Marxism And The Roots Of Radical Feminism: A Series Of Essays by Carey Roberts

© 2003-2004 Carey Roberts

Used with permission of the author

These essays were originally published on


| EJF Home | Join the EJF | Comments? | Get EJF newsletter | Newsletters |

| DV Home | Abstract | Contents | Authors and Site Map | Tables | Index | Bibliography |


| Chapter 10 — The Female Of The Species |

| Next — Bad girls of America by Christina Hoff Sommers |

| Back — She has met the enemy and he is us |

Note: The term “redfem” is used as a synonym for neo-Marxist radical feminists as described in these essays.


The untold story of Betty Friedan: Her roots were Red and propaganda her trade.

Jessica Lynch and the neo-con revolution: Made for redfem television but far from the truth. Was it scripted in advance?

Karl Marx and the gender wage gap: What fine propaganda it makes to claim women earn less but what an economic disaster it leads to. And attack the patriarchy while you're at it.

Women's birth-right under attack by fem-socialists: Infanticide as a redfem goal.

Karl Marx's prescription for women's liberation: What's a trifle like a 100 million dead on the path to utopia?

When family dissolution becomes the law of the land: Repeating the Soviet Union's mistakes in America.

The feminist subversion of the gender system: Why stop with simple imitation, lets destroy the whole society.

So, is radical feminism a socialist front? Naw, that insinuation is just a facet of patriarchal oppression. And redfems have a great deal on a bridge too, but don't look too closely at the timbers.

Patriarchal power or Marxist mischief? The great lord and patriarchal master of California doesn't get laid after touting masculism at Republican convention. And redfems win in handout of government goodies that are paid for by those male patriarchs.

Men step aside, the redfems are set to win the Culture War: Patriarchal knuckle-draggers unwanted. Don't know who's going to fix the faucet or the car though.


The untold story of Betty Friedan


November 25, 2003 — In 1963, the course of American history was changed with the publication of Betty Friedan's book, The Feminine Mystique. Over five million copies of this explosive book eventually would be sold.

In the book, Friedan claimed she had lived in a “comfortable concentration camp” of New York City suburbia. And for years afterwards, Friedan claimed that her awareness of woman's rights did not coalesce until the late 1950s when she sat down to write the book in her stately mansion in Grand View-on-Hudson.

But based on his analysis of Friedan's personal papers at the Smith College library, historian Daniel Horowitz has dramatically refuted that claim.

In his book, Betty Friedan and the Making of the Feminine Mystique, Horowitz acknowledges that Friedan had a brilliant mind, was a prolific writer, and pursued her cause with a single-minded devotion.

But Horowitz also reveals a dark side to Friedan's social activism: Betty Friedan was a long-time participant in the American Communist movement.

Here is Betty Friedan's true story (page numbers from the Horowitz book are in parentheses):

• Friedan was first exposed to socialist thinking while an undergraduate at Smith College in the late 1930s (pp. 39-49).

• Beginning in 1940, while still a junior at Smith, Friedan became an outspoken advocate of the Popular Front, a pro-Communist umbrella that embraced a broad range of radical groups (p. 10).

• While studying psychology at UC-Berkeley 1942-43, Friedan was a member of the Young Communist League (p. 93).

• From 1943 to 1946, Friedan worked as journalist at the Federated Press, a left-wing news service established by Socialist Party members (p. 102).

• In 1944, Friedan requested to join the American Communist Party. According to her FBI file, Friedan was turned down because “there already were too many intellectuals in the labor movement” (p. 93).

• From 1946 to 1952, Friedan worked as a journalist (some would say “propagandist” is the more accurate term) at the radical United Electrical, Radio, and Machine Workers of America. According to historian Ronald Schatz, this labor union was “the largest Communist-lead institution of any kind in the United States.” (p. 133).

Horowitz also documents Friedan's numerous relationships with Communist Party operatives, including her romantic involvement with physicist David Bohm while a student at Berkeley (p. 92). Bohm would later invoke the Fifth Amendment while testifying in front of the House Un-American Activities Committee, and leave the United States shortly thereafter.

