Sunday, March 19, 2006

The Radical Feminist

I dug this post up from the past for my friend QD

FEMINIST -------------------------------------------FEMININE

In her column, The Feminine mistake, Noel Stranger wants to know when did the feminist movement become ridiculous, anti-male, anti-family and pro-sex? She goes on to ask; “When did it stop being a noble fight to be heard and start becoming a contest in vulgarity? When did feminists start claiming to represent all women but stop listening to most of them?”

That’s a great question to ask. It certainly did not happen overnight. It took decades of ultra liberalism to get the face of the feminist movement we have today. Make no mistake about it, there is nothing feminine about a feminist. The feminist movement today is nothing more than a launch pad to get wacky liberalism into mainstream society. I do believe however that the feminist movement started with all good intentions to improve conditions for women in America.

Equal Pay

Take for example equal pay for equal work. That should be a no-brainer as far as the type of work goes. If the job is simple manual labor or entry level position and if male or female can do the job, work hard at it and climb the ladder of success, they should make the same amount of money for their efforts without sex discrimination.

But, there is a basic lesson of economics to understand when you hear feminist cry and whine today about how women make 75 cents for every dollar a man makes for the same work.

It’s so easy to shoot down this argument with simple logic; if businesses could save 25 cents on every dollar of labor they spend by hiring only women, why would they ever hire a man? Companies could use only a female workforce and pocket an extra 25% of profits by simply not hiring men. Like, duh! If I remember my economics 101 class in high school correctly, businesses exist to make profits. If they don’t make profits they cease to exist.

Stay at Home Moms?

Another issue feminist make a mockery of is the woman who decides to stay home and raise children. This is the ultimate insult to the ‘intelligent’ feminist. Feminist place a much higher value on the individual woman succeeding in the workplace or in a political position than a woman who decides to spend more time with her family and be a mom.

Judge Robert Bork said, "It should be a source of great pride to bear the next generation and to train that generation's minds and morals. That is certainly a greater accomplishment than churning out tracts raging at men and families. It is fine that women are taking up careers, but the price for that need not be the demoralization of women who do not choose that path."

If a woman chooses to place her family over her career, she should be admired as much, if not greater, than any high level business-woman or woman holding a political seat.

What about Men bashing?

You can thank feminists for the way men and women relate to each other now. Take for example the simple act of being a gentleman. I was taught to hold the door for a lady, open the car door for a lady, and compliment a woman on her appearance. Today you run the risk of being chauvinistic with any one of those acts. In truth, simple things like holding a door or opening a car door for a woman is showing respect for her. Not demeaning her.

But I think the times, they are a changing. I think most women see radical feminist for who they really are; a bunch of left wing agenda pushing radicals who would love for more women to kill more babies In Utero.

Saturday, March 11, 2006

Liberal Lunacy

Liberals would like to say that the second amendment does not allow an individual the right to own a gun but simply allows states to keep a militia, which today is taken care of by the National Guard.

Let’s see what the second amendment actually says;

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

The first question we should ask ourselves is; what is a well regulated militia?

Well the one thing its absolutely not, is the National Guard. If the founding fathers intended the second amendment to grant powers to the states or the federal government, they put it in a strange place. Why would the founding fathers give power to the states or federal government in the Bill of Rights? Are not the Bill of Rights for individual freedoms and protection from the government? Yes they are. A well regulated militia is nothing more than individual citizens who can come together bearing arms to protect themselves. And according to the last four words of the amendment, it shall not be infringed.

The first step a tyrannical government must take to oppress its citizenry is to disarm them. The founding fathers in their wisdom recognized this danger and added the second amendment to give citizens a way to protect themselves from a hostile government. The only problem with this today is that government weaponry is far more superior than its average citizen weaponry.

We all have a right to life and we should always be able to protect and defend that life against hostilities.

Guns allow us to do just that.