Mamas Don’t Let Your Babies Grow Up to Be Radical Liberal Feminists

I write a lot about radical liberal feminists and while I tend to poke fun at the ludicrousness of their ideology – because it is so incredibly irrational, illogical and absurd – the truth is I am concerned. I am concerned because the agenda of this amazonian cult of crazies is a dangerous call to extinguish the very fabric of human civilization: the sanctity of life, marriage, motherhood, fatherhood and the institution of the family. The following column, by Mallory Millett, affirms my concerns.

Mallory Millett is the sister of Kate Millett, who wrote Sexual Politics, the bitterly anti-male feminist manifesto that helped to ignite the second wave of the women’s movement. Mallory provides a first-hand account of Kate and the other militant marxist feminists responsible for launching the women’s liberation movement and founding the National Organization of Women (NOW). She exposes radical liberal feminism for what it is: a chilling, deranged and insidious brand of marxist dogma designed to destroy Western society by waging war on our sons and poisoning the minds of our daughters.

The article is long, but I hope you will read it. I hope you will share it and I pray you will remember it when you vote. One last thing. Mama’s, don’t let your babies grow up to be radical liberal feminists.

Marxist Feminism’s Ruined Lives

Posted By Mallory Millett On September 2, 2014 @ 12:30 am in FrontPage Magazine

“When women go wrong men go right after them.” – Mae West

feminists“Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy; its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery.” Winston Churchill wrote this over a century ago.

During my junior year in high school, the nuns asked about our plans for after we graduated. When I said I was going to attend State University, I noticed their disappointment. I asked my favorite nun, “Why?” She answered, “That means you’ll leave four years later a communist and an atheist!”

What a giggle we girls had over that. “How ridiculously unsophisticated these nuns are,” we thought. Then I went to the university and four years later walked out a communist and an atheist, just as my sister Katie had six years before me.

Sometime later, I was a young divorcee with a small child. At the urging of my sister, I relocated to NYC after spending years married to an American executive stationed in Southeast Asia. The marriage over, I was making a new life for my daughter and me. Katie said, “Come to New York. We’re making revolution! Some of us are starting the National Organization of Women and you can be part of it.”

I hadn’t seen her for years. Although she had tormented me when we were youngsters, those memories were faint after my Asian traumas and the break-up of my marriage. I foolishly mistook her for sanctuary in a storm. With so much time and distance between us, I had forgotten her emotional instability.

And so began my period as an unwitting witness to history. I stayed with Kate and her lovable Japanese husband, Fumio, in a dilapidated loft on The Bowery as she finished her first book, a PhD thesis for Columbia University, “Sexual Politics.”

It was 1969. Kate invited me to join her for a gathering at the home of her friend, Lila Karp. They called the assemblage a “consciousness-raising-group,” a typical communist exercise, something practiced in Maoist China. We gathered at a large table as the chairperson opened the meeting with a back-and-forth recitation, like a Litany, a type of prayer done in Catholic Church. But now it was Marxism, the Church of the Left, mimicking religious practice:

“Why are we here today?” she asked.

“To make revolution,” they answered.

“What kind of revolution?” she replied.

“The Cultural Revolution,” they chanted.

“And how do we make Cultural Revolution?” she demanded.

“By destroying the American family!” they answered.

“How do we destroy the family?” she came back.

“By destroying the American Patriarch,” they cried exuberantly.

“And how do we destroy the American Patriarch?” she replied.

“By taking away his power!”

“How do we do that?”

“By destroying monogamy!” they shouted.

“How can we destroy monogamy?”

Their answer left me dumbstruck, breathless, disbelieving my ears. Was I on planet earth? Who were these people?

“By promoting promiscuity, eroticism, prostitution and homosexuality!” they resounded.

They proceeded with a long discussion on how to advance these goals by establishing The National Organization of Women. It was clear they desired nothing less than the utter deconstruction of Western society. The upshot was that the only way to do this was “to invade every American institution. Every one must be permeated with ‘The Revolution’”: The media, the educational system, universities, high schools, K-12, school boards, etc.; then, the judiciary, the legislatures, the executive branches and even the library system.

It fell on my ears as a ludicrous scheme, as if they were a band of highly imaginative children planning a Brinks robbery; a lark trumped up on a snowy night amongst a group of spoiled brats over booze and hashish.

To me, this sounded silly. I was enduring culture shock after having been cut-off from my homeland, living in Third-World countries for years with not one trip back to the United States. I was one of those people who, upon returning to American soil, fell out of the plane blubbering with ecstasy at being home in the USA. I knelt on the ground covering it with kisses. I had learned just exactly how delicious was the land of my birth and didn’t care what anyone thought because they just hadn’t seen what I had or been where I had been. I had seen factory workers and sex-slaves chained to walls.