It is important to note that Horowitz did not intend to write his book as an exposé. Indeed, throughout the book, Horowitz is clearly sympathetic to Friedan's feminist objectives.

But this much is clear: beginning in 1940, Betty Friedan became a committed and articulate advocate for the American socialist movement.

It is true that after 1952, her views become less strident. But Friedan's basic outlook still reflected the socialist worldview of capitalist oppression and female victimization.

Take this quote from Frederick Engel's famous 1884 essay, The Origin of the Family, Private Property, and the State:

“The emancipation of women becomes possible only when women are enabled to take part in production on a large, social scale, and when domestic duties require their attention only to a minor degree.”

Engel was saying that equality of the sexes would only happen when women abandoned their homes and become worker-drones.

Friedan copied that sentence into her notes sometime around 1959, while she was doing her research for The Feminine Mystique (p. 201).

That revolutionary passage would become the inspiration and guiding principle for Friedan's book, and eventually for the entire feminist movement.


Jessica Lynch and the neo-con revolution


December 2, 2003 — It was such a good story, you can't help but wonder if it had been scripted out in advance.

An American convoy in Iraq comes under enemy attack. A teenage female soldier (read, Damsel in Distress) is wounded. Eight days later, a Special Ops team (read, Knights in Shining Armor) stages a dramatic midnight rescue. As Lynch is carried aboard the plane, she smiles coyly for the camera.

This story did not find its way into your children's fairy tale book, with its “and they lived happily ever” ending. Instead, it ended up on the front page of the Washington Post.

According the Washington Post story, PFC Jessica Lynch had “sustained multiple gunshot wounds” and was stabbed while she “fought fiercely and shot several enemy soldiers...firing her weapon until she ran out of ammunition.”

Of course, that Rambo-like description bears no relation to the truth. Looking back, we now see that the story provided an irresistible mix of straight news, social entertainment, and feminist propaganda The Guardian (UK), May 15, 2003.

But this story is more than an object lesson how the liberal media has lost its moral compass. The Jessica Lynch fiasco is the latest episode in the budding Cultural Revolution.

Because the Lynch story really boils down to a mockery of the archetype of the male warrior — the time-honored tradition of the man who risks life and limb to defend family and home.

The story undermines the male archetype, of course, because Lynch is female.

Worse, the story ignores the true bravery that happened that March 23 morning on the road to Baghdad.

By her own admission, Lynch's weapon jammed and then she passed out. And that was it. She did absolutely nothing that could be counted as an act of heroism.

In contrast, Pfc. Patrick Miller, who was traveling in the same convoy, singly-handedly turned back the second-wave Iraqi mortar attack. He was credited with saving the life of Jessica Lynch. Afterwards, Miller was awarded a Silver Star for valor.

But the liberal media barely mentioned him. Pfc. Miller's picture did not appear on the cover of People magazine. He was never offered a $1 million book deal.

So here is the real message: “Girls, join the army, survive an enemy attack, smile for the camera, and you can be a hero, too.”

And exactly who are the people who are waging this divisive Cultural Revolution?

David Horowitz, a former liberal himself, understands the radical left agenda all too well. He calls these agitators the neo-Communists.

Neo-Cons know they cannot topple the economic and military power of capitalism. So instead, they subvert the culture.

It's like Betty Friedan (story above), who took the American ideal of suburban comfort and privilege, and then turned it inside out by calling it a “comfortable concentration camp.”

Babette Gross, who was involved with socialist front movements for many years, describes their tactics this way:

“You do not call yourself a Communist. You do not call upon people to support the Soviets. Never. You claim to be an independent-minded idealist. You don‚t really understand politics, but you claim the little guy is getting a lousy break.”

Philosopher Herbert Marcuse is one of the leading neo-Coms. Marcuse describes the Cultural Revolution in terms of “a type of diffuse and dispersed disintegration of the system.” (See essay by Dr. Gerald L. Atkinson CDR USN Ret.)

