Christian Feminists an oxymoron
THE REAL GOAL OF FEMINISM: TRANSFORMING SOCIETY
This is a good article on how society is
becoming totalitarian based
on politically correct thinking. Kristallnacht isn't too far away in the
United States. It happened in Germany in the late 30s. History will
repeat itself unless we stop radical socialist feminism and the socialist
democratic party that calls itself Congress and was designed by the
socialist legal society.
Bruce Eden, Divorce Reform Coalition of NJ & NY
===
http://members.ll.net/chiliast/pdocs/feminismgoal.htm
[if link is not working, try "refresh"]
THE REAL GOAL OF FEMINISM: TRANSFORMING SOCIETY
by Antonia Feitz
Speech delivered at the Inverell Forum 2000, 2/3/00
1. The Problem
Ladies and gentlemen, my topic is feminism and some of you may be
wondering why, given our country's parlous state. Our national sovereignty
is being destroyed by the the over-riding of our domestic laws and the
signing of UN treaties - with no consultation and with no public or even
parliamentary debate.
So why feminism? Because feminists are at the vanguard of the phalanx of
fools, the useful idiots, the ideologues, who are destroying our hard won
rights and our national sovereignty.
We live in an age of ideology. God has been pronounced dead, and
Chesterton's witticism has proven true: when people no longer believe in
God, they'll believe in anything. And the post-Christian people of the
West are proof, holding beliefs which their grandparents would have
dismissed as absolute nonsense, and contrary to all common sense let alone
morality.
Take extreme environmentalists. Apart from literally worshiping trees,
they exalt the welfare of frogs and even insects over that of people.
Believe it or not, there's even a Voluntary Human Extinction Movement [1].
Homosexuals demand their relationships be accorded equal status with
marriage, including the 'right' to adopt children. And under the banner of
multiculturalism, Australian children are either kept ignorant, or taught
to be ashamed of their own heritage and history, while simultaneously
being taught to value ethnic and especially indigenous cultures.
But arguably, feminism is the most pernicious of the ideologies that
plague us, simply because the relationship between men and women affects
all of us.
I must stress that modern feminists are not the heirs of the suffragettes
who fought for equal rights such as the right to vote and property rights.
Modern feminists are not seeking equal rights for women. They want to
transform society, and that's no conspiracy theory because they freely
admit it.
Take CEDAW. It's the acronym for the Convention on the Elimination of all
Forms of Discrimination against Women. (You can discriminate against men
till the cows come home). This convention's goals are not reformist, but
revolutionary. It openly calls for the elimination of traditional sex
roles, and the re-writing of text books to purge them of alleged sexual
stereotypes. The UN's call for the total disarmament of the world's people
is embedded in CEDAW's preamble.
According to the feminists who constitute the CEDAW Committee, until
nations achieve a 50-50 sexual split in everything - in occupations, in
public life, and even in the domestic sphere - they are discriminating
against women. Now that might sound far-fetched, but article 5 of CEDAW
advocates "a proper understanding of maternity as a social function." Note
the socialist bullying in the word, 'proper'.
This "proper understanding" demands that child-rearing - universally! -
should be "a fully shared responsibility ... by both sexes." It also
insists that society has an obligation to extend child care services to
"allow individuals to combine family responsibilities with work and
participation in public life."
The message to women is: you will participate in work and public life
whether you want to or not. In a now notorious interview with Betty
Friedan, Simone de Beauvoir said: "No woman should be authorised to stay
at home and raise her children. Society should be totally different. Women
should not have that choice, precisely because if there is such a choice,
too many women will make that one." [2]
So much for freedom of choice. These bully-girls demand "a change in the
traditional role of men as well as the role of women in society and in the
family ... to achieve full equality of men and women". Their version of
equality is complete identity. It's reminiscent of communist China in
Mao's time. The communists were all feminists too. Remember?
To achieve the goal of sexual identity, Article 10c mandates the revision
of textbooks, school programmes and teaching methods with a view to
eliminating stereotyped concepts. This must be why one of my children's
French textbooks showed Dad in an apron washing the dishes while Mum,
dressed in a chic suit and carrying a briefcase, waved ta-ta to the baby
in the high-chair. A French textbook! Textbooks in all subjects are being
used to indoctrinate children in our schools. It's just too bad if
individuals prefer the traditional roles when they have young children -
as most people actually do.
According to CEDAW's Preamble, all nations are "obliged to work towards
the modification of social and cultural patterns of INDIVIDUAL [emphasis
added] conduct in order to eliminate prejudices and customary and all
other practices which are based on ... stereotyped roles for men and women."
These intolerant ideologues who so loudly criticise Christian evangelists
are far worse. At least religious conversion is voluntary! But incredibly,
the CEDAW Committee has instructed Libya to re-interpret its sacred book,
the Koran, in ways that are permissible under CEDAW. The Algerian
government was castigated for "using religion as an excuse" for failure to
comply with CEDAW. The Committee has also instructed China to legalise
prostitution. [3]
Whatever happened to national sovereignty? And how hypocritical is the UN?