How could they know? Asia is beyond our ken and, as they say, utterly inscrutable, and a kind of hell I never intended to revisit. I lived there, not junketed, not visited like sweet little tourists — I’d conducted households and tried to raise a child. I had outgrown the communism of my university days and was clumsily groping my way back to God.

How could twelve American women who were the most respectable types imaginable — clean and privileged graduates of esteemed institutions: Columbia, Radcliffe, Smith, Wellesley, Vassar; the uncle of one was Secretary of War under Franklin Roosevelt — plot such a thing? Most had advanced degrees and appeared cogent, bright, reasonable and good. How did these people rationally believe they could succeed with such vicious grandiosity? And why?

I dismissed it as academic-lounge air-castle-building. I continued with my new life in New York while my sister became famous publishing her books, featured on the cover of “Time Magazine.” “Time” called her “the Karl Marx of the Women’s Movement.” This was because her book laid out a course in Marxism 101 for women. Her thesis: The family is a den of slavery with the man as the Bourgeoisie and the woman and children as the Proletariat. The only hope for women’s “liberation” (communism’s favorite word for leading minions into inextricable slavery; “liberation,” and much like “collective” – please run from it, run for your life) was this new “Women’s Movement.” Her books captivated the academic classes and soon “Women’s Studies” courses were installed in colleges in a steady wave across the nation with Kate Millett books as required reading.

Imagine this: a girl of seventeen or eighteen at the kitchen table with Mom studying the syllabus for her first year of college and there’s a class called “Women’s Studies.” “Hmmm, this could be interesting,” says Mom. “Maybe you could get something out of this.”

Seems innocuous to her. How could she suspect this is a class in which her innocent daughter will be taught that her father is a villain? Her mother is a fool who allowed a man to enslave her into barbaric practices like monogamy and family life and motherhood, which is a waste of her talents.

She mustn’t follow in her mother’s footsteps. That would be submitting to life as a mindless drone for some domineering man, the oppressor, who has mesmerized her with tricks like romantic love.

Never be lured into this chicanery, she will be taught. Although men are no damned good, she should use them for her own orgasmic gratification; sleep with as many men as possible in order to keep herself unattached and free. There’s hardly a seventeen-year-old girl without a grudge from high school against a Jimmy or Jason who broke her heart. Boys are learning, too, and they can be careless during high school, that torment of courting dances for both sexes.

By the time Women’s Studies professors finish with your daughter, she will be a shell of the innocent girl you knew, who’s soon convinced that although she should be flopping down with every boy she fancies, she should not, by any means, get pregnant. And so, as a practitioner of promiscuity, she becomes a wizard of prevention techniques, especially abortion.

The goal of Women’s Liberation is to wear each female down to losing all empathy for boys, men or babies. The tenderest aspects of her soul are roughened into a rock pile of cynicism, where she will think nothing of murdering her baby in the warm protective nest of her little-girl womb. She will be taught that she, in order to free herself, must become an outlaw. This is only reasonable because all Western law, since Magna Carta and even before, is a concoction of the evil white man whose true purpose is to press her into slavery.

Be an outlaw! Rebel! Be defiant! (Think Madonna, Lady Gaga, Lois Lerner, Elizabeth Warren.) “All women are prostitutes,” she will be told. You’re either really smart and use sex by being promiscuous for your own pleasures and development as a full free human being “just like men” or you can be a professional prostitute, a viable business for women, which is “empowering” or you can be duped like your mother and prostitute yourself to one man exclusively whereby you fall under the heavy thumb of “the oppressor.” All wives are just “one-man whores.”

She is to be heartless in this. No sentimental stuff about courting. No empathy for either boy or baby. She has a life to live and no one is to get in her way. And if the boy or man doesn’t “get it” then no sex for him; “making love” becomes “having sex.” “I’m not ‘having sex’ with any jerk who doesn’t believe I can kill his son or daughter at my whim. He has no say in it because it’s my body!” (Strange logic as who has ever heard of a body with two heads, two hearts, four arms, four feet?)

There’s no end to the absurdities your young girl will be convinced to swallow. “I plan to leap from guy to guy as much as I please and no one can stop me because I’m liberated!” In other words, these people will turn your daughter into a slut with my sister’s books as instruction manuals. (“Slut is a good word. Be proud of it!”) She’ll be telling you, “I’m probably never getting married and if I do it will be after I’ve established my career,” which nowadays often means never. “I’ll keep my own name and I don’t really want kids. They’re such a bother and only get in the way.” They’ll tell her, “Don’t let any guy degrade you by allowing him to open doors for you. To be called ‘a lady’ is an insult. Chivalry is a means of ownership.”

