Skip to content

Sorry, Steinem Stepford Feminists, But Pro-Life is Pro-Woman

June 24, 2010

My latest posty at NewsReal:

I generally ignore the irrelevant bint known as Miss Gloria Steinem, but Katie Couric interviewed her on Tuesday and thrust her back into the mock-worthy spotlight.  Plus, I’m sick fed up with her and “feminists” like her. The emergence of conservative women to the forefront recently has made them particularly unbearable, as they strive to, in every repugnant way possible, diminish said women. This is just the latest from one of them, Miss Gloria Steinem, who unfortunately resurfaced from whatever Birkenstock-clad, soy latte drinking ivory tower she was hiding in:

Click here to see video

Firstly, good grief, Katie Couric. What an inane question: “Can you be a conservative feminist?” As if conservatives women are some odd, only woman-like creatures. Miss Steinem’s response? You can’t be a feminist if you oppose legal abortion. Can’t be one. That’s crimethink! She caps it off with the utterly ridiculous statement that one in three women need an abortion. Now, it’s not the nebulous “choice,” it’s an actual need? Because it never really was about choice, was it? They strove to make abortion the default option.

Well, guess what, Stepford Steinem Feminists? We don’t care if you don’t consider us a part of your cultish club. You see, we have minds of our own. And, unlike you, we respect women and don’t think that they are too stupid to handle life on their own, nor do we think that women are perpetual victims who must be saved from things like “inconvenient” motherhood. We are also tired of your bastardizing the term feminist beyond any recognizable meaning. You are antithetical to feminism and can no longer claim that term as your own. We are taking it back. Not to use, as it’s unnecessary; we know that we have equality already. But, only so that you can no longer use it as a way to promulgate lies in order to further an agenda harmful to all, but particularly to women.

Recently, another Stepford Feminist, Amanda Marcotte, claimed that Sarah Palin – and every other Pro-Life woman – thinks that women are stupid and doesn’t want to offer them a “choice.”  She based this on an honest statement that Palin made at a Susan B. Anthony dinner, wherein she openly and honestly stated that the idea of an abortion had fleetingly crossed her mind. She then said this:

“So we went through some things a year ago that now lets me understand a woman’s, a girl’s temptation to maybe try to make it all go away if she has been influenced by society to believe that she’s not strong enough or smart enough or equipped enough or convenienced enough to make the choice to let the child live. I do understand what these women, what these girls go through in that thought process.”

To the agenda tunnel-visioned like Marcotte, that meant that Palin thinks women are dum-dums and she then asserted this:

I’ve seen everything from mild cases of morning sickness to months confined to bed in service of bringing a baby into the world, and these kinds of sacrifices should be freely chosen out of love instead of foisted on the unwilling. To suggest that all women are equipped to make these sacrifices at any point in time is to insult those who take on the burden because they want to, not because they have to.

Oooh, the terrible sacrifice of morning sickness. Yeah, avoiding that is way more important than, you know, a life.

What’s insulting is that Marcotte and Steinem and other Stepford Feminists believe that women are incapable of being responsible for their own actions. That if they have the simple human emotions like fear of the unknown or self-doubt, then they should be relieved of that icky burden immediately because surely they can’t handle it. Motherhood is a punishment and a burden that only certain women can be expected to handle. Some aren’t “equipped” to do so, you see.

They are also the ones who want to hide information from women, for fear that women are too stupid to handle the truth; they don’t even want women to see ultrasounds before aborting their children. They have so little respect for women, that they deny the very existence of post-abortion syndrome. To them, it’s inconceivable that any woman would actually feel remorse or be racked with guilt, her entire life, after having an abortion. She got rid of that pesky, burdensome, “just a clump of cells”,  inconvenience! If she doesn’t feel joyful relief, she can’t be a “real” feminist-y woman!

This is because they feel scorn for the very act of Motherhood itself.  Gloria Steinem once said “[Housewives] are dependent creatures who are still children…parasites.” Another “feminist”, Simone de Beauvoir said: “No woman should be authorized to stay at home and 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. It is a way of forcing women in a certain direction.”

Hey, you know who that sounds like?

“The chief thing is to get women to take part in socially productive labor, to liberate them from ‘domestic slavery,’ to free them from their stupefying and humiliating subjugation to the eternal drudgery of the kitchen and the nursery. This struggle will be a long one, and it demands a radical reconstruction, both of social technique and of morale. But it will end in the complete triumph of Communism.”
~ V.I. Lenin, International Working Women’s Day Speech , 1920.

You don’t understand that being life bearing nurturers is something that makes women special, not lesser. You, instead, think that women are stupid, shouldn’t be “trapped” by a child, and should be protected victims of their own actions, feminists, yet you were the useful idiots. Useful to the Left at one point, but no more – now that we all see you for what you are.

Plain old idiots.

As women who respect and support other women, because Pro-Life is Pro-Woman, this is what we “can’t be real feminists” women do. We unhinged nutty nuts help women, instead of urging them to abort. We help them truly have it all, education, career and motherhood via personal responsibility. We trust and have faith that they can do so, unlike you. I’ll tell you about one such place, as it’s in the icky South so I’m sure you’ve never heard of it.

