Posts Tagged ‘Feminism’

Lena Dunham Apology Unacceptable

December 22, 2016

After receiving much criticism for saying “Now I can say that I still haven’t had an abortion, but I wish I had” in a podcast, Lena Dunham offered an apology: “My words were spoken from a sort of ‘delusional girl’ persona I often inhabit”. Remove the word “often” from that statement and it nails Dunham well.

Recognizing that many do not like anything she says, she added: “…this apology is for the women who have placed their trust in me”. This, too, is delusional since it is doubtful many women really place much “trust” in her. She is, after all, just another celebrity pontificating on political issues and only extremely ardent fans are gullible enough to treat a celebrity as being infallible.

Far too often the adulation celebrities receive from fans convinces them that everything they do or say is exceptional. Dunham is fully engaged with taking herself too seriously, believing everyone holds her in as high esteem as she holds herself. She has become “elite”. Because she speaks before thinking far too often, her apology for this latest distasteful and offensive comment lacks credibility and, therefore, is unacceptable.

Dunham is a hardcore feminist who proudly takes her feminism to foolishly unacceptable levels, often with man-hating and racist comments. She then finds it expedient to apologize afterwards but that has become very stale. There was no regard for the emotional upheaval abortion can cause or for the life that is snuffed out in her comment. There was only anger, insensitivity, and self-righteousness.

Until Dunham learns to contain her feminist-based anger and think before speaking, her apologies will remain meaningless. So, too, will much of what she spews.

David J. Hentosh

Advertisements

Trauma at Rutgers

February 21, 2016

After a speech at Rutgers University by Breitbart editor Milo Yiannopoulos, some students and faculty members felt so “traumatized” that they held a group therapy session afterward to soothe their sensitive psyches. Yiannopoulos talked about “How the Progressive Left Is Destroying Education”, an opinion exemplified by protesting students.

The speech drew a huge crowd of students wanting to hear what Milo had to say but that only enraged some feminists and Black Lives Matter protesters further. Intent on disrupting the event because it does not follow the only agenda they believe should be allowed on campus, they smeared blood on their faces, screamed slogans, and vandalized before finally being forced to leave.

The fake blood, screaming, and vandalism caused no trauma; simply allowing the speech to occur did. Those “traumatized” did not even hear the speech but some needed group therapy because their ideas were being challenged, exactly what should occur in a healthy academic environment. Expecting everyone to think the same is foolishly immature. Demanding it is arrogantly asinine.

It is a failure of our education system to allow faculty members to advocate and participate in student demands to suppress differing ideas. Progressive faculties have taken over the education system from grade school to college, indoctrinating students with an agenda that now has students feeling “traumatized” by the very existence of a different point of view. That agenda has become more important than education.

If encouraged, the next step will be to make differing views illegal, something already beginning to materialize in schools through various restrictive speech codes. It is ironic that an agenda advocating diversity in all things demands total conformity of ideas – and it is as dangerous as it is foolish.

It is refreshing that at least at Rutgers, many more students were interested in hearing differing views than suppressing them. That could certainly change, and if schools do not stop faculties from indoctrinating students with a progressive agenda, it will.

David J. Hentosh

Deranged Alarmist Predictions

March 26, 2015

Global warming…oops…make that Climate change alarmists pontificate, extrapolate, and exaggerate in extreme ways to push their views. Senior House Democrat Barbara Lee from California takes it to a level that is as ridiculous as it is apocalyptic.

According to Lee, climate change (though she really means global warming) will cause food and water scarcity that will hit women the hardest. Why? Because it could force many women to barter sexual favors for food. Furthermore, “[F]ood insecure women with limited socioeconomic resources may be vulnerable to situations such as sex work, transactional sex, and early marriage that put them at risk for HIV, STIs, unplanned pregnancy, and poor reproductive health”.

Turning every issue into a women’s issue is getting as old as playing the race card – and of course, global warming has been predicted to disproportionately impact communities of color. Barbara Lee lumps women together with orange-spotted filefish, polar bears, Adelie penguins, North Atlantic cod, golden toads, and Asia – all of which have been predicted to be hit the hardest by global warming.

