Monday, November 26, 2007
Hypocrisy? Nope.
Wonder why American feminists are slow to defend the women of Arab countries, such as the Saudi woman currently charged with the crime of being gang-raped? It ain't hypocrisy. It's Leninist orthodoxy.
Skousen cited a couple of early Soviet documents on the status of women.
Are these values obsolete? First, remember that the delightfully deceased Betty Fried[m]an remained loyal to Stalin until her fortunate death. Second, listen to any modern feminist scoffing and disdaining the "antique" notion of marriage as ownership, and you'll see that these values still form the core of feminism. The newer post-Marxian Communists may substitute The Planet[pbuh] for the government in name, but it always comes down to the same thing in practice.
Look at what's happened to the relationship between parents and children. Parents no longer own children; they are merely renters. Parents are allowed to maintain the children until they dare to show signs of ownership, such as applying discipline or using sacrilegious substances like t*b*cco. At that point the lease is revoked and the children revert to the State. ¶ 12:19 PM
Skousen cited a couple of early Soviet documents on the status of women.
Beginning March 1, 1919, the right to possess women between the ages of 19 and 32 is abolished. By virtue of the present decree no woman can be considered as private property and all women become the property of the nation. The distribution and maintenance of nationalized women ... are the prerogative of the Soviet. All women thus put at the disposition of the nation must present themselves in person at the address indicated, and provide all necessary information. Any man who wishes to make use of a nationalized woman must hold a certificate issued by the Soviet, attesting that he belongs to the working class. Male citizens not belonging to the working class may enjoy the same rights provided they pay 250 French Francs, which will be turned over to the public fund.
and
There is no such thing as a woman being violated by a man; he who says that a violation is wrong denies the Revolution. To defend a violated woman is to reveal oneself as a bourgeois and a partisan of private property.
Are these values obsolete? First, remember that the delightfully deceased Betty Fried[m]an remained loyal to Stalin until her fortunate death. Second, listen to any modern feminist scoffing and disdaining the "antique" notion of marriage as ownership, and you'll see that these values still form the core of feminism. The newer post-Marxian Communists may substitute The Planet[pbuh] for the government in name, but it always comes down to the same thing in practice.
Look at what's happened to the relationship between parents and children. Parents no longer own children; they are merely renters. Parents are allowed to maintain the children until they dare to show signs of ownership, such as applying discipline or using sacrilegious substances like t*b*cco. At that point the lease is revoked and the children revert to the State. ¶ 12:19 PM
