Stacy being Stacy writes an excellent piece on the cultural change since the last major anniversary of the Civil War:

Patriotism and courage have gone long since gone out of fashion. America’s intellectual elite — “The Ruling Class,” as Professor Codevilla calls them — are nowadays the diligent disciples of draft-dodgers who once marched beneath Vietcong flags in anti-war demonstrations. In the “long twilight struggle” against communism, they were on the other side. Their philosophy requires them to inculcate in our youth an unpatriotic attitude that views American military power as a force for oppression. Today’s progressive curriculum teaches children to embrace our nation’s foreign enemies as victims of capitalist imperialism. Before Bill Ayers became mentor to a young Barack Obama, he co-authored a 1974 Weather Underground manifesto that cited communist Che Guevara as a role model and was dedicated to such “political prisoners” as Sirhan Sirhan, assassin of Robert F. Kennedy. In their “Prairie Fire” manifesto, Ayers and his terrorist comrades declared themselves a “guerrilla organization,” devoted to “the final defeat of imperialism and building of socialism [through] revolutionary war.” They utterly lacked the courage to fight, however, and so Ayers’ cowardly “war” was waged by stealthily planting bombs and hiding out until he surrendered to authorities in December 1980. “Prairie Fire” was also dedicated to John Brown, the antebellum terrorist whose murderous violence against civilians did much to bring on the crisis that led to war 150 years ago. But whereas Brown was not ashamed to hang for his crimes, Ayers never even served a day in prison.

It writing that should be read but as far as Roger Pryor goes, his advice to Jefferson Davis to “Strike a blow” was advice so bad that even the fellow who said to the current Occupant of the White House “Gaddafi is about to fall, maybe we should put out a statement.” didn’t manage to outdo it.

…and jump into the argument between two of the people I am most fond of on the net.

I’ve already talked about what I think of and owe Stacy McCain and There is no person in bloggerdom whose company I enjoy more than Little Miss Attila, but this is getting ridiculous.

Stacy put out 4000 words last night on the History of feminism. It is very detailed and quite a read. I would recommend it to anyone.

Yesterday Joy today fisked a previous Stacy’s post and answered his magnum opus with a single drawing and two sentences proving she is an expert in blog Jujutsu.

I haven’t talked to either Stacy or Joy about this exchange but I am going to comment very briefly on the substance and I’ll let them correct me if I’m misinterpreting it either of them.

The way I see it Stacy is saying that Feminism and its origins are a lot less clean than a lot of people see it and that conservatives should avoid being seen as “feminists” because it means something that is quite different that what we think it does.

The way I see it Attila is defending Feminism or what she is calling equity feminism and saying that is is not invalid for a conservative to believe in it.

A lot of this is starting to look like dogs chasing tales so lets cut to that chase:

1. Per Stacy’s argument, There are a lot of nasty roots in the feminist movement, just as there were a lot of people happy to break bread with the communists in the civil rights movement. We might even stipulate that both groups used addressing an actual wrong (Jim Crow and inequality before the law of the sexes) to advance something they were more loyal to (the overthrow of capitalism and western culture that they found racist and/or sexist). Thus feminism means something and we should let the left have that label and stew in it.

2. Per Attila’s argument the basic equality before the law of women (and the equality of souls in the before the eyes of God) is a basic human right. Such a belief and the advancement of said belief is feminism 101 in the same way that belief in Christ is Christianity 101. One can adopt the label feminist without paying homage to the leftist maxims of some of those who followed it at the time. Or to use the Christian example, Protestants don’t shun the term Christian because we Catholics were using it hundreds of years before Luther was a gleam in his mother’s eye.

In terms of an intellectual point and history, Stacy makes good points, but I think he is forgetting something about society.

Words mean things as he says but the meaning of words change over time. 150 years if someone said “Michael Jordan is cool” the answer expected would be “Well have him come closer to the fireplace.” More importantly the public perception of the meaning of those words change.

When society thinks of the word feminism, they do not think of the Marxist roots or any of the class warfare BS that the left was trying to peddle, they are thinking simply of the base equality before the law of the sexes. The terms has become mainstreamed to the point where it can be used without incident.

