Fuzzy Rant: Why Leftists–Especially “Feminists”–Hate Stay-At-Home-Moms

The blatant anti-woman, anti-mom attack on Ann Romney by WH propagandist Hilary Rosen is par for the femisogynist course. Starting back in . . . oh, who the hell knows, but it was decades ago . . . “feminists” started attacking “traditional gender roles,” demanding that women be “free” to . . . well, to fit their mold as pseudo-men (being a stay-at-home-mom was right up there with being a “bitter clinger”).  Anyone not adhering to this new policy of “women have to be men to succeed” was to be ridiculed and shunned.

Crystal Wright over at TownHall has a good analysis of this:

In an attempt to explain why a generation of women born in the 1960s and 1970s are finding themselves living lives of solitude, a male friend emailed me All the Single Ladies, thinking I’d buy into the writer’s load of crap. The 39 year old single woman spends an endless amount of ink trying to convince herself and single women everywhere they are happy living empowered lives of solitude, which couldn’t be further from the truth.

This article is depressing and full of denial. Thanks to the 1960s Feminist movement which spawned theory of patriarchy, hatred of all things male, and re-engineered traditional gender roles, American culture from academia to business world led women could be all things to themselves: provider, wonder woman, and in some cases mothers without men in their lives. While some women may genuinely want to live alone, I believe most women, including the author, don’t want to live in solitude or be independent women.

Unfortunately, this post sexual feminist revolution compelled women to enter the work force with this mindset they should not only compete with men but act like them, out earn them and convince themselves they don’t need them. The grand result of this revolution waged by the likes of Gloria Steinem, Kate Millet, Chris Weedon, Bell Hooks and other horrid, male hating women is a generation of barren, single women because the gender roles have been thrown into chaos. Since 1976, the percentage of women in their early 40s who have not given birth has nearly doubled and marriage is on the decline. As Atlantic Kate Bolick wrote “Gloria Steinem said, in the 1970s, “We’re becoming the men we wanted to marry.” I doubt even she realized the prescience of her words.

Unfortunately, Wright goes a bit off topic talking about “Peter Pan” men and . . . well, who knows? It’s nuts. But her points about the teaching of “feminism” (actually femisogyny) in higher education are reflective of my own experience (except I was the on the wrong side, much to my own chagrin):

During my senior year of college at Georgetown University, I was forced to take a feminist criticism seminar as part of my Honors English major and hated it. I and other women in the class couldn’t understand why we were required to re-evaluate the great works of DH Lawrence, Shakespeare, Bernard Shaw and others as male demons who exploited women. Of course this couldn’t be further from the truth books like Madame Bovary and plays like Romeo& Juliet gave women a voice reflective of the times in which they lived.

You can’t deconstruct these great literature and impose a twisted patriarchal narrative upon them, sorry women aren’t stupid. We also had to read lots of lesbian feminist theory for the seminar, which was even more hateful of men but curiously weren’t assigned any theory written by women who denounced this feminist jihad on the arts and every other aspect of life.

What she writes is true, from whatever side (student or professor/lecturer/et al.).  I’d teach this craziness, even though I had my own doubts about it, and smile at students who challenged me.  Happily.  I wanted the rigor of independent thinking, the challenging of pat (too pat) ideas and ideology.  I wanted my students to think for themselves.  (My university, however, was not happy about this.  But that’s a blog post for another day.)

Universities, those in the top tiers anyway, discourage free thought. Actually, they discourage any thought.  Well, that’s not completely true, they encouraged fantasy and weirdness.  For example, early on, “feminists” loathed Ernest Hemingway.  Loathed him.  They “found” all sorts of white, male, patriarchal “evidence” (of some anti-woman “code”) in everything he wrote (this was made possible by the nuts who took the “isms,” married them with “deconstruction,” and smashed all that into a “post-structural” theory omelet to “prove” . . . oh who the hell knows what . . . it’s all Marxist crap at root, but they like to add layers in the absence of actual critical thinking).  But Hemingway scholars were loathe to buy into this, careers at risk and all, so they made him not the macho, He-Man hunter- fisherman, they made him the effeminate, gender-bending “androgynist” (this crap permeated Hemingway studies for a decade, but it made him acceptable to contemporary literary theory) .  Yep, Earnest was a great big gay who wished he was a woman.  Uh-huh. That’s how they teach him now. Not his literary merit (huge) or his skill with narrative (also huge), but as a great big woman, who didn’t get the free “health care” he needed to be the woman he always wanted to be.  Crazy?  Sure.  Who cares if he’s gay, straight, or whatever?  Oh, right, leftists bent on division.  Got it.

So, if your favorite fascist-supporting white male writer is “un,” how do you make him viable? Oh, I know! Make him gay.  Ish.  But this is typical leftist crap.  “Feminists” champion women’s rights . . . unless that right is to be a stay-at-home-mom or any other role that fits their “traditional gender role” tripe.  Oh, and it’s tripe.  When “feminists” aren’t trumpeting the rights of women to . . . well, never marry, have countless abortions, and receive “free” birth control, they simply ignore any and every abuse of women around the world.