Thus, the females, who are fundamentally the arbiters of society go on to harden their young men with such pillow-talk in the same way they’ve been hardened because, “Wow, man, I’ve gotta get laid and she won’t do it if I don’t agree to let her kill the kid if she gets knocked-up!” Oppressed? Woman has always had power. Consider the eternal paradigm: only after Eve convinced Adam to eat the fruit did mankind fall. I.e., man does anything to make woman happy, even if it’s in defiance of God. There’s power for ya! Without a decent womankind, mankind is lost. As Mae West said, “When women go wrong men go right after them!”

I’ve known women who fell for this creed in their youth who now, in their fifties and sixties, cry themselves to sleep decades of countless nights grieving for the children they’ll never have and the ones they coldly murdered because they were protecting the empty loveless futures they now live with no way of going back. “Where are my children? Where are my grandchildren?” they cry to me. “Your sister’s books destroyed my sister’s life!” I’ve heard numerous times. “She was happily married with four kids and after she read those books, walked out on a bewildered man and didn’t look back.” The man fell into despairing rack and ruin. The children were stunted, set off their tracks, deeply harmed; the family profoundly dislocated and there was “no putting Humpty-Dumpty together again.”

Throughout the same time these women were “invading” our institutions, the character of the American woman transformed drastically from models portrayed for us by Rosalind Russell, Bette Davis, Deborah Kerr, Eve Arden, Donna Reed, Barbara Stanwyck, Claudette Colbert, Irene Dunn, Greer Garson. These were outstanding women needing no empowerment lessons and whose own personalities, as well as the characters they interpreted, were strong, resilient and clearly carved. Their voices were so different you could pick them out by that alone. We all knew Rita Hayworth’s voice. We all knew Katherine Hepburn’s voice.

I dare you to identify the voices of the cookie-cutter post-women’s-liberation types from Hollywood today. How did these “liberated” women fall into such an indistinguishable pile of mush? They all look exactly the same with few individuating characteristics and their voices sound identical, these Julies and Jessicas! My friend, Father George Rutler, calls them “the chirping fledglings of the new Dark Ages.” The character of the American woman has been distorted by this pernicious movement. From where did this foul mouthed, tattooed, outlaw creature, who murders her baby without blinking an eye and goes partying without conscience or remorse come? And, in such a short little phase in history?

Never before have we heard of so many women murdering their children: Casey Anthony killing her little Caylee and partying-hearty for weeks; Susan Smith driving her beautiful little boys into a lake, leaving them strapped in the water to die torturous deaths; that woman who drowned her five children in the bathtub? “Hey, if I can kill my baby at six months of gestation why not six months post-birth, just call it late late-term abortion.”

I insist that woman always has been the arbiter of society and when those women at Lila Karp’s table in Greenwich Village set their minds to destroying the American Family by talking young women into being outlaws, perpetrators of infanticide, and haters of Western law, men and marriage, they accomplished just what they intended. Their desire — and I witnessed it at subsequent meetings till I got pretty sick of their unbridled hate — was to tear American society apart along with the family and the “Patriarchal Slave-Master,” the American husband.

We’re all so busy congratulating each other because Ronald Reagan “won the Cold War without firing a shot” entirely missing the bare truth which is that Mao, with his Little Red Book and the Soviets, won the Cold War without firing a shot by taking over our women, our young and the minds of everyone tutored by Noam Chomsky and the textbooks of Howard Zinn. Post-graduate Junior is Peter Pan trapped in the Never Neverland of Mom’s (she’s divorced now) basement. Christina Hoff Sommers says, “Moms and dads, be afraid for your sons. There’s a ‘war on men’ that started a long time ago in gender studies classes and in women’s advocacy groups eager to believe that men are toxic… Many ‘educated women’ in the U.S. have drunk from the gender feminist Kool Aid. Girls at Yale, Haverford and Swarthmore see themselves as oppressed. This is madness.”

If you see something traitorous in this, a betrayal of my sister, I have come to identify with such people as Svetlana Stalin or Juanita Castro; coming out to speak plainly about a particularly harmful member of my family. Loyalty can be highly destructive. What about Muslims who refuse to speak out right now? I was one of the silent but at last I’m “spilling the beans.” The girls have been up to something for years and it’s really not good. It’s evil. We should be sick to our souls over it. I know I am. And so, mass destruction, the inevitable outcome of all socialist/communist experiments, leaves behind its signature trail of wreckage.

So much grace, femininity and beauty lost.

So many ruined lives.

Mallory Millett resides in New York City with her husband of over twenty years. CFO for several corporations, she is a long-standing member of The David Horowitz Freedom Center and sits on the Board of Regents for the Center for Security Policy.

Copyright © 2009 FrontPage Magazine. All rights reserved.

