The inept feminist remake of Ghostbusters

In this film, by contrast, the enemy is all men, while the government ends up playing dad. Every man in the movie is a combination of malevolent and moronic. The chick ‘busters shame the mayor so much they end up getting government funding at the end. Like all feminists, they can only survive by sucking on the teat of Big Government…

The weak, Twitter-style feminist quips come off as lame, unfunny, and resentful. This is especially puzzling in light of the women in the original movies, who captured the range of tough broads one finds in New York City…

It’s an overpriced self-esteem device for women betrayed by the lies of third-wave feminism…

The spattering of negative and lukewarm reviews that are now piling up is brave for the leftist establishment media. These writers are risking being labelled sexist bigots, a fate worse for a liberal than running out of quinoa and humous while your vegan boyfriend is staying over…

Just consider the feminist uproar directed at James Rolfe for the crime of announcing he wouldn’t see or review the movie. Rolfe was called a bigot without even doing a negative review. Feminists have invented like an innovative form of feminist pre-crime.

Quote source

Yiannopoulos, M. (2016). Teenage Boys With Tits: Here’s My Problem With Ghostbusters. Breitbart. Available http://www.breitbart.com/tech/2016/07/18/milo-reviews-ghostbusters/. Last accessed 11th Nov 2016.

Advertisements

Shedding the skin of feminist indoctrination

Christina Hoff Sommers gave this encouraging report:

Last week I attended a debate at American University [AU] between dissident feminist Camille Paglia and AU gender scholar Jane Flax. The topic: “Gender Roles: Nature or Nurture?”

Flax gave a polite and respectable defense of an exhausted idea: “gender is a social construction.” But Paglia stole the show. She deftly reminded the audience that Mother Nature tends to get the final word—and is not a feminist.

I watched the faces of astonished and fascinated undergraduates as Paglia shattered the sacred icons of contemporary gender studies. By the end of the evening, even three sullen hipsters sitting next to me seemed to be won over.

Quote source

Sommers, C.H. (2013). Comet Camille Paglia comes to AU and talks gender. American Enterprise Institute. Available https://www.aei.org/publication/comet-camille-paglia-comes-to-au-and-talks-gender/. Last accessed 8th Aug 2015.

Reducing “he or she” rhetoric to absurdity

A reader sent me the following quotation from Peter Kreeft’s Socratic Logic, 3rd ed., p. 36, n. 1:

“The use of the traditional inclusive generic pronoun “he” is a decision of language, not of gender justice.

Changing “he” to “he or she” refutes itself in such comically clumsy and ugly revisions as the following:

“What does it profit a man or woman if he or she gains the whole world but loses his or her own soul? Or what shall a man or woman give in exchange for his or her soul?”

The answer is: he or she will give up his or her linguistic sanity.”

Quote source

Kreeft, P. cited in Vallicella, B. (2015). Peter Kreeft on the Gender-Neutral Use of ‘He’. Maverick Philosopher. Available http://maverickphilosopher.typepad.com/maverick_philosopher/2015/05/peter-kreeft-on-the-gender-neutral-use-of-he.html. Last accessed 20th Jun 2015.

Jennie Chancey trumps the ‘unpaid domestic labour’ trope

God has given us [women] a great gift in calling us to the home. Our role is not inferior because it is “unpaid.” Our role is not of lesser importance because it isn’t out in the public sphere. When God created mankind “male and female,” He showed us that it takes both “halves” to make up the whole of humanity. That our roles differ is a cause for rejoicing and glory — not a cause for shame or depression. When both roles complement each other beautifully, we demonstrate to the world a picture of God’s divine image that is breathtaking to behold.

Quote source

Chancey, J. (2003). Jennie Chancey Responds to Titus 2 Cynics. Vision Forum Ministries. Available http://www.visionforumministries.org/sections/hotcon/ht/family/wordofgod.asp. Last accessed 7th Sep 2013.

Feminist manipulation of non-feminist women

Feminism is pro-woman, unless you are a woman who isn’t a feminist. Then you are a woman marginalized and demeaned by a throng of “pro-woman” feminists…

Instead of thinking deeply about their sisters’ hesitations and frustrations, feminists belittled all women who disagree with their worldview. To do this, feminists have dismissed non-feminist women as either (1) indoctrinated and brainwashed into upholding their convictions; (2) weak submissive types who turn a blind eye to another woman’s abuse; or (3) incapable of grasping the complexities of the feminist paradigm.

Perhaps these ladies should reconsider how their harsh accusations and verbal attacks are counterproductive to empowering women.

Quote source

Vicari, C. (2014) Women Against…Women? Juicy Ecumenism. Available http://juicyecumenism.com/2014/07/22/women-against-women/. Last accessed 11th Jan 2015.

Feminist is an dirty word? Good!

Back in 1913, English author Rebecca West said “…people call me a feminist whenever I express sentiments that differentiate me from a door mat or a prostitute.” Almost 100 years have passed since this quote and yet, despite some big developments, the label “feminist” is still a dirty word – an insult even. So shameful are the connotations associated with feminism that young women commonly issue a disclaimer prior to stating an opinion on equality: “I’m not a feminist, but…”

Quote source

Chateauy (2012). I’m Not a Feminist, but…. chateau y: a Gen Y Perspective on Everything . Available http://chateauy.wordpress.com/2012/05/01/im-not-a-feminist-but/. Last accessed 18th Oct 2014.

Feminists fumble the ball on ‘equality’

In the last couple of days I’ve been told a thousand times by a thousand different folks that feminism is simply “the belief that men and women are equal.” Then these same people will kindly inform me that I am a feminist, whether I think so or not. Wow, thanks everyone. Why should I worry about defining myself when I’ve got the internet to do that for me? Of course, this definition of feminism is woefully shallow and purposefully misleading. It simply isn’t honest to pretend that feminism hasn’t inexorably linked itself with slightly less palatable sentiments, like the one that says unborn babies aren’t people, or that stay at home moms aren’t “real women.”…

But, for the sake of argument, I’ll pretend that feminism’s only legacy is bringing about, or striving for, “equality” between men and women. Even in this fantasyland, I still can’t jump on the Feminist Bandwagon. Men and women are NOT equal, at least not in the practical sense of the word. Yes, men and women are “equal” in intrinsic worth; they have immortal souls and are endowed by God with a dignity and value that can not be diminished or reduced. This is the only sort of “equality” that can ever exist between people, or between genders, and it is the only sort of “equality” that really matters. Because we are all “equal” in the spiritual sense, we should all treat each other with love and respect. I don’t need feminism to tell me this, Christianity has been teaching it for two thousand years. I can’t stand these modernist movements that come along, borrow a little slice of Christian philosophy, uproot it from its foundation, and then claim to be the source of the teaching. Sorry, you can’t monopolize an idea that’s been around for 20 centuries.

Quote source

Walsh, M. (2013). Men and Women are not Equal. The Matt Walsh Blog. Available http://themattwalshblog.com/2013/09/02/men-and-women-are-not-equal/. Last accessed 13 Sep 2014.