GREENVILLE, S.C. — A building that used to be an abortion clinic has a new tenant. Little Steps has taken a lease out on the downtown Greenville property. The teen parent program offers parenting classes, mentoring, support groups, supplies and childcare to young moms and dads….

Mandy Black knows the move is a bit of a political statement but she says the space really is a perfect fit to provide classrooms, playrooms and mentoring stations. “I don’t want to forget what happened here,” she said. “There were a lot of lives lost and a lot of lives changed in this building. We don’t want to forget that, but at the same time we want to move from that and say here is what can happen now.”

A place where babies were sucked mercilessly from the former safety of their mother’s wombs, never once feeling a loving touch, never receiving succor, considered, instead, expendable for the sake of convenience, is now a place that will foster love. A place that will support women and motherhood itself, instead of diminishing it. A place that acknowledges that women aren’t helpless victims, in need of saving from their own decisions. A place that will save the lives of countless children — and their mothers.

It doesn’t take a village to raise a child. But, conservative women know that sometimes it takes one to save a child’s life. Or, 50 million of them.

So, you see, Miss Steinem — Women, and their children born and unborn, need feminists like fish need bicycles.

—–

Follow Lori  on Twitter and read more of her work at Snark and Boobs, iOwntheWorld , Right Wing News and Red State.

16 Comments leave one →
  1. June 24, 2010 6:10 pm

    I don`t know where to begin responding to this post. It goes without saying that I am in complete agreement with you.You do know that the “enlightened ones” think that you and those like you only have an IQ of about 40 or less which is probably why you are too stoopid to understand the concept of ” punishment of a baby” as stated by “The One”. It has occurred to me that the women who are my contemporaries (mid- sixties) who bought into this insanity may now be wishing that they had not so as they look around and see other older women who are enjoying their children and grand children. How empty it must feel to realize that they too could have their families surrounding them if they had not been terminated years ago because of the “inconvenience” of it all. We will not even mention the coming of Judgment Day when every one will be called to account for their actions. It makes me sad to think about it. Oh well what do I know?being a stoopid conservative man.

  2. June 24, 2010 7:04 pm

    The quote by de Beauvoir is very telling. She’s got her live-in fellow Marxist boyfriend Jean-Paul Sartre, but he’s not enough, she has to go molest underage girls. Eventually she’s “victimized” by a pedophelia scandal and driven from her teaching post.

    Just another free-spirit, supposedly oppressed, supposedly dreaming wistfully of the day she’ll be allowed to live her own life as she sees fit free of the interference of others…but in reality, wanting to take charge of the world and control what everybody else is doing. It’s still going on, in fact it’s getting worse.

    Life would be much more peaceful if everyone who claimed to want to be left alone to make their personal choices in life, free of the stigma and pressures of society, really did want exactly that and nothing more.

    • July 4, 2010 12:26 pm

      What makes you all think that Simone de Beauvoir is representative of all feminists?

      I am a feminist, but I am also a capitalist who believes that it would be seriously morally wrong to have extramarital affairs or molest children. I also think that existentialist philosophy is a (more or less) complete waste of time.

      But de Beauvoir’s thesis that women have been for the most part oppressed by men throughout history is obviously true and seems false only to those who are in the grip of some fiction-based political ideology. And it is fallacious to argue against it by making personal attacks against de Beauvoir: even if she did molest her students, there may be some truth in her writings.

      There are many different kinds of feminism. You all just want to talk about the most radical kinds.

      Would you think it acceptable if I claimed that you and Ziganto, who are both conservatives, were exactly alike in your thinking and ideology? Of course not.

      What if I were to play the Glenn Beck game and make the following connections: Ziganto supports Nikki Haley, who is supported by members of the Tea Party. Members of the Tea Party invited Tom Tancredo to speak at one of their gatherings, and at that gathering Tancredo endorsed a literacy test for voters. Literacy tests for voters have been used to keep African Americans from voting and are therefore racist. Therefore, Ziganto is racist. Would that seem fair to you? No, because it is incredibly unfair.

      Ziganto herself argues that it is wrong to paint everyone in the Tea Party with one broad stroke (https://snarkandboobs.wordpress.com/2010/05/25/meghan-mccain-and-the-irony-of-the-pot-calling-kettle-black/): you can’t say that they have a single leader, or that they’re all racist. So why is it permissible to paint all feminists with one broad stroke? Why not explicitly inform your readers that not all feminists are crazy before going after the crazy ones?

      Why not play fair?

      • July 4, 2010 12:57 pm

        What if I were to play the Glenn Beck game and make the following connections: Ziganto supports Nikki Haley, who is supported by members of the Tea Party. Members of the Tea Party invited Tom Tancredo to speak at one of their gatherings, and at that gathering Tancredo endorsed a literacy test for voters. Literacy tests for voters have been used to keep African Americans from voting and are therefore racist. Therefore, Ziganto is racist. Would that seem fair to you? No, because it is incredibly unfair.