To manipulate the media with an utter disregard for the truth, to emasculate the male warrior archetype, to openly call for the “disintegration” of our society — that is the agenda of the Neo-Con Cultural Revolution.


Karl Marx and the gender wage gap


December 9, 2003 — In 1875, Karl Marx set out his famous prescription: “From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs.” Marx was saying that workers should be paid the same, regardless of their hard work or productivity.

Flat wages, administered by a centrally-controlled economy, were tried in the Soviet Union, China, and elsewhere. Farmhands, blacksmiths, and university professors — all were to be paid the same.

And everywhere, the result was economic and social disaster. This is how economist Helen Hughes described the Soviet debacle:

“The comparative worth wage-setting in centrally planned economies was part of the framework that led to the collapse of these economies. Comparative worth wage determinations broke the linkages between renumeration and productivity.”

But now, radical feminists have seized upon the well-known fact that women earn 74% of what men earn. Using Karl Marx's discredited economic theories, feminists have launched a holy war on the gender “wage gap.”

The fact is, the “wage gap” disappears when you take into account such factors as training, years in the workforce, travel requirements, degree of physical labor, and risk to life and limb (see Independent Women's Forum).

And truth be told, men essentially have no choice — they are expected to be the primary breadwinner in order to support their wives and children. So they accept the high-paying, dangerous jobs that women are unwilling to accept.

In contrast, women have a broad range of options: Be a full-time mom, take on a part-time job, or do volunteer work.

So the so-called “wage gap” is really a “choices gap.” And the feminist campaign to level wages really amounts to equal pay for unequal work.

But evidence and reason do not deter the feminist mindset.

And now, the UN-backed International Labor Organization has taken up the cause. In a recent report, the ILO claims that women have been victims of what it calls “occupational segregation.” That explains the outrageous fact that “Truck drivers, for instance, are usually men.”

Honestly, I don‚t know a single woman who aspires to be a truck driver. But maybe the ILO believes that with suitable indoctrination, that problem can be solved, as well.

And if there is any doubt about the socialistic aims of the ILO, read this statement from page 51 of the ILO report: “The growing prevalence of wage-setting systems based on workers' productivity or performance instead of on the content of the job raises new challenges for achieving pay equity.”

It's easy to understand why socialists disdain free market economies. But why the feminist contempt for capitalism?

The answer requires a basic understanding of feminist ideology. Feminists believe that capitalism is just another example of oppressive patriarchy. In 1981, socialist Azizah Al-Hibri penned these words in her feminist manifesto:

“Conceptually, capitalism is an advanced stage of patriarchy...Strategically, then, the struggle against capitalism, racism, imperialism, and any other attempt of man's attempt at domination of the Other must be based on their basic patriarchal nature.”

So the socialists and radical feminists have cooked up an amazingly simple strategy: Promise women equal pay for unequal work, destroy the linkage between productivity and income, destabilize free market economies, and cripple patriarchy.

That's revolutionary.


Women's birth-right under attack by fem-socialists


December 16, 2003 — Socialist Margaret Sanger, founder of Planned Parenthood, once made this cold-blooded remark, “The most merciful thing a large family can do to one of its infant members is to kill it.” And when asked about China's policy of compulsory abortion after the first child, Molly Yard, former head of the NOW, admitted in a 1989 interview, “I consider the Chinese government's policy among the most intelligent in the world.”

So the disclosure of secret documents from the New York-based Center for Reproductive Rights (CRR), recently published in the federal Congressional Record, only confirms our worst fears.

Fem-socialists have long believed that childbearing is the linchpin of female oppression. As Frederick Engels wrote, “the first expropriation of labor was that between the sexes, in the reproduction of the human species.” To the radical feminist mind, the solution to this exploitative arrangement is to prevent reproduction.

But women in free societies fiercely object to being told whether they can have children. So radical feminists have devised a variety of covert strategies to overcome these objections.

These tactics were outlined in a series of secret strategy meetings held this past Fall. Copies of these 3 memos and other reports were recently obtained by the Catholic Family and Human Rights Institute (C-FAM).

Most troubling is how the memos reveal the close working relationships among the CRR, the ACLU, and a variety of non-governmental organizations (NGO's) that work with the United Nations. The word “conspiracy” certainly comes to mind.

The memos show how the United Nations has been co-opted to support the abortion crusade. One document provides a laundry list of the UN-backed treaties — including the Convention on the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW) — that are being used as a platform to strengthen abortion services.

One document recounts how the International Women's Health Coalition has focused on “inserting a gender perspective into international policies and agreements.”

The documents provide many other examples of the subversive feminist-socialist agenda:

1. One memo claims that treaties such as the Universal Declaration of Human Rights guarantee women's right to “reproductive health,” which is a well-known code phrase for “abortion on demand.” Clearly, there is something frightening about claiming a treaty designed to protect human rights provides the legal justification for the elimination of life.

The memo also admits the deceptive nature of the pro-abortion lobby: “there is a stealth quality to the work: we are achieving incremental recognition of values without a huge amount of scrutiny from the opposition.”

2. A second memo specifically targets under-age girls. The CRR advocates provision of reproductive health services for girls without parental knowledge or consent, and admits this “has always been one of our priority areas.”

3. One secret planning document admits the existence of “hostile majorities” in most states, so the “protection of the judiciary” will be needed to thwart the will of the people.

4. One paper outlines recommendations from the CRR directors. One unnamed director ordered that CRR programs be “ruthlessly prioritized.” Another admonished, “We have to fight harder, be a little dirtier.”

The objective of the abortion advocates is not to protect women's human rights. Rather, as revealed by the comments of Margaret Sanger and Molly Yard, their ultimate goal is to progressively restrict women's reproductive choices, that is to take away their birthright.

In entering these documents into the Congressional Register, representative Christopher Smith of New Jersey commented, “It is especially important that policy makers know, and more fully understand, the deceptive practices being employed by the abortion lobby...These papers reveal a Trojan Horse of deceit.”



Karl Marx's prescription for women's liberation


January 6, 2004 — The shrill feminist denunciations of male patriarchy share a common origin: the Marxist creed.

In the 1840s, Marx concocted this bizarre theory: Since working men were oppressed by capitalist economies, then women were doubly-victimized by the effects of capitalism and patriarchy.

This is how Karl Marx and Frederick Engels explained it in their 1848 Communist Manifesto: “What is the present family based on? On capitalism, the acquisition of private property...The bourgeois sees in his wife nothing but an instrument of production.”

In his 1884 book, The Origin of the Family, Engels elaborated on the theme of patriarchal oppression:

“The overthrow of mother right was the world historical defeat of the female sex. The man took command in the home also; the woman was degraded and reduced to servitude; she became the slave of his lust and a mere instrument for the production of children.”

These claims are preposterous.

If women were more oppressed than men, then women's lifespans would have been shorter. But the reverse was true — in the second half of the 1800s' men's life expectancy in Russia and Europe was 2-3 years shorter than women's, partly due to their responsibilities as primary breadwinners.

And Engels' claim that women had become a “mere instrument for the production of children” is patently absurd. As a result of the Industrial Revolution, female fertility had already begun to fall in Europe in the mid-1800's (see demographic transition model).

So Engel's assertion was as ridiculous as it was specious.

And 156 years after publication of the Communist Manifesto, what is the verdict of history?

The simple fact is, over 100 million persons have been killed under regimes calling themselves Socialist. Ironically, almost all of the victims were members of the working class. Marx did not care about the proletariat, he only cared about his pipe dream of achieving a socialist utopia.

Likewise, it is questionable whether Marx really cared about helping women. Always mindful of the fact that women represented half of the population, he and his minions schemed to exploit their largely untapped labor.

Chairman Mao said it best: “Many co-operatives are finding themselves short of labor. It has become necessary to arouse the great mass of women who did not work in the fields before to take their place on the labor front.”

Karl Marx also viewed women as effective agitators to overthrow capitalism. As he admitted in a 1868 letter, “major social transformations are impossible without ferment among the women.”

But if there are any lingering doubts about Karl Marx's real attitudes towards women, just examine his personal life.

