Feminists Losing Bipartisan Support
by W.F. PRICE on MARCH 15, 2012
The broad bipartisan support enjoyed by feminists since segregationist Virginia senator Howard Smith shoehorned women into the 1964 Civil Rights Act is finally starting to crumble. The wedge issues that have pitted Republicans against feminists are public and employer funding of contraception and, believe it or not, the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA), which was named in a manner so as to gain the support of white knighting social conservatives.

Facing criticism from their increasingly fed-up male constituency, Republicans are finding themselves having a difficult time supporting VAWA, even though some state that they’d still like to support the bill.

Jeff Sessions of Alabama says:

I favor the Violence Against Women Act and have supported it at various points over the years, but there are matters put on that bill that almost seem to invite opposition… You think that’s possible? You think they might have put things in there we couldn’t support that maybe then they could accuse you of not being supportive of fighting violence against women?

Of course that’s how the bill was crafted — oppose anything in it and you’re instantaneously labeled a batterer. In our chivalrous, white knighting culture, it was the perfect means of extortion. New provisions inserted into VAWA include, among other things, expedited visas for immigrants who claim abuse, an extension of domestic violence to include stalking, and funding to force male college students to cross-dress as part of a political indoctrination program.

As difficult as it may have been for politicians to oppose anything purportedly protecting women in the past, things have changed palpably in the past few years. There has been a cultural shift; a return to some balance and normalcy. Not enough, but things are headed in that direction.

By relying on support from men from both sides of the aisle, feminists have gone from victory to victory over the past few decades, but that era is drawing to a close. The Republicans may be taking the initiative, but eventually the Democrats will face some pressure from their male constituents as well. If they count on any support from men at all, Democrats, too, will have to acknowledge that men have both rights and humanity, and begin scaling back some of the excesses and misandry that have characterized gender politics in the US since the cultural revolution of the 60s and 70s.

New provisions inserted into VAWA include, among other things, expedited visas for immigrants who claim abuse, an extension of domestic violence to include stalking, and funding to force male college students to cross-dress as part of a political indoctrination program.

Feminists have been cross-dressing for a century so it's only natural that they would want men to share in the fun.

Hey Tele, do you think it is right to see feminism as something that is run by women?

I think it's run by men and always has been. What is a feminist, but a dutiful daughter of a male feminist?

What is a feminist, but a dutiful daughter of a male feminist?

They have plenty of converts.  And these days, how many are raised by single mother feminists?

But yes, the fiercely ideological feminists are often raised to be that way.

I guess I dislike how female feminists are viewed as change agents and leaders, when in reality they are just taking orders from men. Male feminists are the ones who exercise the real power. Female feminists are submissive and operate as the faces, and not the brains, of the movement.

It kind of reminds me of the Civil Rights Movement. The official interpretation is that the Civil Rights Movement was controlled by black Americans. But it was more like a Jєωιѕн movement than a black movement. I think Jєωs were the principle funders of the movement and most of the intellectual firepower and coordination came from Jєωs, and not blacks. If I was living in the 1960s and wanted to destroy that movement I would have attacked Jєωs, and not blacks.

I think that we cater to feminist delusion when we treat female feminists as if they are the leaders of feminism. I think they like this, because it plays into their fantasy of being independent of male influence and direction. But it's just a fantasy. They're as submissive to men as any other women. But they're submissive to men who don't serve Christ. That's the difference.

Women have a lot of influence.  This has always been the case.  Part of the problem today is that men still see themselves as representing men and women, impartially, while women act almost exclusively in the interests of women.

So on juries, in voting, law, etc, things keep shifting, sometimes even unconsciously.

I agree that the there is a conspiratorial force that is guiding these changes.

The main reason men can't seem to do anything about ever intensifying encroachments on their position in society is that they're afraid to confront women.  Afraid to criticize them.  The propagandists have encouraged women to act out from an early age, when a few anti-feminist men speak out against them they are shouted down and vilified.  Men have been trained to give way to women.  That's why the progress of social revolution has been inexorable.  

So shifting responsibility for feminism away from women is a mistake.  Just as it's a mistake to shift responsibility from the blacks for their overwhelming, racially motivated support for Obama.  

I don't want to shift responsibility. I don't disagree with any of that. But if you have 100 antagonists, and all those antagonists share the same leader, then you ignore those unimportant people and go after the leader. Once their leader is gone the followers fall like a house of cards. They have no direction. I just see Jєωs as the maestros of disorder, moving about sinning gentiles like chess pieces.

I think until Catholics are able to pass laws that force Jєωs back into segregated zones and make it illegal for them to attain positions of influence, every corrosive tendency in gentiles will continue to flourish. A Catholic confessional state is the only real good answer to Judaism, and its cancerous offshoots. The Jєωs shouldn't have any power. And feminism would cease to exist without its benefactor.