Being a stay-at-home-mom is laughable, a joke, something to be diminished and admonished.  But actual feminists (not the post-70’s crop of femisogynists) didn’t believe that; they supported women who chose to stay at home; they supported women who wanted to be women (oh, yes, according to those dated, oppressive, white, male-dominated “socio-cultural” norms); they never sought . . . hatred for women.  But that’s what the leftists today are all about.  Hating women who don’t fit their mold (those obsolete, male-dominated molds are so oppressive), and trying to force them into that mold, oblivious–as always–to their own totalitarian oppression.

I’m sick of it.  Sick. Of. It.

When Scott Brown was running for Senate (for Ted Kennedy’s, aka “The People’s Seat”), I saw again–and this is not at all unusual among “feminists”–the same wrong-headed craziness, lack of logic/critical thinking skills, and plain old-fashioned bullying.  Some group, whose founder I actually like (she’s nuts, but in a way that you can respect), said that “we” needed to vote for Croakley because . . . she’s female. Seriously.  Of course, as I pointed out to them, this vaginal consideration did not extend to Sarah. Or any other conservative.  Just liberal women have acceptable vaginas, apparently.

To femisogynists I say, screw you.  We have your number; you don’t give a crap about women, never have, never will. You diminish and disparage women who don’t fit your mold, whom you believe to be . . . what? Gender traitors? You’re laughable and shallow and useless.  But then, vesting your entire existence on an anti-intellectual “treatise” would lead to embarrassing failure.  Try reading something not grounded in Marx.  Really, try it–that’s quite the challenge at any college or university.


15 thoughts on “Fuzzy Rant: Why Leftists–Especially “Feminists”–Hate Stay-At-Home-Moms

  1. Yes! Because, if memory serves, the whole point of feminism was to be able to choose whether you stayed at home or went out to work. But, as with just about everything, Marxists hijacked the movement in order to brainwash and divide us. This is why I have never had any use for feminism. I don’t think of myself as a victim if male oppression.

    • That victim mentality is key to leftists’ success, and it is, at its core, anti- and unAmerican. Americans aren’t victims. We aren’t dependent losers who blame everyone else for our failures and expect everyone else to support us. Somehow, though, our culture and society (and politics) have changed to such a degree that too many believe that someone else (some group hated and reviled by leftists) “owe” them something, everything. Andrew Breitbart was righter than right, we are in a culture war and didn’t even truly know it until it was almost too late.

  2. Sing it, sister!
    I love how you throw it all back in their faces.
    That attack on Ann Romney was typical of liberal. If you don’t agree with them you’re not (fill in the blank). Black conservatives are not “real” blacks. Women who are not liberal are not “real” women.
    That vinegar-laced Obamabot harpy stripped Ann Romney of her womanhood. Imagine if a conservative man had done something similar to a liberal women. Imagine if we said those man-hating women who stay single were “less of a woman” because they were not mothers. Not only would it be wrong, it would bring down a cascade of indignant condemnation.

    I love it when others call them on it. Excellent post!

    • Thanks, Silverfiddle. What’s truly frustrating is that the femisogynists claim to be speaking for women who’ve been “silenced” and “othered,” but all they do is silence and “other” the majority of women in America (conservatives make up what? 40% of the population?). The hypocrisy and blatant flaws in their ideology are mind-boggling.

  3. You forgot to mention how they must have their cake and eat it too. They are empowered to do anything that they want, they are just like men. But when legislation isn’t passed to give them special privileges there is a republican war on women.

  4. I look at those two woman (Ann Romney and Hilary Rosen) and I realize what this is all about. It’s another UGLY liberal woman jealous of another BEAUTIFUL conservative woman!

    • Envy and greed are certainly at the root of most leftist “thought.” Someone has something I don’t, and I want it. GIMME!!! And if you don’t YOU are the one who is wrong and greedy. It’s so insane on its face that you wonder how anyone buys into it at all.

  5. Hi Fuzzy! Nice digs here. I notice that the feminazis didn’t bother much with Laura Bush. I believe that Ann Romney’s good looks, like those of Sarah Palin, put her as a higher value target for these envious losers.

  6. Hi Fuzzy, Nice digs here! I think that part of the virulent hate you here is because of Ann Romney’s good looks. Sarah Palin receives similar attention. There are other conservative women who do not draw the same level of hate. These leftists are envious of those who have more than them. Be it money or good looks. So much worse if the target has BOTH.

    • Yay! Thanks, my friend. 😀

      It’s deeper than envy, Opus, but I do think that plays a role. The more fanatical femisogynists are completely oblivious to their own misogyny; they really do think that parading around demanding free and frequent abortions constitutes “working for women’s rights.” If you point out that they totally ignore the horrors of honor killing (including here in the U.S.) they shrug like “that’s not my problem.” Or when you point out that girls and women are being forced into sex slavery (again, including here in the U.S.) they sort of get that glazed over look and mumer that it’s “awful,” and then go back to whining about how stay-at-home moms, if they’re conservative (as I’d wager most are), are the true problem in the world, dragging women back to the “dark ages.” They’re absurd and laughable.

What say you?

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