On the one hand it supposedly values the diversity of the world's nations
and cultures. But on the other hand, with CEDAW, it demands that the
world's nations and cultures must conform to the deranged and frequently
immoral opinions of Western feminists who themselves are a minority in
their own countries.
If you think CEDAW is bad news, the Optional Protocol to CEDAW drafted in
March 1999 is even worse . If governments want to maintain any vestige of
national sovereignty, they'd better not sign it.
Previously, nations signing or ratifying international treaties could add
RUDs - reservations, understandings and declarations. These are statements
limiting or modifying the effect of the provisions of a treaty; or of
giving notice of matters of policy or principle; or of simply clarifying
matters. But true to feminist tyranny, the Optional Protocol to CEDAW will
forbid any reservations.
Feminists have been frustrated that too many countries included RUDs when
they signed CEDAW - precisely to protect their cultures, religions and
sovereignty. The Optional Protocol will forbid any such reservations. It
is an unprecedented and massive assault on national sovereignty and if
signed, will set a terrible precedent for the signing of other treaties.
Maybe the ancestor of CEDAW - the 1946 UN Commission on the Status of
Women - had good intentions. But those good intentions have been high
jacked by CEDAW. Instead of improving the welfare and securing basic
rights for women in the poorer nations, CEDAW's main game is transforming
society in the West. The Optional Protocol will be used by individuals and
NGOs in the West to achieve radical social change that national
parliaments would never dare consider, because their members have to face
voters. It's through UN treaties such as CEDAW and the UN Charter of Human
Rights that homosexual relationships will achieve the legal status of marriage.
The most cursory glance over the countries that have signed and ratified
CEDAW makes the whole thing a sick joke. The first three are Albania,
Algeria and Angola, hardly well-known for their equal treatment of women.
Burundi - where people regularly hack each other to death with machetes -
has signed. So has Cambodia, of the killing-fields fame. China has signed
too, even though it performs third trimester 'abortions' - read
'infanticide' - on unwilling women.
Needless to say, Canada and Australia, both of whose governments are
heavily feminist influenced, have signed. To its eternal credit, the US
has not.
So, that's the overall picture. Now let's look at what's behind feminism.
[the rest can be read online ...]
**************************
Finale
To sum up, I'd like to read a quote from Kenneth Minogue who was professor
of political science at the London School of Economics. He wrote: "An
ideological movement is a collection of people many of whom could hardly
bake a cake, fix a car, sustain a friendship or a marriage, or even do a
quadratic equation, yet they believe they know how to rule the world."[25]
Too many people who call themselves feminists are uncritical , accepting
the ideology because it - like all the others - provides a convenient
crutch in life and does away with the need for personal responsibility.
Interestingly, the more intelligent ones have tended to re-think their
views as they've grown older. Unfortunately, feminists have already done
much damage to individuals, to families and to the institutions of
society. And as I showed at the beginning, they are the useful idiots who
are undermining our national sovereignty.
Thank you.
************
1. www.vhemt.org
2. Quoted in Robert H. Bork, Slouching Towards Gomorrah: Modern Liberalism
and American Decline, New York : Regan Books, 1997, p. 204.
3. Kathryn Balmforth, "The Optional Protocol to CEDAW: an Open Invitation
to Radical Attacks on Sovereignty", Endeavour Forum Newsletter, no. 96,
October 1999, p.2.
4. Christina Hoff Sommers, Who Stole Feminism: How Women Have Betrayed
Women, New York: Touchstone, 1995, chapter 4.
5. Dempsey, Inequalities in Marriage: Australia and Beyond, Melbourne :
Oxford University Press, 1997, p.11
6. The Weekend Australian , 3-4/7/99.
7. Sun-Herald (Sydney), 30/5/99
8.
http://members.tripod.com/~adviser1/medusa/ch07.html
9. Hoff Sommers, p.211
10. Ibid, p.199
11. Karen Brownlee, "Men Can be Victims of Domestic Violence as Well",
Regina Leader Post and Saskatoon Star Phoenix, 22 October 1999
12. The Australian HES, 8/6/97.
13. Robert Pool, The New Sexual Revolution, London : Stodder and Houghton,
1994, p. 267.
14. Bettina Arndt, "Jobs For the Girls", Melbourne, The Age, 21/4/98.
15. Shirley Robin Letwin, "Law and the Unreasonable Woman", National
Review, November 18, 1991, p. 35.
16. Ibid.
17. Ibid.
18. Bork, p. 219-220.
19. David H. Hackworth, "Why the troops are hanging it up", 15/11/99
20. (Sydney) Sun-Herald, 18/5/97.
21. Hoff Sommers, p.58
22. Kathy Kersten, "A New Heaven & a New Earth", First Things, March 1994,
p.10.
23. Margaret E. Mills, Woman: Why Are You Weeping, North Melbourne: News
Weekly, 1997, p.106
24. Ibid, p.108
25. Kenneth Minogue, "The Goddess That Failed", National Review, 18/11/91,
p. 46.
Return To: The Article Vault:
http://www.ideasign.com/chiliast/avault.htm
Return To: The Republican:
http://members.ll.net/chiliast/
Associated with
Shat
terd
Men
The hidden half of domestic violence
Please check our web site
and our club
