For years, conservatives and independents have lobbed this point at feminists, and that leftist group of women have always responded that it was “just about sex” or “Monica was a consenting adult.” In fact, some groups use Monica as a champion of advancing the sexual revolution and opening the door for women to assert themselves through use their bodies or sexuality.

Katha Pollitt’s comments on Journolist effectively prove that feminists did sell out to the Democrats in order to protect Clinton, and they knowingly did it:

Katha Pollitt – Hayes’s colleague at the Nation – didn’t disagree on principle, though she did sound weary of the propaganda. “I hear you. but I am really tired of defending the indefensible. The people who attacked Clinton on Monica were prissy and ridiculous, but let me tell you it was no fun, as a feminist and a woman, waving aside as politically irrelevant and part of the vast rightwing conspiracy Paula, Monica, Kathleen, Juanita,” Pollitt said.

Pollitt proves that feminists do not have the best interests of women at heart. They care more about advancing the causes of their political party. Put her quotes in perspective of the current debate going on over conservative women and feminism. If they distract us or try to “refudiate” the issue by making fun of certain Mama Grizzlies or issuing mandates that we’re not good for women because we don’t support progressive causes, they’re pulling a Jeremiah Wright.

How can this ideology group be trusted? How do you know when they are working to advance the cause of women and when do you know that their working to protect a slimy politician because he has the precious D after his name? From this point forward, everything, and I mean everything, that feminists say should be viewed from this perspective.

If they previously sold women out over the likes of Bill Clinton, what happens when a true threat comes their way? What happens when conservative women –the apparent blood enemy — are closer to achieving the goals that they’ve never been able to reach in the past five decades?

Things get vicious. Oh, sort of like their coverage of a certain figure from Alaska….

Note the Jezebel‘s headline, which is the only fem outlet to cover this story the entire time, “Nikki Haley Refuses Polygraph.”

An article on The Daily Beast makes my skin crawl. This is exactly the type of journalism that propels me to fight feminists:

Granted, Haley has a hypocrisy problem: Like Mark Sanford, the adulterous and love-sick Republican governor she’s trying to replace, Haley is one of those preachy “family values” conservatives who seem to think the rules apply to everyone but themselves. In a May TV ad, Sarah Palin is seen describing Haley as “a strong pro-family, pro-life…conservative reformer.” A campaign flyer announces that Haley “supports traditional, family values,” and in her latest TV spot, produced after the sex scandal broke, Haley introduces her silent and slightly dorky looking husband, the possibly cuckolded Michael, in what might be termed a Spitzer reversal. Watching the ad made me cringe; it’s uncomfortable to see Michael standing there next to Nikki, just as it was uncomfortable to see Silda standing by Eliot. “What are they thinking?” you wonder. “Why aren’t they mad as hell?”

Given that the allegations are likely false, and South Carolina has the political machine that would make Huey P. Long sick, how can feminists do this? They aren’t taking the high road or waiting for evidence. They’re sitting with baited breath waiting for clear proof to come out against Haley. They’re dying to bring her down.

This is wrong, wrong, wrong. This is exactly the same hypocrisy that feminists demonstrated with the womanizing Bill Clinton. This is one of the few times that feminists could have transcended party lines and fought for a true pro-woman cause. Every feminist blog, magazine, spokesperson and pundit should denounce the sexist operation going on in South Carolina. This type of campaigning should not be allowed to exist.

By primly sitting back, feminists are silently endorsing this sleazy behavior.

Is it too much for feminists to take a few minutes each day and read right-wing blogs? If they only read Red State, they would have seen the post penned by Lori Ziganto, a South Carolina voter, on the state’s corruption.That was the focus of the Haley campaign. Nikki Haley took on establishment corruption. Shouldn’t all women respect that regardless of political affiliation?

Hanna Rosin at Double X likens Haley to Riot Grrl, an early third-wave feminist movement. That’s a silly comparison because Haley has campaigned on her record for demanding accountability and transparency in a state that nearly operates under a cloak of darkness. Riot Grrl was a small under-the-radar movement that gave us the conflicting and ambiguous third-wave feminist definition of “as long as you’re empowered to make choices, you’re a feminist.” But through their actions over the past year, that’s proved hollow.

I wish the Dana Goldstein, the sleazeball masquerading as an editor at The Daily Beast, and Hanna Rosin, sadly one of the more reasonable writers at Double X, would wake up and see how futile this quote is:

Weathering a scandal of this magnitude would help conservatives see modern women as we really are: complex, sexually liberated, and free to make our own decisions about what we do with our bodies.

No Dana and Hanna. Perhaps feminists should understand how silly and marginalized your movement is now? Modern women are far more complex and view politics through a wider lense than just abortion. That’s why your movement is decreasing in size. That’s why fewer and fewer women identify as feminists. That’s why pro-life PACS are out-fundraising the old dinosaurs like EMILY’s List and NOW. That’s why more and more Americans are identifying as pro-life. And that’s why mostly conservative women won primaries across America tonight.

Feminists, you had one last redeeming chance to prove that your movement was legitimate. I’d say you failed…miserably.

I obviously disagree with her on abortion and economic issues, but Myers mostly includes common-sense solutions to our problems. She acknowledges the we don’t have to reach parity in every. single. job. field. to achieve balance in the working world as the recent Shriver Report recommends. Myers also approaches the issue as a woman who appears to have actually worked in the real world and likes men (unlike many of her peers in this field). I actually agreed with her on some points, such as her chapter on “The Confidence Gap.”

Myers does a good job of demonstrating that a third way is possible in the mommywars. After leaving the White House, she was able to carve out a career of public speaking, punditry and writing. Now that isn’t available to most women, but technology has dramatically altered the way that we view work. I truly believe that much of the hyped mommywars will be insignificant within the next decade. Offices are much more flexible for men and women, and working from home, telecommuting, flex time and alternative schedules will be the norm in the coming years.

She also devotes time to explore ways to stop the gap in science, technology, engineering and math fields. (In a previous job, I worked extensively on this issue, so I follow it closely.) Myers presents interesting facts that I had not seen.

Myers shares that people who think with both spheres of their brain are overwhelmingly likely to go into liberal arts. Since the majority of women think with both sides of the brain, they are more drawn to psychology, history, art, English, etc.

There’s also research that women are drawn to “people-focused” careers because our brains are wired for discussion and empathy. Because science is presented to kids as stark, boring and lonely, women aren’t drawn to it. Meyer’s shares an idea that would feasibly work:

…much of math is now theoretical, and physics doesn’t require as many “people” skills as, say, medicine. Which may mean fewer girls will be interested. Or it may mean we need to find new ways to make disciplines like physics and engineering more appealing to women’s more diverse interests. Maybe if the field’s most visible leaders talked about the practical, “people-oriented” benefits of the physical sciences–like how rural villages in Africa might get clean water and affordable energy–more girls might be interested.

On gender roles:

The hardcore ideologues on the left flank of feminist thinking insist that gender roles are not just artificial, but designed to hold women back. So until their desroyed, women will continue to be victims of a patriarchy, virtual slaves in their own homes. But most women–even many who call themselves feminists–don’t want to be “the same” as men. Nor do they believe that equality demands it. That’s not to say that questions about what equality means or how it might be achieved have been resolved. Far from it. But the vision of a one-size-fits-all world simply denies too many women’s experiences–and their aspiration.

On equality in the workforce:

For starters,  I think we have to abandon the idea that even if all the obstacles were eliminated, there would be an equal number of men and women in virtually every profession. We don’t need gender parity among elementary school teachers or bond traders before we can declare victory. We don’t even need it among physicists. That’s not to say that it won’t happen. It could. But isn’t it more likely that even if we eliminate the conflict between having a high-powered job and having a family, unravel the mysteries of innate aptitude and interest, and root out discrimination, there will still be more women in social psychology and more men in engineering? And isn’t that okay? I think it is.

Is this a book that will dramatically alter the landscape of gender politics? No. But is refreshing to remember that there are common sense Democrats out there.

