Thursday, May 24, 2012

The invevitable confusion in which ideological sisterhood must result

The Twitter exchange between standup comedienne / actress-turned-all-purpose-fool-and-loudmouth Roseanne Barr and old-school feminist Robin Morgan over Hustler's mysogynistic photoshopping of S.E. Cupp involves several layers of cultural import to be peeled back.  Ultimately, for their profoundly divergent views of the incident itself, they both, particularly Morgan, go to some lengths to stress their agreement that Cupp's ideological core is "atrocious."

What could it be about an avowed atheist whose academic field has been art history and who is a classically trained ballerina, and who is savvy and single that drives both these feminists up a wall?  Of course.  It's what it always comes down to for such types.  She cannot abide by the extermination of fetal Americans.

When pressed, the militant feminists always resort to the "if-men-had-to-house-the-gestating-kid-in-their-bodies-they'd-sing-a-different-tune" canard.  And it's here that we get to the hollowness at the core of what they're about:  Their rage is actually against nature - really, God - for having designed female essence and male essence to be distinct, with each serving purposes in the overall schem of the universe that the other can't serve.

Indeed, that's what such freakish developments as the mainstreaming of transgenderism and sperm donors for lesbian couples is all about - an attempt to declare oneself a post-human creature while still hanging on to the warm feelings of romance and motherhood that can only be authentic when experienced by  - dare I say it? -  normal human beings.

Feminsim is really a fear of one's membership in the species called homo sapiens.

No comments:

Post a Comment