Things said to be caused, worsened, or damaged by global warming have become ridiculous. The Syrian civil war and the Ebola outbreak may sound crazy, but they seem reasonable compared to other items on an almost endless list. Global warming could produce huge harvests in places where crops have never grown or cause ice bergs to float onto shores where fresh water is desperately needed or provide new lands that are currently uninhabitable, but those predictions do not fit the agenda.

Barbara Lee has no particular background or training qualifying her to make such a prediction. All she has is a religious conviction in her belief of global warming, no doubt blessed by Al Gore, and a feminist axe to grind. Unfortunately, she is a member of the House of Representatives and that gives her a veneer of authority she does not deserve.

David J. Hentosh

Liberal Privilege

March 23, 2015

Over at The Blaze, Matt Walsh speaks plainly and truthfully about society’s granting of privilege to liberal women. It is something most recognize but rarely speak out about for fear of the angry and vicious backlash suffered by Mr. Walsh when he dared speak against rapper Azealia Banks’ ignorant and racist diatribe against white people.

From Matt Walsh at The Blaze

In her (Azealia Banks) Playboy interview/stripping session, she spoke proudly of her hatred for white conservative men, white teenage girls, white farmers, white Middle Americans, and anything else created by or associated with white people…I wrote a piece to retort Banks and to point out her hypocrisies and prejudices…Banks took to Twitter to send me and another conservative, Wayne Dupree, a close up photo of her genitals…followed up with a lewd Tweet to my wife…All of this was applauded by her legions of young, progressive fans…I was repeatedly informed that I am the sexist, the racist, and the bigot…for me to criticize her for sending nude photos…

…the reaction would be slightly different if a white conservative male — say, a country star or something — said in an interview that he hated black Americans, then sent an unsolicited picture of his penis to a black female blogger…The double standard is so bad that it isn’t a double standard at all. For progressives — particularly women, particularly minority women — there is simply no standard to speak of…If you are progressive, and especially a woman, and especially a minority woman, you can lash out in whatever manner you like, launching whatever attacks you like, against whatever group you like, provided the victims aren’t homosexuals or liberal black people…

It’s important to underscore, however, that it’s only liberal women and minorities who wield this incredible privilege. Non-liberals in those groups have the least leeway out of everyone, and can be attacked more viciously than anyone…Liberals, particularly liberal women, are operating in a void without any standards of basic decency. They know society will allow them to say or do whatever…rules don’t apply to liberals, and even less to liberal women, and even less to liberal minority women…

Read it all here: Check Your Privilege, Liberal Women

DJH

Angry Voters

October 28, 2014

A recent CNN poll found “nearly 7 in 10 Americans are angry at the direction the country is headed and 53% of Americans disapprove of President Barack Obama’s job performance”. Angry voters should direct their anger at themselves for having elected Obama – twice – after ignoring evidence of the direction Obama intended all along.

Details of Obama’s “transformation of America” were there between the lines of his campaign rhetoric but the mainstream media was intent on “making history” and pushing their own idealistic agenda, so they kept details hidden. Those trying to reveal the truth were labeled racists or right-wing radicals and were ridiculed. Far too many voters allowed themselves to be duped.

The black community overwhelmingly and blindly voted for Obama solely because he was black, willfully ignoring his radical background, inexperience, and intent. They certainly should be angry at themselves for allowing emotions and unrealistic expectations to overcome common sense. Obama’s policies, especially on immigration, have done more harm than good for the black community.

A majority of women, too, voted for Obama – twice. His administration’s politically manufactured “GOP war on women” is as insulting as treating women as if they are only concerned with birth control and abortion. Women should be angry at themselves for allowing such political manipulation to continue unchallenged.

Unfortunately, too many young voters have been indoctrinated by the liberal, progressive academia to know they should be angry. They have little personal experience of America’s greatness to understand the damage caused by Obama. They have been conditioned (brainwashed?) to government handouts and America-bashing and do not realize how demeaning that is. Someday, they may, but their votes are needed now, before it’s too late.

There are many valid reasons for voter anger, but action is needed rather than anger. It would be disastrous to allow voter anger to become voter apathy. The time to turn this around is now. Vote angry and vote wisely.

David J. Hentosh

Word Police

April 24, 2013

Washington State has taken another step in its effort to out-nanny New York State. The word police are out in full force to make sure the state legislature becomes totally gender neutral. Words such as “fireman” and “policeman” were found to be offensive and banned from the legislature as far back as 1983, but that was not enough.