According to Joshua Muravchik's brilliant book, Heaven on Earth, Marx disdained the responsibilities of a husband and father of three girls. He was inept in managing the household finances. He never even tried to get a job. Instead, he lived off of his inheritance and a monthly stipend from Engels.

Nonetheless, Marx did indulge in the bourgeoisie custom of hiring a household maid. Her name was Helene Demuth.

In 1851, Demuth bore an illegitimate son, Henry. Federick Engels soon admitted his paternity.

Lying on his deathbed in 1895, no longer able to speak, Engels took a chalk and slate in hand to reveal a well-guarded secret. The father of the bastard-son was Karl Marx himself.


When family dissolution becomes the law of the land


January 13, 2004

“No woman should be authorized to stay at home to raise her children. Society should be totally different. Women should not have that choice, precisely because if there is such a choice, too many women will make that one.”

That chilling commentary comes from fem-socialist Simone de Beauvoir, in her famous 1974 interview in The Saturday Review.

So what happens when the radical feminist agenda becomes the law of the land?

That is not a mere hypothetical question. It can be answered by turning the pages of history back to the tragic early days of Soviet Russia.

When Lenin's Bolsheviks seized the levers of power in 1917, Lenin faced the daunting challenge of jump-starting agricultural and industrial production. So he cast his eye on a vast, untapped workforce: peasant women.

Parroting the Marxist line on female oppression, Lenin incited women to action at the First All Russia Congress of Working Women: “The status of women up to now has been compared to that of a slave; women have been tied to the home, and only socialism can save them from this.”

In short order, Lenin pushed through laws assuring women equal pay for equal work and the right to hold property.

But as Simone de Beauvoir pointed out, many women would be tempted to go back to the old ways to tend to hearth and home. So the traditional family would need to be abolished. Lenin understood that fact, as well.

In 1918 Lenin introduced a new marriage code that outlawed church ceremonies. Lenin opened state-run nurseries, dining halls, laundries, and sewing centers. Abortion was legalized in 1920, and divorce simplified (see Women In The Soviet Union).

In a few short years, most of the functions of the family had been expropriated by the state. By 1921, Lenin could brag that “in Soviet Russia, no trace is left of any inequality between men and women under the law.”

But Lenin's dream of gender emancipation soon dissolved into a cruel nightmare of social chaos.

First, the decline of marriage gave rise to rampant sexual debauchery. Party loyalists complained that comrades were spending too much time in love affairs, so they could not fulfill their revolutionary duties (Atlantic Monthly, July 1926).

Not surprisingly, women who were sent out to labor in the fields and the factories stopped having babies. In 1917, the average Russian woman had borne six children. By 1991, that number had fallen to two. This fertility free-fall is unprecedented in modern history.

But it was the children who were the greatest victims. As a result of the break-up of families, combined with civil war and famine, countless numbers of Russian children found themselves without family or home. Many ended up as common thieves or prostitutes.

In his recent book Perestroika, Mikhail Gorbachev reflected on 70 years of Russian turmoil: “We have discovered that many of our problems — in children's and young people's behavior, in our morals, culture and in production — are partially caused by the weakening of family ties.”

Fem-socialists, hell-bent on achieving a genderless society, are now scheming to repeat the same disastrous experiment in Western society. Naturally, they are hoping that you not hear the story of family destruction in Soviet Russia.

But the truth is there, waiting to be grasped by anyone who cares to see.


The feminist subversion of the gender system


January 20, 2004 — In recent years, the battle of the sexes has escalated into a full-fledged gender war. This conflict is playing out in the boardroom, the courtroom, and the bedroom.

What is the origin of this feminist assault?

As early as 1886, Eleanor Marx, youngest daughter of Karl, issued this indictment: “Women are the creatures of an organized tyranny of men, as the workers are the creatures of an organized tyranny of idlers.”

The linkage between socialism and American feminism can be traced back to the earliest years:

• Susan B. Anthony held a 1905 meeting with Eugene Debbs, perennial socialist candidate in the US presidential elections. Anthony promised Debbs: “Give us suffrage, and we'll give you socialism.” Debs shot back, “Give us socialism, and we‚ll give you the vote.”

