescuing their children from domineering men is make-believe. Fifty-eight percent of men, compared to only 37 percent of women, will delay divorce out of concern for its effect on their children. (The Divorce Experience, 2004)
Stephen Baskerville’s powerful book Taken into Custody: The War Against Fathers, Marriage and the Family says approximately 80 percent of American divorces are unilateral—it is not a case of the marriage dissolving but of one party announcing that it’s over. You would think the faithless person who wants the divorce should suffer the most from it but this is not at all the case. When the wife divorces her husband, she is virtually guaranteed legal rights to their children, legal power over her husband’s access to the children (with the force of the law and prison behind her) and a substantial—even majority—portion of her husband’s earnings. There is very little to deter an unfulfilled housewife from taking this route.
Many scholars say the Bolsheviks pioneered no-fault divorce in Russia in 1918. It makes perfect sense: a society will be effectively crippled when families implode, one by one. Adult attention will be consumed by repetitively breaking and forming pair bonds, divorcing and blending family units, begrudging old partners and falling in love with new ones. Children will be raised without hope for marriage, without sufficient maternal attention or paternal constancy. Any political system that promises “progress” from the past will appeal to them. They will grow up without a conviction of conservatism since, to them, the traditional family is nothing worth conserving. The effects are devastating.
Fatherlessness makes children five times more likely to live in poverty and two to three times as likely to have behavioral problems. Boys run a much higher risk of committing crimes and girls of being sexually active. Several studies have found that fatherlessness is a greater predictor of a child’s well-being than race, class or economic status. The percentage of children living without their fathers has nearly tripled from 11 percent in 1960 to 27 percent in 2010.
In my next and final article on this series, I will address how feminism has reached its icy fingers into the heart of the American church, undermining its patriarchy and rewriting some of its most important moral laws to suit misandry in the 21st century.
Listen to Harmony's Bible study 10-11-11 "Femi-Communism: Feminism, Divorce and the Church" available at Truthtellers.org's Biblical Answers page.
Daws is a writer for National
Prayer Network. To greater understand
the illogic behind hate laws, read
her article “Top
Eleven Reasons You Should Fight
Rev. Ted Pike is director of the National Prayer Network, a Christian/conservative
TALK SHOW HOSTS: Interview Rev. Ted Pike on this subject.
Call (503) 631-3808.
The freedom-saving outreach of Rev. Ted Pike and the National Prayer
Network is solely supported by sale of books, videos and your financial
support. All gifts are tax-deductible.
National Prayer Network, P.O. Box 828, Clackamas,