Read Hanne’s The Herland Report.
The demonic 1960s feminism has successfully told the woman that only when disentangled from the family can she truly be free. The family must be broken down, as female emancipation depends on her being alone, apart from the fellowship of men. Even fidelity in marriage is viewed as a problem, seen to hinder free sex and a promiscuous life.
The degree of misogynist poison engraved in this society-destroying, neo-Marxist ideology is simply appalling. For example, author of “The Battered Woman,” Lenore Walker, openly stated that psychotherapists should encourage breaking the family apart. The author of “Declaration on Feminism,” Helen Sullinger, said that marriage is the very institution we must work to destroy.
Journalist Ellen Willis wrote that the objective of every feminist reform, from legal abortion to child care programs, is to undermine traditional family values.
This venomous influence on the minds of Western women has even succeeded in pretty much defining the man as the enemy who is to be hated. And remarkably enough, women have believed the illusion that a loveless and often childless life is the path to freedom.
As pointed out in another WND column, all should support female emancipation, political and social equal rights. No woman, man or child should have to endure evil, injustice and abuse at the hands of others. Therefore, classical Western ideals precisely defined the need for equality regardless of gender, race, religion or social standing as a vital principle of justice. We have had very constructive feminist movements in history; one of them took place at the beginning of the 1900s, as explained in this column.
The feminism criticized here is the radical-revolutionary movement of the 1960s, which had completely different goals.
So, how did we get to where we are today? Which neo-Marxist thinkers paved the way for this sinister and fellowship-hating ideology? How did they succeed in penetrating society – first and foremost the female brain – with its poisonous, Marxist message that now is tearing Western cultural stability apart?
One may wonder how women were outsmarted into believing in the demonic notion that the fellowship of mankind is their enemy. Some explanation is found in the ideological work of one of the fathers of New Left feminism, neo-Marxist Jacques Derrida (1930-2004). He invented the concept of “deconstruction” of Western values and correspondingly their demonization. He famously spoke about power structures as pairs, one weak and the other strong: male-female, white-black, majority-minority and so on, automatically assuming that the power balance always is static.
By giving women the weak role, Derrida ended up imposing a self-denigrating view of the female upon the New Left feminism. She was chronically assigned the role of the victim, forming her identity as the weak element in the power structure.
This means that the “male” is always the strong in the pair and the “female” always the weak. The “white man” is always strong and “the colored man” is always a weak, helpless victim and so on. Derrida was so simple-minded that he did not even reflect upon the fact that power fluctuates; it is not static to one group. We already know this from history, as powerful feudal nobility were replaced by the renaissance bourgeoisie. One group was powerful in a particular historical setting, the new group dominating in yet another time period.
Derrida perfected post-modernism, a Marxist-derived class struggle philosophy that strongly opposed traditional Western values. His anti-Western, anti-equality and misogynist thinking contributed strongly to the development of Critical Race Theory, a racist theory that runs rampant at Western universities today, dividing individuals according to gender and race rather than by the classical principle of equality.
With a shocking dose of male chauvinism, Derrida infused into the Western female brain that she is always discriminated against by men, that her femininity is her weakness, her childbearing ability worthless; that unless she takes the man’s role in society, she remains futile.
Why women in the 1960s did not see through his misogyny and lack of respect for the power of womanhood remains a mystery. Maybe they fell for it due to the rampant state of rebellion against traditional values the New Left was promoting, desperately looking for some anti-traditional ideology to champion. Women sure did not comprehend the extent of Derrida’s anti-humanist analysis – and swallowed the bait. The question remains, was Derrida simply an unintelligent Marxist, or was his job precisely to push for the end of Western stability?
Content created by the WND News Center is available for re-publication without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a large audience. For licensing opportunities of our original content, please contact [email protected].
This article was originally published by the WND News Center.