• Helen Keller, well-known suffragette and advocate for the blind, became an outspoken member of the Socialist Party in 1909. She later joined the ultra-radical Industrial Workers of the World (Keller's 45-page FBI file).

• Margaret Sanger, founder of Planned Parenthood, was a member of the Woman's Committee of the New York Socialist Party. In her book, Women and the New Race, Sanger wrote: “no Socialist republic can operate successfully and maintain its ideals unless the practice of birth control is encouraged to a marked and efficient degree.”

• Mary Inman was an ardent feminist and Communist in the late 1930's and early 1940's. During that era, the Communist Party of the USA often used the phrase “white chauvinism” to refer to racial prejudice. It was Inman who reworked that phrase to coin the term, “male chauvinism.”

Simone de Beauvoir was a well-known socialist with Marxist sympathies. In The Second Sex, she lionized socialism as the ideal for gender relationships: “A world where men and women would be equal is easy to visualize, for that precisely is what the Soviet Revolution promised.”

Betty Friedan went to great lengths to cover up the facts of her Communist past: her membership in the Young Communist League, her 1944 request to join the American Communist Party, and her work as a propagandist for Communist-led organizations in the 1940s

• Gloria Steinem once admitted, “When I was in college, it was the McCarthy era, and that made me a Marxist.” (Susan Mitchell: Icons, Saints and Divas, 1997, p. 130), Later, Steinem joined the Democratic Socialists of America.

These are just a few of the feminists who have devoted their lives to the religion of socialism. The accounts of other socialist women are detailed at the Women and Marxism web site:

In her book Red Feminism, Kate Weigand makes this startling admission: “this book provides evidence to support the belief that at least some Communists regarded the subversion of the gender system as an integral part of the larger fight to overturn capitalism.”

Subvert the gender system.

Emasculate patriarchy.

Overturn capitalism.

It's amazing that Weigand, a die-hard Communist and feminist, would reveal this destructive plan for all to see.

But then, who in the world would ever believe it?


So, is radical feminism a socialist front?


January 27, 2004 — For the past 30 years I have followed the trajectory of feminism. Originally I was an ardent supporter of the ideology. But 15 years ago, it became clear that this religion of gender liberation had lost its moral compass.

Now, feminism has become a parody of the very ideals it claims to promote. It was this dialectic that led me to research this series of articles on Socialism and Feminism. The research has lead to these conclusions:

1. The basic premise of radical feminism is that being a wife and mother is inherently exploitative of women. This paradigm originated in the Marxist analysis of class relationships in Europe in the mid-1800s

2. Over the past 100 years, many feminist leaders have openly aligned themselves with socialist ideology.

3. Beginning in the 1920's, socialist thinkers realized that capitalism could never be overthrown by violent means. So they conspired to undermine the values and institutions of Western society. This set up what we now call the Culture War.

4. Radical feminists have worked at the vanguard of the Culture War. Their range of tactics is astonishing:

Discourage women from childbearing;

Undermine the institution of the family;

Promise women equal pay for unequal work;

• Impose gender quotas on national elections;

Emasculate men.

5. Both socialism and radical feminism operate through deception. While both ideologies claim to be merely working for equality, in fact they aspire to radically restructure the entire society.

So is radical feminism a socialist front? In a word, Yes.

Read just a few paragraphs from Kate Weigand's book, Red Feminism. Or go to the Women and Marxism web site and you will see the speeches of the Communist rascals that were calculated to whip up women into a revolutionary hysteria.

The radical feminist worldview, goals, tactics, and rhetoric — all can be linked directly to Marxist-Leninist theory.

Ironically, it is doubtful that Marxism has liberated women. Modern women are no more independent than they were 150 years ago in patriarchal Europe.

Fem-socialism has only shifted female dependency to big government and to feminist Pooh Bahs who deem to dictate what women will think, feel, and do. No wonder women are feeling victimized, angry, and lonely.