In this latest effort, terribly offensive words such as “freshman” and “watchmen” have been eliminated, protecting all from serious injury. However, new ground is being broken with the elimination of not-so-obviously offensive words such as “penmanship”.

How could we have survived so long being bombarded by these harmful words? We are finally coming out of the semantic Dark Ages that have been “keeping our legal terms anachronistic” and replacing them with neutered words that “respect our current contemporary times”.  It’s a shame our intelligence doesn’t get such respect.

Liz Watson, a National Women’s Law Center senior adviser, tells us: “Words matter…This is important in changing hearts and minds.” Ahhh…”changing hearts and minds” – how quaint – or should we say anachronistic?

In an attempt at preventing the word police from banging down your door, it would be wise to refrain from using several other words that may soon be found to be offensive: mandolin, Mandella, German, humane, mention, manager, and so many (oops, there’s another one) more. The list is endless and it may become necessary to hire more word police, but that would at least help lower unemployment.

One has to wonder, though, why “mandate” is not yet on the list since it’s already been replaced with “tax” by the Supreme Court.

David J. Hentosh

Another Feel-good, “Make History” Election?

March 19, 2013

Former Democrat Party spokeswoman Karen Finney tells us that a 2016 presidential ticket of Hillary Clinton and Michelle Obama “…would truly be a dream team for America…Both women are proven effective leaders who’ve raise children”.

It seems that making history by electing (then re-electing) totally inexperienced Barack Obama felt so good that doing it again is even more desirable. Breaking the “glass ceiling” with a woman president would again make history, and combining it with a woman vice president would be a great historical twofer to cherish.

Michelle Obama’s absolute lack of professional political experience is irrelevant. After all, she “raised children”, proving she is an “effective leader”. (Sadly enough, that may be more of a real accomplishment than Barack had when he was chosen to make history.) Hillary, of course, proved her qualifications by becoming a Senator with no political experience and then was anointed Secretary of State – perhaps because she also “raised children”.

It has always been a fault of our election process that popularity played such a key role, but it was mostly the popularity of politicians. In today’s politics, popularity is bestowed upon whomever the progressive media decides is worthy, and combining that with a desire to make history is a recipe for disaster.

Should Hillary decide not to run, the media could push Michelle to the forefront and bring in Sandra Fluke as candidate for vice president. She, too, has no political experience but was made a celebrity by the progressive media because…well…one isn’t quite sure – much like one isn’t quite sure why Kim Kardashian was made into a celebrity. It’s a media thing and people follow.

There’s the frightening thing: People buy into it. Voters elected Obama with no experience because of media endorsement, then re-elected him because the media ignored negative results of his inexperience. The media has already decided making up news is part of its job, so making history is a natural progression. Michelle becoming president would not be a fluke, but Fluke could very well be vice president.

We may be doomed.

David J. Hentosh

Women in War – Or War on Women?

January 24, 2013

Pentagon Chief Leon Panetta is removing the military’s ban on women in combat units. This move resembles a “war on women” (almost literally) more than anything the left has erroneously accused the GOP of doing. This is not surprising since the left always accuses others of sins they commit themselves.

This move will surely be considered a “win” by feminists claiming to want equality, but exactly who wins here? If the goal was to have equal gender representation in the body bags coming home from a war zone, it is highly doubtful that women burning their bras in the 60’s were aware of it. It is further doubtful that most young women today are eager to learn the art of combat or feel much empowered by having the equal opportunity to fight and die for their country in faraway lands.

As another domino falls in Obama’s “transformation” of America, we continue on the path to emulating other countries around the world rather than leading. The necessity for some countries to have women in combat units does not exist for us, but Obama’s personal ideology demands all be the same, just as feminists demand the sexes be the same.

Perhaps Obama will further emulate other countries by re-instituting the draft. Will he and feminists then rejoice in seeing young women plucked out of society and forced into military service? Will it be as liberating as the guilt feminists have caused in many women for wanting to be stay-at-home moms?

Feminists are increasing pressure on young women by demanding behaviors acceptable only to them. Obama is increasing pressure on society with policies chasing unrealistic personal goals. The excess of liberalism is “transforming” America into a nightmare rather than a dream. Is this really the direction America wishes to go?

David J. Hentosh