I’ve written at length about the Sarah Palin debates, which always veer from her political views to making personal attacks and even threats. As I pointed out yesterday, they’ve even done it to Lady Gaga. Remember their attacks on Taylor Swift? Now, the target is Tina Fey.

Perhaps portraying Sarah Palin on SNL rubbed off some of Fey’s feminism?

It all started with a few gals on the fem blogs whining about Fey mocking single women and emphasizing stereotypes. The Frisky has a wrap-up of what I’ve seen the last few days on the interwebs.

In a nutshell, the feminist whiners bloggers are upset because they had all these expectations for Fey to channel all of Gloria Steinem and Betty Friedan to change society through her humor. Bottom line: Fey may be a liberal, but she’s a comedian. She’s going to do anything to get a laugh.

This is what Fey does best. She is hilarious and quite funny…in that one character. Almost every movie role or character she plays is always the hopeless single woman. Her role in Mean Girls was a recent divorcee. In Baby Momma, she was a career woman with a ticking biological clock. Liz Lemon, her 30 Rock character is the neurotic single woman. I haven’t seen her new movie yet, but she actually plays a married woman! Quite the departure.

I’d say that Fey is more typecast, but it’s more fun to debate if she’s a feminist or not!

Feminists did this to themselves. By their own admission, they proudly state that there’s no one definition of feminism. Some people even call it “feminisms” to capture the many versions of the movement. To feminists, everything is a “woman” issue from the economy, health care, abortion, workforce, education, sports, entertainment, etc.

Thus, when you refuse to define what your movement is, how do you have the right to decide who is a feminist and who isn’t? Isn’t that a double-standard?

This is hardly new. While all liberal “isms” are doomed to keep repeating failed ideas (social welfare programs, anyone?), feminists have always attacked their own ranks in search of the “perfect feminist.” In the early days of the radical women’s liberation movement of the 1960s, no one could emerge as a leader because there wasn’t a woman capable of fulfilling all the expectations. She couldn’t be white and black, rich and poor, educated and working class, lesbian and straight. Quite simply, when you claim to have a big tent movement, you’ll never find the perfect leader or icon.

Hence the last 30 years of “Is she a feminist” game. It’s a no-win situation for them, but then it keeps the fem blogs distracted and gives me something to laugh at. Keep it up!

Those on the pro-life side view the issue from the perspective of the unborn. Thanks to neo-natal medicine, it’s difficult to argue that life doesn’t start at conception or very shortly afterward. As I’ve written before, feminists are becoming more and more comfortable with the fact that abortion is murder. They just de-value the life of the unborn, placing the emphasis on the woman and her education and economic conditions.

It’s a sleight of hand to re-frame the issue since they’ve lost major ground on previous talking points. (i.e. reproductive justice, abortion’s cool!) The economic conditions and education of women likely to get abortion are still huge issues, but it is unacceptable to justify the premeditated termination of a life due to convenience.

But what about the condition of the unborn? Even if feminists are accept that abortion kills a living human, is it humane?

Many people aren’t aware that we have humane slaughter laws in this country. Passed in 1958, Congress stipulated that livestock should not unduly suffer when slaughtered. Animals do feel pain and these laws are right. For example, chickens are stunned before their heads are cut off at poultry plants around the country.

I’ve always wondered if we try to prevent chickens from experiencing pain at death, how come we don’t care about how cruel abortion is to the fetus?

Yesterday, a Red State post highlighted that Nebraska is debating banning abortion after 20 weeks based on evidence that a fetus can experience pain.

Even if you believe abortion should be legal, is it acceptable to barbarically terminate a life? If a 20-week fetus can experience pain, few would argue that abortion is horrific.

Whether it’s a D&C, saline or suction, how can you not acknowledge abortion is inhumane? Abortion isn’t a magic pill that makes the baby go “poof!” Most procedures are invasive to the woman and either cut the fetus apart, burn it alive with saline or suck it apart.

Remember that our society protects chickens from feeling pain, but not a fetus.

Based on precedent of humane slaughter laws and even capital punishment, shouldn’t we re-examine this as a society? Regardless if you think that abortion should be legal or not, commonly used abortion procedures are inhumane. It’s difficult to debate that fact.

(video H/T: Suzy B)

This morning, Twitter (Thanks @lindsaysouza and @bonniekristian) sent me a distraction. I present the Manllow via ETSY.

There’s so much potential joke material here. The perfect man for a feminist, creepy Twilight memorabilia and a pillow that is eerily close to a 30 Rock episode featuring James Franco. (Hulu has taken it down, or I would have posted it.)

This is also the perfect gift to give that stalkerish friend of yours since you can customize your Manllow. This is along the lines of something Kate Hudson’s character would have made in How to Lose a Guy in 10 Days. According to the ETSY page:

HOW IT WORKS:

1. Send a high resolution picture of the “ideal” man’s face. Face should take up the most of the frame.

2. Make sure the face is the face you want on the pillow. There is only so much that photoshop can do.

3. Order manllow and send either link or direct file of image.

4. Face will be converted into stencil format placed onto the manllow.

5. Manllow comes to life! Now if you would like personalize with a name and/or a love letter please type in the letter in the message to seller while purchasing. Letter should be no longer than 6 sentences.

6. Manllow is shipped off.

7. Manllow gets loved.

Under no circumstance is this acceptable. Even if you are separated from your significant other for a long period of time, this is still…weird. If your Twilight obsession has reached the level of purchasing a backrest with arms and Robert Pattinson’s face, I strongly suggest counseling.

But today the movement has been taken over by aggrieved eccentrics. Marching under the banner of feminism, the current activists are fighting a gender war that few women support or understand. The potential for harm is enormous. Mainstream women are going to have to rescue feminism from the feminists.

We badly need a responsible, reality- based women’s movement. Women in many parts of the developing world are still struggling for their basic rights.
Egalitarian progressives—some would say radicals. They held that men and women, although socialized to different roles, are identical in their essential natures. By appealing to principles of social justice and universal rights, egalitarians sought to liberate women from the private sphere of the home—into the public spheres of politics, business, and work.

I came into this fight over feminism late. As a young woman and conservative college student, I purposely avoided anything relating to womyn’s studies or gender politics. After working at a nonprofit geared towards girls, I came face-to-face with the “egalitarian feminism” that Sommers discusses. Behind every rallying cry for “equality” there’s a scary agenda from the Radical Left to remake our society into a European socialist copycat that has taken over colleges, the media and our court system.

Since the left has demonized conservative women for so long, most females on the right avoid anything remotely resembling feminism. That leaves us woefully ignorant when it comes to the history for women’s equality. Please take a few minutes and understand that there is a need to fight for equality between men and women, but this can be done–and has been done–in ways that value and protect American traditions and capitalism.

As Sommer’s notes in the article, Clare Booth Luce was writing about women’s issues long before Betty Friedan ever felt bored in her affluent suburban home. Rather than fight to change society into some socialistic utopia, she understood how women operate. Sommer’s quotes Luce:

It is time to leave the question of the role of women in society up to Mother Nature—a difficult lady to fool. You have only to give women the same opportunities as men, and you will soon find out what is or is not in their nature. What is in women’s nature to do they will do, and you won’t be able to stop them. But you will also find, and so will they, that what is not in their nature, even if they are given every opportunity, they will not do, and you won’t be able to make them do it.

Feminist arguments fall flat over “second shift” work, the so-called wage gap and complaints that we still have not achieved equality despite making up more than half of the workforce, as seen in the recent Shriver Report. Women don’t make choices to better the cause of women. Women make choices that better their individual lives and families. When you make women equal, as our society has largely done, women will reject what doesn’t work, even if this conflicts with the agenda of the left-leaning feminist movement.

H/T American Enterprise Institute

]]> http://www.cosmopolitanconservative.com/2010/03/10/a-reality-based-womens-movement/feed/ 0 http://www.cosmopolitanconservative.com/2010/02/12/feminists-respond-to-dodge-superbowl-commercial/ http://www.cosmopolitanconservative.com/2010/02/12/feminists-respond-to-dodge-superbowl-commercial/#comments Fri, 12 Feb 2010 14:50:22 +0000 Adrienne http://www.cosmopolitanconservative.com/?p=1768 My friend and fellow Tennessee transplant, Matthew Hurtt, posted these videos on his blog. The first one is the Dodge commercial that did catch the wrath of feminists who weren’t busy complaining about the “inherent violence” in the Focus on the Family spot.

Both ads build on stereotypes. The feminist answer perpetuates the wage gap myth and makes the usual complaints about how awful it is to be a woman. I think these are silly since relationships are hard and there will always be communications issues between the sexes since we’re wired differently. Society also places different expectations on men and women. Deal with it. Men have issues too.  The only difference: men seem much more capable at laughing at these stereotypes, whereas women whine about them.

Warning: like most things feminist, the second video contains some language. The lefty gals enjoy being crass.

The Dodge ad is created to sell a product, but the feminist ad is a little long and doesn’t give a call to action. Whoever created it did a lot of work, but there’s no web site or activism appeal. Wasted opportunity for them.

Update: Not surprisingly, Broadsheet likes the ad calling it a “ego-blistering spoof!” Feministing claims “You must absolutely watch…” Amanda Hess at The Sexist has a full transcript of the video.

There you go. Feminists fighting the terrible front lines of silly Super Bowl ads. Glad to see that there aren’t more important battles out there.

It’s nostalgic to read a press release from NOW again. The organization was last seen sinking into the bubbling tar of the Clinton impeachment saga, babbling incomprehensibly about how sexual harassment really isn’t such a big deal when pro-abortion Democrat presidents do it. Like every appendage of the socialist state, NOW has no principle beyond fealty to the political party that grants it power, and the Democrats used to grant them a remarkable amount of power – enough to end the careers of Navy officers and combat pilots, after “investigations” that stopped just short of waterboarding. When NOW talks about “empowering” women, it speaks in the collective sense. Empowerment comes from obedience to feminist organizations, which use that power to drag an oversized chair up to the grim carving table where the Democrat Party wields its redistibutionist cleavers.

As I said earlier this week, feminists desperately need pro-lifers to continue the debate and keep their movement somewhat cohesive. Feminism is such a fractured ideal that abortion, err “women’s rights,” is the only real uniting thread. As long as the abortion debate continues, feminists have one common rallying point. Without it, they descend in to smaller, argumentative groups (lesbians vs. transgendered vs. black women vs. eco-feminists vs. porn stars vs. academics, etc. ).

We saw this in the early days of the radical women’s movement in the 6os. The movement was chaotic and cannibalistic. Every time a leader emerged, the masses destroyed her because they believed an individual female leader would trample the power of the collective. Roe vs. Wade was the only issue that anyone could unite around. After the 1973 decision, radical feminists tried to revive the movement with the Pornography Wars in the 80s but even that was contentious. As Doctor Zero wrote:

Some critics cite unquestioning support for unrestricted abortion rights as the primary demonstration of loyalty power feminists seek from their supporters, but the NOW offensive against the Tebow ad, and their response to Sarah Palin, suggest the true sacrament of radical feminism is not abortion… it’s opposition to the pro-life movement. Power in a collectivist system comes from tribal loyalty, and hatred is a powerful glue for holding collectives together. As with leftist racial groups, NOW has very little positive to offer its supporters these days, so it thrives by pointing fingers at its enemies. Religious people in general, and outspoken pro-life advocates in particular, look very good on the business end of a trembling finger.

Pro-lifers don’t need feminists. We have other issues and religious convictions to keep us motivated. Our movement is tightly defined and is based on absolute truths.We know that as long as abortions are conducted, we have a mission. Feminists derive their mission from fighting us. Resistance to another political force can not sustain a movement. Just look at all the failed third-parties throughout U.S. history.

But what makes feminism so fractured?  I frequently get comments from feminists saying, “If X or Y happens, perhaps all women can unite and vote together.” That simply won’t happen because of the very foundations that feminism is built on condemn it.

This is where things get confusing.  That fundamental opposition is based on the socialistic roots of feminism and the post-modern nature of the movement.

Groups based on post-modernism and moral relativism, the darlings of all left-of-center groups, will always struggle to achieve long-term survival. When truth and reality are different to each of your members, how do you form cohesion that can be multiplied into a strong political force? Dissensions and splintering will always occur. Identity politics ultimately fail. When groups form around superficial qualities rather than tightly defined philosophies, individuals with even more similarities will always join together and break off from the original group. They splinter off into smaller and smaller groups until the multiplier effect is destroyed.

This is why liberalism and progressives have always ebbed and flowed in this country. The movement consists of smaller groups that all believe different things. They were all united in 2008 against George W. Bush, but fell apart after Obama was elected. Just look at the progressive outrage at the health care bill.

Conversely, conservatism has always remained strong. Oh, we’ve achieved political power and lost it, but that is largely due to economic forces, abuse of power, a lack of leadership and the difference between Republicanism and conservatism.  Since the 18th century, the three pillars that unite conservatives have remained largely unchanged. Our labels are different (back then an American conservative would have been a liberal), but our philosophy is consistent.

This is a point that I’ve struggled to formulate for a while. I’ve discussed it terms of gender feminism vs. equity feminism, feminism vs. Feminism and Big Feminism vs. feminism. I continue to write these posts and always feel unsatisfied that I haven’t articulated what I see as the real problem. To go back to my original question, I continue to ask what is female empowerment?

On the surface, feminism is a positive thing. Hardly anyone would disagree that women have been maligned throughout history. Extending equality to cover gender and race was a much-needed step that our country took. I have no issue with this type of feminism known as equity feminism. As I’ve stated before, mainstream society absorbed this level of feminism. There will always be pockets of abuse and misogyny, but we have progressed radically in a few short decades.

To an equity feminist, female empowerment would be defined as providing equal opportunities to men and women. Once women are given the same opportunities as men, it is up to individual women to decide what is best for her life. This is why an educated woman can decide to stay home. Once society ensures the same opportunities for all genders, equality has been established. Equity feminism is built around the individual.

However, the downside is that the political movement that brought about this change has to either radically change, move onto another issue or acquiesce it’s power. It’s a problem of success.

Conversely, we have gender feminists.

Gender feminism is based on socialism. I hate invoking the socialism label, since many conservatives have cried wolf with it for so long. However, it is true. Feminism evolved out the the radical socialist movement that infiltrated the U.S. in the 1920s. Most of the early leaders in the feminist movement were members of the Communist Party or Socialist Party or were children of members.

The 1960s movement literally started when women involved with the civil rights battle were not promoted into leadership. The overwhelming majority were on the far, far left of the political spectrum and believed that capitalism, private property and right of the individual were hurting minorities and women. In order to win, those foundations had to be eliminated.

Look at the beliefs of gender feminism: men need to be suppressed to promote women, the entire patriarchy has to be destroyed to liberate women, in order to destroy the patriarchy, we have to move past capitalism, eliminate personal property and make sure that the rights of the individual do not trample the over-arching rights of the collective community. Is that not the gender version of socialism?

Remember that in socialism, the community is more important that the rights of the individual.Or as the the writers of Grassroots explained a woman can be pro-life and a feminist until she acts on her pro-life views. At that point, she’s placing her individual beliefs above other women and can’t be a feminist.

Go back to what Doctor Zero wrote:

Like every appendage of the socialist state, NOW has no principle beyond fealty to the political party that grants it power, and the Democrats used to grant them a remarkable amount of power – enough to end the careers of Navy officers and combat pilots, after “investigations” that stopped just short of waterboarding. When NOW talks about “empowering” women, it speaks in the collective sense. Empowerment comes from obedience to feminist organizations, which use that power to drag an oversized chair up to the grim carving table where the Democrat Party wields its redistibutionist cleavers.