Advertisements

The Definition of a Radical Feminist

I am a wordsmith (TRANSLATION: nerd). I am fascinated by definitions, etymologies, pronunciations and most especially by the ways in which human history and culture influences language. Though your English teacher would have you think otherwise, language is fluid. Grammar rules change (just ask any journalist and editor about the rule governing usage of the serial comma and you’ll see what I mean), spellings change, definitions evolve and each year brand spanking-new words are born. In fact, over 900 new words and phrases have been added to the Oxford English Dictionary this year. Those words include beatboxerbestieDIYerdead white male, and wackadoodle to name a few, but womyn is not one of them. Believe me, I checked.

The first time I encountered the word woman spelled W-O-M-Y-N was a few months ago. I was trolling online news services and there it was, peppered throughout a diatribe left by some radical feminist in the comment section of an article which, oddly enough, had nothing to do with the alleged “war on women” or “reproductive rights” or “male privilege” or anything even remotely misogynistic. I think it was about beets or turnips or possibly cucumbers. Anyway, I thought womyn was a typo, so in typical red-pen-wielding fashion, I responded with a snarky, “Perhaps you ought to proofread before you hit enter LOL…  #W-O-M-A-N.” I knew it was wrong, but I simply could not control the impulse and boy oh boy, did I get schooled for it.

About a nanosecond later, the same radical feminist replied to my reply to her initial anti-male rage-filled comment. It went something like this: Shut the f**k up you misogynistic pig. You can’t seem to grasp that not EVERYTHING is about YOU and your filthy penis. It’s not a f**king typo. It’s an alternate spelling, you f**king chauvinistic idiot – an assertion that we refuse to be a subset of the f**king oppressive male population…”

Whoa. I was tempted to reply, “FYI. I am a W-O-M-A-N so I don’t have a penis. AND if your goal is to assert you are not a subset of an oppressive male population, your mission might be better served if you didn’t replace the A with the letter representing the ONLY inherently MALE chromosome in human DNA, but hey that’s just me. #W-O-M-X-N,” but I didn’t. Instead I made a sandwich then walked the dog.

Her comment stuck with me though, and it got me thinking about the first time I encountered a radical feminist. You know, the type who does more harm than good?  By the way, radical feminist is not one of this year’s new word entries, but as you may recall, wackadoodle is.

Anyway, I was a a college freshman seated in a large lecture auditorium with about 300 other biology students. The lecture topic for the day was fungi and since our professor had a penchant for looping slideshows while he spoke, we were assaulted with a parade of larger-than-life images as he droned on about mold, yeast, truffles, puffballs and of course, mushrooms. Precisely as this image of a phallic mushroom pierced my retinas …

Photo courtesy of dontmakethatface.com

Photo courtesy of dontmakethatface.com

…someone behind me hissed… actually hissed like an angry, unconsolable cat. Unable to control the impulse, I craned my neck in search of the source and found it was an androgynous-looking female. She squinted back at me belligerently, which was startling because I realized I’d been caught staring, plus she was downright angry-scary-androgynous-looking. She waggled her finger my way and slowly mouthed the words TURN AROUND B**TCH. I immediately snapped back to face front, regained my composure and resumed note taking.

She continued these antics throughout the semester, hissing whenever the professor uttered any articulation of the words male, testes, testicles, penis, scrotum, sperm, testosterone. One of her most impressive demonstrations against the “oppressive patriarchy” was maintaing a constant hiss through an entire 50 minute lecture devoted to spermatogenesis. This really happened. I promise. You can’t make up this sort of stuff. Allow me to use it in a sentence… that chick was wackadoodle.

Look, I’m all for female empowerment. If I had a daughter, I’d tell her the same thing I tell my sons – you can do anything you want to do, be anything you want to be if you put your mind to it and work hard. I celebrate the unprecedented opportunities modern women enjoy as a result of the struggles of American heroines like Susan B. Anthony, Lucretia Mott and Elizabeth Cady Stanton. I am all about equality for women, but I refuse to buy into the belief, propagated vigorously and incoherently by a bunch of wackadoodles – I mean radical feminists – that women are the helpless victims of a hostile patriarchy. It simply isn’t true. Not in America.

The radical feminist agenda is not pro-female. It is decidedly and misguidedly and  wackadoodically anti-male. I don’t get it. I really don’t. I don’t get hissing at mushrooms and hating men and I certainly don’t think changing the A to a Y in woman is a pressing social issue (or particularly clever). But that’s just me. Who knows, maybe I’m the wackadoodle one.

Over 900 words have been added to the Oxford English Dictionary this year, but womyn is not one of them so…I can bring home the bacon and fry it up in a pan and never, ever let you forget you’re a man cause I’m a woman -W-O-M-A-N… at least for now.