So if feminist-socialist theory has failed women, where does that leave us? Clearly, the roles of women — and men — are evolving. The answer to the age-old Woman Question is not to return to the restrictive gender roles of the 19th century.

Let's first acknowledge the fact that life has never been a bowl of cherries — for either women or men. Both suffered terribly from abuses specific to their gender.

Let's also note that rights and responsibilities go hand in hand. The more rights any group acquires must be accompanied by a similar increase in social obligations.

And finally, let's stop the gender epithets that have the effect of shaming and silencing men.

The myths of fem-socialism are deeply embedded in the fabric of Western society. These myths need to be exposed and debunked.

At the same time, why don't we commence a real gender dialog in this country?


Patriarchal power or Marxist mischief?


November 24, 2004 — Poor Arnold Schwarzenegger had to find out the hard way. Fresh from his stirring speech at the Republican convention where he endorsed President Bush, the governor came home that night knowing he would have some explaining to do.

For wife Maria Shriver is known to be of the liberal Democratic persuasion. Sure enough, Maria put Arnold in the doghouse — and that meant no sex for a fortnight.

According to socialist-feminist theory, a vast anti-female conspiracy known as the “patriarchy” controls the social order. When you ask a feminist to explain that mind-boggling statement, she invariably points to the fact that the great majority of elected officials are male. And according to the Marxist analysis, those callous male patriarchs look out only for their own kind, leaving women neglected and downtrodden.

But when we examine the record, a different picture emerges. Take our federal entitlement programs: Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid. All three of these programs were conceived of and enacted by men. They are paid for mostly by male taxpayers.

And who are the principal beneficiaries of this governmental largesse? In all three cases, it's women. Under Social Security and Medicare, women come out ahead because they outlive men. In the case of Medicaid, women edge out the men because of eligibility criteria that favor custodial parents, who in most cases are mothers.

Medical research reveals a similar pattern. Beginning in the 1970s, Senator Edward Kennedy became a tireless advocate for breast cancer research. As a result, the National Institutes of Health now budgets three times more money for breast cancer research than for prostate cancer.

Then add the Violence Against Women Act, aggressive child support enforcement policies, and sexual harassment laws. The conclusion is clear: chivalry is alive and well within the halls of Congress. Our elected patriarchs unabashedly cater to the needs of women.

But the public arena is not the only venue where the matriarchy reigns. Women often rule the roost at home, as well.

And it's not just Gov. Schwarzenegger who cowers in the face of matriarchal might. During the recent election campaign, Laura Bush recounted how husband George was ordered by mother Barbara to take his feet off the furniture — a story told much to the delight of her female audiences. And we know who wears the pants in the Heinz-Kerry household.

It's true that in traditional families, the husband was considered the head of the family. But appearances can be deceiving. Consider the old saying, “The man is the head of the house, but the woman is the neck. And it's the neck that turns the head.”

In truth, the husband's role can be compared to the Queen of England. Even though the Queen is the titular head of the government, her role is more ceremonial than substantive.

There are those who argue that the sexes have always been equal, they only exercised their power in different ways. David Shackleton, writing in the July-September issue of Everyman magazine, explains that men's power in the political, economic, and physical arenas has always been balanced by women's power in the moral, emotional, and sexual realms.

Teresa Riordan makes a similar point in her recent book, Inventing Beauty. Surveying women's use of false bosoms, push-up bras, and lipstick, Riordan argues that women “have shrewdly, cannily, and knowingly deployed artifice in their ceaseless battle to captivate the inherently roving eye of the male.”

So much for the stereotype of the powerless female.

It can be said that “patriarchy” is one of the most potent words in the English language. Its mere mention induces spasms of guilt and shame in men. Among women, the word incites anger and vindictiveness.

That powerful mix of emotions is the fuel that has allowed radical feminists to advance their cause. To this day, the Sisterhood talks about the patriarchy as if it is still going strong, inflicting misery on all those hapless women.

For the last 30 years or so, the neo-Marxists have relentlessly pummelled the frail strawman of patriarchy. After a while you begin to wonder, is their agenda to promote gender equality and reconciliation? Or do they have something more nefarious in mind?