If feminism is the gender arm of socialism, it answers to the greater political power. This is why when feminism disagrees with the leadership–the Democratic Party–feminism bends. You don’t see this in conservative circles. Many pro-life groups were blasted when they did not oppose the House’s health care bill. It was simply beyond the scope of their mission. After the Stupak Amendment was added, they were satisfied. They did not bend to the larger will of the Republican Party and rouse their members. They stuck to their individual mission.

Since the Democratic Party and the U.S. liberal community are more important than individual groups, feminists can afford to be hypocrites when it comes to defending Bill Clinton or discriminating against Sarah Palin. The collective is more important than the individual.

This is why empowering women to a gender feminist means forcing all women to agree with a checklist of issues and beliefs. Empowerment is not giving a woman the ability to make the best choices for herself, based on individual goals, beliefs and philosophies, but making sure that a woman makes decisions that uphold the collective’s views. Remember what Doctor Zero also said:

…the NOW offensive against the Tebow ad, and their response to Sarah Palin, suggest the true sacrament of radical feminism is not abortion… it’s opposition to the pro-life movement. Power in a collectivist system comes from tribal loyalty, and hatred is a powerful glue for holding collectives together. As with leftist racial groups, NOW has very little positive to offer its supporters these days, so it thrives by pointing fingers at its enemies. Religious people in general, and outspoken pro-life advocates in particular, look very good on the business end of a trembling finger.

Over and over again, I’ve said that feminism only respects liberal women. Even though a woman can reflect the values of equity feminism, that is not enough to entrenched groups like NOW. The minute they liberate their followers to support the promotion of other women, they lose the socialism war. Every Pam Tebow or Sarah Palin that deviates from the collective must be destroyed completely. Otherwise, the community is left open to asserting their own individual views and questioning the greater fight against capitalism.

I realize that this is an extraordinarily long post, but it more adequately covers my objections to feminism. Beyond the moral objections, I simply cannot support a collectivist group. The more I examine politics, the more I believe that the two philosophies of collectivism/community vs. individuals is the true battle. The issues will always change, but some people genuinely believe that their personal rights should be censored in order to make the community better. This is why liberals rarely object to higher taxes. Conservatives believe that when the individual is empowered, it encourages others to build better lives. I guess it could be described as “it takes a village vs. pulling yourself up by your own bootstraps.”

I fail to see why this is a big deal.

The Tebows, a strong Christian family with misguided football loyalties, made a commercial with Focus on the Family about their choices. Focus then came up with the cash to buy the spot from CBS. Why then does this create controversy? Free speech works both ways.

If this ad was purchased by NARAL or EMILY’S List about how Tebow supported his girlfriend in her choice to abort due to an unplanned pregnancy, wouldn’t these groups applaud?

When did our society arrive at a place that “celebrating life,” as Focus on the Family puts it, is controversial? This ad highlights one woman’s choice. She chose not to abort and look what happened. (Who knows what might have happened if all the aborted people were allowed to live?) Women need to know that choosing life is just as valid a decision. That option is rarely given any attention. Just look at all the anger aimed at Palin for knowingly giving birth to a baby with Down’s Syndrome.*

Educating women about all of their choices should be a priority of the women’s movement. However, this is only one more example of how the anti-life crowd only educates women on pre-approved “choices.” Women deserve to know all of their options. How often do they get those at an abortion clinic or Planned Parenthood facility? Lila Rose has exposed how often women hear about adoption or life at those facilities.

Anti-life forces are in an uproar, but they can only speculate about what’s in the ad. All Focus on the Family has said is:

The 30-second spot from the international family-help organization will feature college football star Tim Tebow and his mother, Pam. They will share a personal story centered on the theme of “Celebrate Family, Celebrate Life.”

Jim Daly, president and CEO of Focus on the Family, said the chance to partner with the Tebows and lift up a meaningful message about family and life comes at the right moment in the culture, because “families need to be inspired.”

“Tim and Pam share our respect for life and our passion for helping families thrive,” Daly said. “They live what we see every day – that the desire for family closeness is written on the hearts of every generation. Focus on the Family is about nurturing that desire and strengthening families by empowering them with the tools they need to live lives rooted in morals and values.”