Stacy correctly worries that like planned parenthood’s Eugenic past, this allows Radical feminists such as NOW and those in the gender studies department to co-op the uninformed because people think they are simply supporting woman’s rights when they are in fact supporting wrongs, wrongs simply used to sexualize our society even further or as a club to beat Western Civilization, Christianity and the US while ignoring actual wrongs against women in the East and in Islam. It’s a valid worry and I think it is very important to call them out loudly and regularly!

Happily there is an easy and well known term for such people propagated over the last two decades, that can be used without using the now generic terms Feminist: Feminazi.

I submit it would be healthier and easier to deploy the Feminazi term, particularly within the movement than to try and insist people stop deploying the, I submit now generic term “feminist”. In terms of changing hearts and minds I say its the best move. Additionally it forces the feminist left (read feminazi) to explain why a Sarah Palin or a Michelle Bachmann or a Tammy Bruce or a Little Miss Attila is “not” a feminist. Inevitably their anger leads them instead into the trap of proclaiming that they are not valid “women” retreating into a level of misogyny that alienates regular people and forces honest feminists to recoil, thus dividing them.

Or to put it another way Stacy has a good intellectual point, both socially and politically I think its to our disadvantage.

And although it is entertaining intellectually (and may or may not have been productive in terms of hits) I think that like Road Runner cartoons this is getting too long. I can’t think it’s generating enough hits to make it worth going on.

Stacy thinks we should abandon the term feminism to the left: Fine, that’s a valid opinion but I disagree.
Attila thinks we should not: Fine, that’s a valid opinion too. I agree and state why.

Now excuse me while I duck for cover.

Update: Cripes that generated a bunch of comments and links quickly. Maybe I should just schedule them together on the show and let them have it out. April 2nd is open.

This time in overwhelmingly democratic Maryland:

The withdrawal capped a tumultuous few weeks, which began with the bill’s sponsors saying that its passage was all but assured and that Maryland would soon become the sixth state to legalize same-sex marriage.

But the closer the bill got to a final vote, the bumpier its path became. One of its co-sponsors, Delegate Tiffany T. Alston, a freshman Democrat from Prince George’s County, had withdrawn her support, apparently bowing to pressure from her constituency, which contains a powerful religious community.

Dan Riehl point out the obvious:

Many of the arguments against running conservatives are false arguments spun by the Left which the GOP establishment embraces because the media embraces them.

How many states are we going to concede to liberalism? We’ve done that for so long, we’re now in a place where a Leftist like Obama can get elected without being exposed until he gets into office. If the pattern continues, you can forget conservative. We’re almost at a tipping point where we’ll never have a conservative Washington because we accept the notion that conservatism can’t win in so may places, especially due to social issues.

As you might guess Jonathan Capeheart is very angry:

The outrage directed at Arora is understandable. As is the sense of betrayal. He raised money from gays and lesbians based on his support for marriage equality. He secured the endorsements of Progressive Maryland and of Equality Maryland because of it. In fact, get a load of what he wrote as an addendum to his questionnaire for Equality Maryland. emphasis mine

Hang on a second I’m confused. Haven’t we been hearing the left screaming about money in politics (particularly from the Koch family)? Doesn’t the left believe that reps should be voting based on the wishes of the people they represent and not donors? Apparently not, check some of the gay sites, they are very angry about people they gave money to voting against them.

So we must conclude the rules are as follows:

If you get money from the right and you vote your constituents vs your donors, you are a brave independent voice.

If you get money from the left and you vote your constituents vs your donors, you are a traitor.

Any questions?

Apparently its primary purpose is to make a social statement:

The U.S. military is too white and too male at the top and needs to change recruiting and promotion policies and lift its ban on women in combat, an independent report for Congress said Monday.

Seventy-seven percent of senior officers in the active-duty military are white, while only 8 percent are black, 5 percent are Hispanic and 16 percent are women, the report by an independent panel said, quoting data from September 2008.

One barrier that keeps women from the highest ranks is their inability to serve in combat units. Promotion and job opportunities have favored those with battlefield leadership credentials.

The report ordered by Congress in 2009 calls for greater diversity in the military’s leadership so it will better reflect the racial, ethnic and gender mix in the armed forces and in American society.

Let me point out something very simple. The purpose of the military is not to reflect the racial, ethnic and gender mix of the country. The job of the military is to:

  • Fight and deter the enemies of the united states
  • Defend our allies and to deter those who would threaten them.
  • Protect American interest and citizens.

As long as we are able to do this, I don’t care if our military is composed of three-legged aliens who all answer to the name “Harold”. I’ll let others argue the specifics, the bottom line is promotion and leadership should be based on whatever helps the military achieve those goals I listed, that it!

The moment we do otherwise we lose the best military in the world, and believe me the rest of the world and our enemies are watching.

Planned parenthood is certainly trying to earn their name with this nonsense, because if kids follow this advice they’d better plan for parenthood:

The World Association of Girl Scouts and Girl Guides hosted a no-adults-welcome panel at the United Nations this week where Planned Parenthood was allowed to distribute a brochure entitled “Healthy, Happy and Hot.” The event was part of the annual United Nations Commission on the Status of Women (CSW) which concludes this week.

Because this is exactly what Girl Scouts (Girl Guides is the English Version) is all about learning how to be hot.

And of course why stop there:

The New York Times recently reported that UN Population Fund had co-sponsored a very controversial curriculum with UNESCO, that included teaching children as young as five to be sexually active and training adolescents to advocate for abortion.

Via Pundit and Pundette who also comments on the previous NEA outrage concluding:

Ms. Schneider doesn’t want this to be a choice. Got it. Parental involvement is the last thing they want. It might interfere with the agenda against “heterosexism.”

Stacy McCain who has an image of the cover and one page of the handout has this to say:

Those of you old enough to think of Girl Scouts in terms of crafts, camping and cooking are probably astonished by this, but it is becoming increasingly obvious that the national Girl Scouts organization has been hijacked by radical feminists.

Might as well send them camping with Charlie Sheen . . .

As for Planned Parenthood, as I said on the show, if they have $200k for ads then I think they can pay for this nonsense without taxpayer funds, don’t you?

I gave a copy of McCain’s article to a local girl scout leader after mass today. I think her jaw dropped off and rolled down the front stairs.

…but after seeing all the exchanges from Attila’s post and Ace’s update combined with Stacy’s post last night reminded me of this story from my youth.

There were two different crowds I hung with, one was a Massachusetts crowd from high school and one was a NH crowd I met in college. The NH crowd was less sober but generated a whole bunch of very interesting stories.

They would do various pickup stunts. One of the guys would try to pick up a girl at a bar, when she turned him down the others standing at the door would loudly hum the Old Spice theme, toss him a bottle, He would put on the Old Spice and as the girl was laughing he would ask her out again (still didn’t work but it was a laugh)

One of the most interesting stunts they would do was to find a woman at a bar, go up to her and directly ask her if she would sleep with him.

Before the girl could hit him or tell him to get lost, he would ask to explain. He would say that normally he would make small talk, maybe buy a few drinks, perhaps a meal and invest an entire night and only at the end of it find out if he was going to actually get laid, which was the whole idea.

This way she has no illusions about him and he doesn’t waste the whole night on a wild goose chase.

Two things would always happen after this. The girl would agree he made sense, and would tell him to get lost.

Given the times I wonder what the result would be today?

…says Little Miss Attila:

This is not the world I want my niece and church sponsee to live in (and I’m delighted to say that they haven’t bought into this nonsense at all). But we have to get back to a place wherein “sexual freedom,” as a cultural norm, actually includes the freedom to say “no.” (emphasis mine) This in turn requires that we celebrate the notion of dating as something that doesn’t require sex, and we appreciate the wonders of human attraction without having to act on them every single freakin’ time, for crying out loud.

If you look at the culture you will see that if you are a guy and you are not looking to score every time, there is something wrong with you, and if you don’t score then your date is a failure. She continues:

I’m one of those who thinks this has more to do with the misuse of feminism than the misuse of birth control, and I know I occupy a strange middle ground inasmuch as I’m not quite a proper social conservative.

Yet what we’ve created at this point is a situation in which women and girls attempt to ignore their own emotions and “out-detach” the boys. In practice, this means many have trained themselves to be sexually available, and make no demands whatsover–and, yes: in some circles, a request to spend time with a guy doing anything other than sex is considered a “demand,” as Wendy Shalit has documented extensively in her books.

Joy mentioned Wendy on my show a few weeks ago. Let me tell you that is a real problem, particularly when you are trying to teach teenage boys restraint in these matters.

As Aquainus said love is: “Wanting the best for the other without thought to self.” Not being a woman I can’t comment from that direction, but as a man it can’t be stressed enough that no matter how attractive the prospect might be, if you actually love a woman you have to be able to say “no” when the situation calls for it. For a young man today that can bring social ridicule from his peers and from a society that equates “scoring” with success as a man and celebrates it at all levels.

There was a time when this was not true. In the movie the Philadelphia story a smitten Jimmy Stewart reveals that although he had the chance he did not take advantage of a willing Katherine Hepburn on the day before her wedding. Hepburn’s character is unexpectedly outraged:

“Why? Was I so unattractive? So distant? So forbidding?

He answers:

No, no you were extremely attractive as for distant or forbidding far from it, but You were a little worse the wear for alcohol, and there are rules about that kind of thing.

Now watching the scene prior and after this there is no question he wants her, he even proposes at a later point but is unwilling to take advantage of her. Remember also this movie is from the 40’s when Stewart’s character wouldn’t face the same legal consequences that such a move might have today, yet still he does not act.

It is that admiration and acceptance of virtue, rather than its ridicule that is missing from the society until it is regained then I suspect that the situation that Attila laments will continue

Update: I don’t know if it was intentional but Robert Stacy McCain skewers those most responsible for what Attila is lamenting

Be aware folks this is coming here if at all possible.

But Lord Justice Munby and Mr Justice Beatson ruled that laws protecting people from discrimination because of their sexual orientation ‘should take precedence’ over the right not to be discriminated against on religious grounds.

The landmark case heard that the couple, who are now considering an appeal, argued their rights are being ‘trumped’ by those of homosexuals under equality legislation.

Outside the Royal Courts of Justice in London Mrs Johns stood alongside her husband as she said: ‘We are extremely distressed at what the judges have ruled today.

‘All we wanted was to offer a loving home to a child in need. We have a good track record as foster parents.

‘But because we are Christians, with mainstream Christian views on sexual ethics, we are apparently unsuitable as foster parents.

One question, forgetting the absurdity and the religious blacklisting of Christians, would this same judge be willing to make the same judgment if a Muslim couple wanted to adopt?


When you look at the planned parenthood and the Kermit Gosnell stories you might wonder why the left is so determined to counter them.

With New Jersey poised to investigate the Planned parenthood location that advised underage girls on abortion, and multiple locations in Virginia now revealed one would think the left would back away from such defenses, particularly with the details of Kermit Gosnell’s house of horrors case still in play (although if you look at the national media you would think it was a blip on the screen.)

Yet here is President Obama’s administration withholding abortion statistics for the first time in 40 years and Soros and company holding conference calls to find a united line concerning the Planned Parenthood revelations:

Instead of focusing on the fact that there is an organization who turned a blind eye to child sex-trafficking, an organization that receives forced federal funding, the group of senior fellows ostensibly chose the route which affords zero defense of women, born or unborn, thereby saving them from compromising their female-hostile ideologies: attack Lila Rose. These outlets don’t see the insanity in feigning disgust that the racket was exposed, not that it occurred at all.

The majority of the call was spent discussing ways to discredit Rose because of her funding. They surmise that some group which donates to her pro-life magazine is a group donated to by a group given money by the Koch Brothers. So says people who just cashed a $1 million-dollar check from George Soros.

Since what was done on the tapes clearly stepped over the line, why not just express outrage, and urge Planned Parenthood to be more careful in the future in such cases?

Because you can’t undermine western civilization without undermining life.

As science continues to make the case that the unborn child is not just a mass of tissue and makes viability earlier and earlier it becomes imperative for the left to counter the culture of life.

Judeao-Christian culture is built on the value and the rights of the individual, unless that is undermined you can’t go anywhere else.

Once you manage to get a society to decide that its weakest members are not worthy of life as a matter of narcissistic convenience then all the rest becomes easy.

You can deny care to the elderly , even euthanize them in order to save money. You can arbitrarily decide if a life is “worth living” or not based on a standard not held by the person who decides.

You can reward narcissism and strip people of their self-respect and dignity, maintaining that they should be wards of the state rather than the makers of their own destiny, and once they are subject to the state, if they are no longer serving it, are disposable.

Whole neighborhoods can be abandoned to crime and lawlessness that those same elites would reject for themselves, after all why waste the states valuable resources on mere vassals?

Life is the key, once you devalue human life, once you have an excuse not to care, the second excuse becomes extremely easy.

This is why the far left will always defend abortion in general and Planned Parenthood to the hilt, for without the culture of death the left’s worldview crumbles to dust.