Men step aside, the redfems are set to win the Culture War


January 5, 2005 — If you want to understand the Culture War, you need to appreciate the ideology, methods, and goals of radical feminism. And to understand feminism, you must understand Marxist philosophy and the history of the Soviet Union. On this last point, I recommend Joshua Muravchik's highly-readable book, Heaven on Earth.

Future historians will note the Culture War took an important turn in the November 2, 2004, elections. Sensing their political standing was on the wane, the Leftists decided to pull out all the stops in a last-ditch effort to reverse the course of history. Of course they lost the gamble, and now the Leftists are seething with bitterness and rage.

But in another sense, the battle has only just begun. To this point in time, most Americans have been bystanders in the conflict, hoping the struggle for America's soul would somehow leave their own lives unscathed.

There is more to the Culture War than radical feminism, of course. David Horowitz at the Center for the Study of Popular Culture has charted the broad outlines of that multi-faceted conflict. But probe the inner workings of the Leftist movement, and there you will find a feminist heartbeat, pumping hard and strong.

We have now passed the point of no return. Too many unborn children have been felled at the abortionist's hand. Too many infants are warehoused in day care centers. Too many women have been ridiculed for heeding their maternal instincts. And too many men have been unfairly stereotyped and falsely accused.

Feminist philosophy now envelopes the mainstream media and the academy. The divisive voice of the Sisterhood can be heard as well in our workplaces, schools, and even in our homes.

Not even our religious beliefs are immune. Feminists view religion in general, and Christianity in particular, as hopelessly patriarchal. So they have sought to marginalize religion, forcing persons to think twice before they exclaim, “Merry Christmas!”

There is little about contemporary feminism that can legitimately be viewed as promoting gender equality. Now, the quest for equality has been replaced by neo-Marxist rhetoric of female “liberation” and “empowerment.”

Last week columnist Lyndia Lovric at the Winnipeg Sun launched this salvo: “One of the biggest lies perpetuated by modern-day feminists is the contention that feminism is about equality. Feminists aren't interested in equality. What they want is revenge.”

Visit the websites of the National Organization for Women or the Feminist Majority, and you will see the feminist utopia will not be a world that takes kindly to men.

What worries me most is the feminist hegemony at the United Nations. There, feminists rely on a “top-down” strategy to impose their ideology on countries throughout the world. It began with CEDAW, the Convention on the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women. Now fem-socialist ideology permeates many of the UN agencies.

To put this in historical perspective, a mere 20 years ago, 70 countries around the world considered themselves to be Communist, socialist, or social democratic. Then in 1991 the Soviet Empire imploded. Now socialism is receding in all corners of the globe.

But I predict the struggle to counter feminism will be more difficult than the fight against Communism. Why? Because while socialism relied on political, economic, and military tactics, feminism targets the chinks in persons' emotional armor. It preys on women's sense of fear and anger, and on men's feelings of guilt and shame.

Have you ever wondered why the Leftists are so intent on enacting speech codes and so-called “hate speech” laws? Because freedom of speech poses the most formidable obstacle to the continued metastasis of Political Correctness. And therein lies the secret to winning the Culture War.

So here's a New Year's Resolution for all of us. I admit, it's deceptively simple:

Speak out.

Call your elected officials.

Write a letter to the editor.

Sound off.


Be heard.

Talk to your friends and neighbors.

Exercise your First Amendment rights.

Our consciences are insisting that we cannot afford to remain as silent onlookers while the Culture War continues to rage. Me? I' m doing this for the sake of my kids and grandchildren.



| EJF Home | Join the EJF | Comments? | Get EJF newsletter | Newsletters |

| DV Home | Abstract | Contents | Authors and Site Map | Tables | Index | Bibliography |


| Chapter 10 — The Female Of The Species |

| Next — Bad girls of America by Christina Hoff Sommers |

| Back — She has met the enemy and he is us |


This site is supported and maintained by the Equal Justice Foundation.

Last modified 1/18/19