Broadsheet admits that no one knows what is in the ad, but since the Women’s Media Center has launched a petition, it must be alarming. Oh my gosh! A petition! Tracy Clark-Flory writes:

A Focus on the Family spokesperson told the Washington Post that the ad isn’t overtly political, but a petition by the Women’s Media Center argues otherwise: “By offering one of the most coveted advertising spots of the year to an anti-equality, anti-choice, homophobic organization, CBS is aligning itself with a political stance that will damage its reputation, alienate viewers, and discourage consumers from supporting its shows and advertisers.” There is no denying the organization’s founder, James Dobson, is about as polarizing a political figure as they come.

The problem isn’t that CBS sold the spot to Focus on the Family. The problem is that the anti-life crowd is losing the messaging war. It’s possible to talk about celebrating life without politicizing it. It’s easy to sell pictures of happy families and babies. How many mothers have ever publicly said they regret choosing life? Compare that to the numbers of women who regret having an abortion. Life is the positive. Abortion is the negative.

How do you sell abortion? It’s almost impossible to talk about abortion or “choice” without involving polarizing politics. The images are always of angry women protesting and holding signs. What’s their alternative? Pictures of aborted babies that highlight the truth of abortion?  The anti-lifers are losing this issue. Poll numbers prove it. It explains why anti-life feminists lose it when Focus on the Family celebrates life with Tim Tebow and his family, or Sarah and Bristol Palin are on the cover of a tabloid.

Abortion is still legal in this country. Even though Roe vs. Wade is a horrible judicial decision (an opinion asserted by all sides) it’s unlikely to be overturned any time in the near future. However, every positive pro-life message, every Bristol Palin magazine cover, every photo of amazing neo-natal surgeries, ultrasounds or medical advances put another nail in the coffin of abortion’s public image.

“Choice” is abstract. “Life” is concrete and visual. Every time that you show that a fetus is viable and valued, from medicine science news to Lacey Peterson laws, it hurts the public perception of abortion.  These images don’t affect laws or legal precedents, but they expose the fraud that the “choice” crowd continues to disseminate. That’s why they focus on “choice.” As soon as you focus on a baby, you lose the debate.

As the “choice” debate unravels, it shows that the only difference between a premature baby getting the best neo-natal care and an aborted fetus is desire. If the “planned” or “wanted” pregnancies are the best justifications for abortion, these groups are in trouble. That’s a flimsy excuse for murder, and an extremely brutal murder at that. If abortion was re-created outside of the womb to kill a person, it could only be described as gruesome and barbaric. Why do we continue to do this to the most helpless members of our society? Since it’s hidden and only happens on the inside of women’s bodies, not many people understand how brutal the abortion medical procedure truly is.

Medical science is on the side of life. Rather than spending millions to defend abortion, why don’t these groups work on educating impoverished women on birth control or help them earn an education? (I wish more pro-life groups did the same.) All sides should make abortion the absolute worst-case option. There’s enough money and nonprofit infrastructure to make abortion unnecessary in our society. The problem is that feminists need it to survive.

The simple matter is that abortion and all “attacks” on it are cash cows for groups like NOW, EMILY’S List, Feminist Majority and NARAL. Without us pesky pro-lifers, the money stream from supporters would dry up. These groups need to manufacture crises in order to survive since public opinion and the progress of science is against them.

The pro-life side will always have supporters due to our religious faith and the issues of euthanasia, stem cell research and cloning. Our side is evolving. The abortion side is dying. The writing is on the wall for abortion supporters, and that is why their reactions get more hysterical and ridiculous. They ought to be thankful to Focus on the Family for giving them a something to protest since “women’s issues” have become little more than arguments over botox taxes, middle-age columnists regretting not getting married and having babies and debates if Lady Gaga represents feminist ideals.

*Why is the special needs community not more outraged at abortion? Only 10% of special needs children are born, which reeks of eugenics and is a borderline holocaust for this community. What does our society reflect when we only allow the desirable and perfect to be born?