        Actually, that very shaky line of reasoning is pursued pretty often and in quite a few places. I’d be interested to see where you have so energetically spoken up to put it in check.

        Anyway, nowhere did I say Simone de Beauvoir is evidence of what modern feminists are all about; we do not need her for that. I said she was part of a trend that continues unhealthily today:

        Just another free-spirit, supposedly oppressed, supposedly dreaming wistfully of the day she’ll be allowed to live her own life as she sees fit free of the interference of others…but in reality, wanting to take charge of the world and control what everybody else is doing. It’s still going on, in fact it’s getting worse.

        We’ve got a lot of people presenting themselves as simply wanting to preserve their choices, to get hold of some morsel of freedom. And it isn’t true. They’re control freaks who want to dictate how others live. And oh by the way, it’s “incredibly unfair” for them to present themselves in any other way.

        But thanks for telling me I was presenting de Beauvoir as a piece of evidence of something I can’t prove any other way. Yes, I’m sure we all look pretty silly when someone pretends we said things we didn’t really say.

        • July 5, 2010 1:49 pm

          You’ll have to forgive me if I misunderstood you. Think about it: who else would these supposedly oppressed free spirited control freaks be in the context of a discussion about the crazy things feminists say? You don’t explicitly say that you’re talking about feminists, but doesn’t it seem cagey to deny that you are?

          So now I’m wondering who you are talking about. I agree with Louis Brandeis that one of our most precious rights is the simple right to be left alone. But these people, whoever they are, who insist on this right actually want to control everybody else. I don’t think I’m a control freak, but maybe I’m wrong about that. Who are these people? Could you please explain? Are you talking about pro-choicers, maybe? Thank you.

          • July 5, 2010 2:28 pm

            The relationship between control freaks and feminists is one of superset/subset if we’re talking about the rigid, hardcore types of feminists. If we’re talking about the broader definition of feminism, people who just want women to enjoy an equivalent level of autonomy, privilege and rights, then it is a simple overlap.

            I’d invite you to just take a random sampling of feminist protests against items of popular culture, especially television commercials. These are control-freak feminists. Really, if you just want to be left alone, you change the channel and that’s the end of it.

            Now, I’m a fellow blogger and I don’t begrudge anybody a venting now & then. That would be hypocritical. But what feminist bloggers do is leaps & bounds beyond that I’m afraid.

            Start with a typical feminist blog. Take away anything that amounts to “Hey, look at this thing over here, I really hate it, come log in to my blog and help me hate it.” You’re left with pretty much nuthin’.

            They don’t want to be left alone to do their own thing. They want to change society, to impact the lives of people they will never meet, force them to live their private lives the way the militant feminists want them to live it.

            • July 5, 2010 3:00 pm

              Thank you for your reply. I agree with some of what you’re saying.

              If I understand you, you’re saying that some feminists, namely the hardcore ones, are control freaks, but some are not.

              Some control freaks don’t bother me. I see nothing wrong with using rational means to persuade others of the rightness of one’s cause. I agree with feminists that much of popular culture is sexist and is therefore deplorable. And I think that feminists have every right to argue for change.

              What I would object to is feminists using the government to force change through censorship or regulation or what have you. I agree with you: if you don’t like what you’re seeing, change the channel. And I am opposed to changing minds through manipulation, deception, and the like.

              I do however think that government sometimes ought to force change. So, for example, I have no problem with The Civil Rights Act of 1964, or modest forms of affirmative action, for example. I need to think more about what makes such government intervention acceptable and when.

            • July 6, 2010 1:54 pm

              Here’s and interesting story on this topic:

              http://www.slate.com/id/2259434

  3. macleod permalink
    June 24, 2010 9:29 pm

    Having cared for many women with post-abortion syndrome , I can attest that it’s real, and has profound effects on the patient and on their families. I have never cared for women with a history of abortion who did not suffer regret. I once worked with a nurse practitioner who had left the abortion industry because she tired of watching women use abortion as birth control- something the abortion industry adamantly claims doesn’t happen.
    The more telling tragedy in this issue is the increased risk of breast cancer in women who have undergone abortion. The risk is increased by 30 %. The original study was from the UK and was suppressed by the Clintons when they were involved in bringing RU-486 to this country. The study was later replicated at the University of Washington, by a pro-choice researcher who confirmed the results while stating her regret about the findings in her conclusions.
    I’ve often wondered if the current catastrophic rate of breast cancer amongst well-known feminists is a result of never having given birth, never breast-feeding and/or having had an abortion.
    As for Steinem, she was at one time something of a babe. What a waste!

  4. Jasper permalink
    June 26, 2010 9:59 pm

    Lori, excellent article!

Trackbacks

  1. Fonda, Steinem, Feminists Beclown and Expose Themselves While Putting Out For Obama « Michael Pasqua Presents: MFP Reports
  2. Fonda, Steinem, Feminists Beclown and Expose Themselves While Putting Out For Obama
  3. Jane Fonda, Gloria Steinem and Feminists attempt to censor like usual. « Simon Studio Analysis
  4. Hush Rush - US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: