The Left: Misogyny Apologists Under the Guise of Tolerance
My latest posty at David Horowitz’s NewsReal
The Left constantly claims the mantle of being Pro-Women’s Rights. Yet, they prove time and time again that it is lip service only. In fact, they are often either misogynists or misogyny apologists themselves, all in the name of some sort of call for a perverted version of “diversity” and “tolerance.”
They’ve recently gone so far as to condone genital mutilation. They have defended child rape in the case of Roman Polanski. They are silent on Iran gaining a seat on the United Nation’s Commission on the Status of Women. Why? Because it’s never actually about people to them. It’s all agenda-driven, always.
The latest instance, specifically Amanda Marcotte’s defense of the American Academy of Pediatrics’ recent decision to embrace genital mutilation is beyond infuriating. It is twisted, sickening and disturbing beyond belief. How can anyone in their right mind defend such an inhumane thing? Granted, “right mind” is the operative term there, but still.
The AAP, like the UN, started referring to female genital mutilation as merely “cutting” because mutilation sounds icky and may be offensive and insensitive to other cultures. Boo hoo. I’m sorry you are offended that sane people define the acts of clitoridectomy and excision as what they are: mutilation. Now, the AAP has gone one further and said a “little nick” is a nice compromise. No big whoop! Sacrifice girls and allow a misogynistic practice to occur, all in the name of appeasement. I don’t think the girls who are barbarically maimed feel very appeased, do you?
Not so, says Marcotte! Marcotte used the standard and oh-so-lame talking point of “but what about US? We are meany pants and awful too!” Leftists/Progressives always say “but what about US?” in an attempt to act as apologists, due to their religious fervor and zealotry for the nebulously defined “multi-culturalism.” They invent an example of a perceived American wrong, one that is usually both idiotic and utterly irrelevant to the topic at hand. And, you know, cuckoo pants.
As Jenn Q. Public pointed out in her article, Marcotte had this to say, in defense of the AAP’s decision:
And it’s not like Western culture is so free of blatantly misogynist traditions, either. Part of me wishes that we had a two minute nicking at the doctor instead of the entire painfully misogynist wedding tradition that persists in the name of tradition.
See, pointing out true evil doesn’t fit the “progressive” meme. Instead, subjugation and misogyny must be invented out of whole cloth regarding things like marriage, but the very real—and often deadly—subjugation of women under Islamic law must be tolerated and ignored. The hypocrisy and cognitive dissonance have reached epic levels.
Oh, just a little two minute nicking, says Marcotte. It’s not like it’s as awful as getting married and sharing your life with a loving partner! I can maybe see where Marcotte is coming from, personally. As self-loathing as she is, she must feel that marriage is a horrid punishment—for the man. I’d have more to say in response to Marcotte, but it makes me feel a little cheap because it’s so easy to refute the intellectually defenseless.
The left’s lack of intellectual prowess, as well as their absolute hypocrisy was also on display in regards to the child rapist known as Roman Polanski. Here is what the founder of the Feminist Majority Foundation said about that:
“My personal thoughts are let the guy go,” said Peg Yorkin, founder of the Feminist Majority Foundation. “It’s bad a person was raped. But that was so many years ago. The guy has been through so much in his life. It’s crazy to arrest him now. Let it go.”
Just let it go, will you? He makes super cool movies and he’s all arty and stuff. And like the intellectual giant, Whoopi Goldberg said, it wasn’t like it was “rape-rape.” The Hollywood Left all gathered around Polanski, even circulating a petition demanding his release. France’s Society of Film Directors said his arrest would have “disastrous consequences for the freedom of expression.”
The freedom to express pedophilia? Drugging and raping (yes, “rape-rape”) a 13-year-old CHILD. Who repeatedly said no. Over and over. Who was scared out of her mind, yet this “man” Polanski, continued to use and abuse her in various ways. Over and over again until he “freely expressed” his own sick enjoyment, for which he felt no remorse. He didn’t even believe he had done anything wrong. And neither does the Left, apparently.
How enlightened and cultured they are. The rape of a child is perfectly acceptable, so long as you dig the rapist’s art and his liberal thought. I suppose you all figured “Well, at least he tried not to get her pregnant. What’s a little sodomy? At least that way she wouldn’t be “punished with a baby.” Sheesh! Relax, you uncultured wingnuts! Plus, it’s not like he disagrees with Obama or wants to stop illegal immigration!”
Most recently, their silence was telling on Iran gaining a seat on the United Nation’s Commission on the Status of Women. From Leftist camps, there was either silence or there was attempted down-playing of Iran’s horrific record towards women. Others, again, tried to equate women in Iran being stoned to death or lashed for immodest dress with being pro-life here. No, really.
These are all just the latest examples that clearly show what some of us have always known. To the Left, the truth does not matter. What matters is their dangerously naive agenda. Their need to further that agenda, along with the narratives that they have set in stone, trumps all. They will also, even in the face of overwhelming facts and reason, keep repeating the lies. Eventually, they hope, the lies will be perceived as reality.
They care more about pushing politically correct “tolerance” and “diversity” memes, including in the form of appeasement, in order to further their identity politics agenda. They care more about that than they care about actual people, particularly women. I’ve said this before, but it’s something we must remember:
This is the difficulty we face, as people who do have moral compasses. We face an opponent who has none.