Sunday, May 03, 2009

SUPREME WOMEN

It is reported that Justice Souter of the US Supreme Court is preparing to step down.

In his place a number of names are being proposed. Many of them are females.

I’d like to take this opportunity to say something.

A female on the Supreme Court is a fine idea, as is a female President or Congress-type, or State governor or legislator.

But a ‘woman’ … that requires some special caution nowadays.

Because Identity Politics – especially its primary, gender-based variant – insists that members of that Identity, that gender, must demonstrate an allegiance that transcends all other allegiances. The female individual who attains a public office must be ‘our’ female, a ‘woman’, and not just an individual with great responsibilities and (presumably) great competence.

Such a female individual would have to be a ‘woman’, and keep a hawk eye out for ‘women’s interests’, above all else.

That’s bad enough – Identity Politics has always held within itself the danger and threat of a ‘higher’ allegiance … ‘higher’ than that to the American common weal or even to the Constitution.*

But worse is that the cards are not so clearly marked that We would be able to recognize quickly and clearly the stakes of the game. Indeed, just the opposite is the case. And purposely so.
‘Feminism’ is a word with a false bottom: the type of thing that customs officers used to look for. It appears to be a simple vessel for carrying the quantity known as ‘women’s rights’. Which used to be understood as the desire for women to have the same opportunities before the law as ‘men’ had. Which was a struggle that most citizens would imagine had been won quite some time ago. It had been known as ‘equality feminism’.

But there is, hiding behind that, a rather completely different feminism: ‘gender feminism’. This is a ‘feminism’ that believes, roughly, that a) men as a class are violent and all men as a 'class' are guilty for each 'man'; b) that there is an omnipotent but insidiously subtle secret ancient order, ‘patriarchy’, that mysteriously deprived ‘women’ of their rightful place in the order of the world; c) that therefore a state of ‘war’ exists against the gender and world of ‘men’ and its patriarchal order; d) that in the prosecution of that war to its victorious conclusion, which will include a rather total transformation of humanity and the subjection of the aforesaid ‘men’, it is righteous to do whatever it takes to win and traitorous to one’s sistern to do less; e) that the foundational assertions of this entire world-view are so obvious that it is traitorous to the aforementioned sistern to question it, and that thus one either ‘gets it’ in a gut feeling or one ‘just doesn’t get it’; f) that equality before the law and the possession of equality of opportunity and other such ‘democratic’ privileges are insufficient to the purposes of genuine victory; g) that the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, deliberative and democratic politics all being tainted by their creation under the auspices of the aforesaid ‘patriarchy’, are actually instruments of ‘oppression’ and are to be ignored and done away with; and h) that the best method for achieving this, as outlined by the philosopher John Rawls, is for women or their male-feminist collaborators to sidestep democratic politics and work through the legal profession and the courts to impose this ‘elite’ ‘vision’ upon the unenlightened masses, including – if need be – such females as also ‘just don’t get it’ and who still think that heterosexual love, marriage, commitment, Constitutional democracy, and (the horror!) ‘men’ are somehow worthwhile.

The list is often, for tactical purposes of political alliance and appearance, enhanced by i) the definition of ‘men’ as a gender to be understood only as ‘white males’ so as to maintain for the present some sense of alliance with other ‘oppressed minorities’.

I kid you not.

True to Gobbelsian form, objections to the foregoing list will be made to the effect that the ‘gender feminists’ are only a ‘radical fringe’ and that all of it is ‘old news’ and that the only significant conclusion to be drawn from my list is my ‘motivation’ in even raising the issue. No student of the Third Reich’s propaganda techniques or Leninist and Stalinist ideological praxis will be surprised in the least.

My concern, as always, is that such a set of beliefs would rather significantly compromise anybody who would presume to take the Oath of Office as a legislator or judge.

And even if one did not subscribe to such a profoundly anti-Constitutional agenda, the pressures exerted upon a jurist as a ‘woman’ by the gender-feminists would be very strong.

Nor would those pressures necessarily be only in the service of getting even more law passed or validated, or more Constitutional ‘obstructions’ removed through ‘reform’. The vast amount of damage done in the decade of the 1990s under cover of assorted ‘Title’ entitlements in Federal law, through the deforming consequences of significant chunks of domestic violence law and the now out-of-control sex-offense laws … all that damage, already done, will need to be preserved for the sake of the gender-feminist ‘war’ and ‘revolution’.

In fact, the whole shebang was erected into a Plan in the law schools: ‘critical legal theory’. This shining wisdom insists that there is no Law, only ‘laws’, which are made by oppressors for the purpose of oppressing the oppressed, and should therefore be simply used as weapons by those who ‘get it’ against the established oppressors. Kind of Leninist, really.

Except for the charming American bit: the legal ‘scholars’ who thought it up didn’t look outside the window to see that, in the real world, Leninism wasn’t doing so well. And the less charming bit: that Leninist legal theory probably wouldn’t be compatible with – ummmmm – the Constitution and such. But no matter: the war-feminists of gender-feminism were planning to do away with all that patriarchal democracy and Constitution crap anyway.

So it’s not hard to see why since any effort to correct such an egregious and noxious course will now expose large numbers of ‘loyal’ collaborators and agents of the ‘war’ to the searching light of truth and justice – and who, really, especially among the Beltway ‘elites’, wants to be on the receiving end of that bright beam? There’s plenty of reason why gender-feminism saw fit to hide itself carefully under the cover of its more decent sibling, equality-feminism.

For decades now the Democratic Party has quietly sustained its commitment to truckling to gender-feminism’s every demand, in the fatuous hope that thereby the magic 51% ‘women’s vote’ might be reliably guaranteed. **And in so doing, has also found it convenient to join the gender-feminists themselves in hiding their agenda beneath the more respectable and Constitutionally-friendly efforts of equality-feminism.

Nor have the mainstream media – equally anxious to pander to that ignis fatuus, the 51% of American consumers that ‘women’ supposedly constitute – found it convenient to maintain any commitment to accuracy and truth in their coverage of the whole game, hiding the whole 'war' under the plain, old term 'feminism'. It's a shrewd tactic: it forces folks to either be 'against' feminism' or to 'support' the war of the gender-feminists. And that makes it look like there are a lot more 'supporters' of this nasty thing than there really are.

So I have no problem with a female on the Supreme Court. But if she is an agent of, or collaborator with, the aforementioned ‘gender feminist’ agenda, or if she is so beholden to her Democratic sponsors that she dare not risk disturbing their (failing) calculations, then We should beware.

Nor is this a sexist comment. Males who have built their success over the past decades upon a collusion with the gender-feminist (again, as distinct from equality-feminist) agenda, are Constitution-hostile with an equal probability.

Make a little sticky for your refrigerator door (or a tee-shirt, if you’re up to it): Good patriots kick tire.

Go thou and do likewise.

NOTE

*I have just finished reading Christina Hoff Sommers’s “Who Stole Feminism?”, written in the years prior to its publication in 1994 (which shows just how far behind in one’s reading one can get). Carefully and meticulously supported with quotations and references, Sommers’s work is actually more stunning now, some 15 years later, as We look back on the truly disturbing decade-and-a-half from the vantage point of Our Constitutionally-challenged present-day situation. I’ll be doing a Post within a couple of days.

**How can it be, really, if the gender-feminist assertion is true that women have been for centuries or millennia under unremitting assault by naturally violent and destructive males, and especially white males, that there are still enough of them around to constitute a majority of the population?

Labels: , , ,

0 Comments:

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home