If a woman’s ability to choose is paramount to liberals, why do they attack those who choose to stay at home and raise a family in a world that is brimming with immorality, promiscuity and absentee parents?

Furthermore, if feminists truly care about women, shouldn’t they support their rights as individuals and equals, regardless of their political or religious affiliation? The real war on women has nothing to with opposing abortion, protecting a child’s life, or free birth control; it’s a perilous product of the left’s undying hatred of those independent voices who don’t share their sexist views of how a woman should think, feel, and act. Whether a woman wants to pursue a career, raise her child full-time, vote Republican or Democrat…that is entirely her choice. And thank God she is free to exercise such personal discretion. After all, wasn’t it roughly a century ago women in this country were denied their natural born and Constitutional liberties; equality in the eyes of God and their innate ability to choose a life of their own bidding? Yes, how disconcerting is it.

That modern-day feminists are complicit in their silence as millions of Islamic women are deprived of basic human rights – free speech, the necessity of education, due process and protection from legalized brutality – only to religiously chastise those American women who are Christian and who espouse conservative ideals? Activists will celebrate “progressive” females who proudly have abortions or single women who have more children simply to garner more welfare, but they will viciously degrade Sarah Palin – a successful, self made woman – who chooses to embrace motherhood and raise her handicap son as an equal. Sense of hypocrisy or glaring lack of respect?

Feminism, which rose from need and injustice, has tragically morphed into a facist movement solely to redefine womanhood to further a political agenda and to squeeze our daughters into a stereotypical mold that is by no means progressive: it is an affront to their liberty, intelligence, and individuality. Instead of fighting for the betterment of all women, regardless of their personal beliefs or lifestyle, feminists selfishly attempt to oppress those who do not cater to their fragile and warped sensibilities. Simply put, it’s discrimination of the worst kind for it is born out of choreographed deceit, political gain or sheer malice.

Unbeknownst to the historically obtuse left, America was founded upon personal freedom and tolerance. Just because a woman doesn’t flaunt her sexuality, treat her children like bumbs in the road, or attack men for professional or monetary gain doesn’t make her old-fashioned, weak or naive. It simply means she embodies self respect, accountability, and can delineate between choice, reality, and destructive political rhetoric.

It also means, unlike Madonna, she doesn’t need to publicly share the geometric shape of her pubic hair or bribe every man willing to vote for Hillary with oral sex to feel empowered, special or enlightened. Some crimes against humanity are best left to the naked imagination where shameless celebrities still believe they are somehow relevant or remotely appealing.

3 COMMENTS

  1. I’d like to offer some constructive criticism. There are a few historical inaccuracies in this. #1, Abrahamic religions, notably Judaism and Islam, but also extending to Christianity through scripture, all prioritize men over women. The Pentateuch specifically instructs fathers on how they may sell their daughters to their rapists for 50 shekels of silver(Deuteronomy 22:28-29), condones banning women from the home when they are on their menstrual cycle(Leviticus 15:19-25), condones polyamory(Exodus 21:10, 1 Kings 11:1-3), provides instructions on selling your daughter to be a maidservant(Exodus 21:7-8), etc. With this scriptural information stated, I absolutely agree with you regarding the immensely hypocritical nature of feminist’s love affair with Islam. Although there are similarities between the scriptural procedures in the Old Testament and the Quran, there is no comparison between modern Christian practices and Islamic ones, and I am assuredly the first to defend Christianity when such a false comparison(in terms of the actions of each respective religion) is proposed.
    #2, the original context of the voting process under the Constitution did not include egalitarianism in terms of equal opportunity and representation of women in the political process; all voting opportunities were exclusively the ability of white men who owned property/land.
    With these two points of constructive criticism in place, I also want to applaud other points that you emphasized, notably the acknowledgement of liberals’ contradictory statement that they advocate a woman’s right to choose, but refrain from including a woman’s right to adhere to a traditional lifestyle in that choice. Second, I absolutely agree that feminism has become a Procrustean bed for women; it demands a strict conformity. It demonstrates the most immense hypocrisy in their own sexual objectification of women, E.G. wearing a costume resembling female genitalia while simultaneously protesting about alleged sexual oppression.
    Overall, I enjoyed several of the points that you emphasized, and I hope that the constructive criticism that I have offered proves to be beneficial to you. I look forward to reading your future articles.

    (2)
    • This article belongs to Xavier Keough. Stephen Whitt is simplg stealing thd kntellectual property. And editor does nothing to stop this theft. We, Xavier’s teaders are very angry. Yoh must stop doing this!

      (2)

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here