Feminism and Communism -- Promoting Victimhood - By Ted Lang - Price of Liberty
Feminism and Communism
Promoting Victimhood

By Ted Lang © 2003
Mission Statement
Editorial Policy
Letters to the Editor
Discussion Forum

November 21, 2003

Since my days as a teenager in gun-strangled New York City, where gun crimes and violence ran unabated, and in fact still do, my need to write to editors, judges and legislators addressing the incremental, unconstitutional infringements upon the Second Amendment has increased dramatically as opposed to having waned or subsided. And during my long, solitary campaign to stop the insanity of disarming the law-abiding, which can only be accomplished by conversely and indirectly arming the criminal element, I have come upon and written on many other un-American anomalies. Not that gun control or any other injustice against the law-abiding is part of a proven conspiracy, but it just as well might be.

And if there is a conspiracy, then it is orchestrated in the mahogany appointed boardrooms of the big corporate, socialist media. It filters down from there to editors, editorial boards, reporters and newscasters. At the grass roots level, well-intentioned but astonishingly uninformed and misguided grassroots masses only want to do the right thing for all in our society. But these grassroots elements rely upon casually explained solutions totally devoid of logic, constitutional law, history, and actual statistical fact, and merely employ regurgitated standardized slogans and assumptions. These misconceptions, employing rallying chants and false justifications, are the underlying motivational reinforcements of the supporters of Sarah Brady, Carolyn McCarthy, Rosie O’Donnell, Katie Couric, Barbra Streisand, Elizabeth Dole, Dianne Feinstein, Barbara Boxer, and the Million Mommies.

“Mommyism,” whether it’s the “Soccer Moms” that embrace vote wise a socialist America-hater, womanizer and rapist/draft-dodger, or whether personified by swooning, intellectually-challenged Million Mommies, conveys a clear unmistakable message: Subservience to a gutless, spineless, behind-the-scenes legalistic manipulator that doesn’t even remotely encompass what is generally accepted as American maleness, is preferred over a more meaningful relationship with a real man as concerns feminists. It seems that all our leaders are smirking, lying, gutless wonders who can’t do a brake job, change a sparkplug, hold a hammer properly, or shoot a gun. This is what “women” want? Yet, the allusion to the actual importance of America’s greatest role, namely motherhood, is only used as an anti-American agenda-launching platform.

During my normal perusal of articles relevant to our almost totally extinct, and dying republic, I came across the writings of Richard Poe on LewRockwell.com, and was once again pleasantly surprised when what I have observed empirically and opined upon, was confirmed by actual fact. It is a very similar feeling resultant from aiming a firearm at a far-distant target, and knowing full well you are never going to hit it, and then becoming totally confounded when you do hit it. How the hell did I do that? And no one is around to brag to!

The afore-mentioned females vociferously advocate gun control, and virtual all are committed to the superiority of their agenda. Feminist agitators justify their sainthood pointing out the historic, deliberate and barbaric subjugation of women throughout all of history perpetrated by dominating males. It would never occur to them that the relationships between men and women throughout all of history progressed via natural cultural convenience. It has therefore become necessary to apply male standards to the vital role women play in our society, and by so doing, similarly applying male values to these female roles as well. That of course doesn’t work, and even if they know it, doesn’t serve their agenda to admit it.

So what is their agenda? As is the norm in virtually all left-liberal agendas, it seizes upon an anecdote or a narrow and limited manifestation and/or purpose, and then totally blows it out of proportion to justify activism for change. And that change is always for the worse! In the case of the feminist movement, it is really an outcropping of a personal problem on the part of its founder, Betty Friedan.

In his series on gun control excerpted from his book, The Seven Myths of Gun Control, Richard Poe ran a series of articles on LewRockwell.com during the week ending November 7, 2003. I am quoting from two of these articles, “Guns and Feminism” and “Guns and Communism.” And of course, reading these, immediately a red flag went up. Not only isn’t it nice to defy Mother Gun Control, but it isn’t nice to use the “c” word either.

“Gun control works – it did for Hitler and Stalin,” is the bumper sticker that terrifies certain females, especially those that have traded in their man for a lesbian, or a Big Brother image of a “man” such as Bill Clinton. And never mind that he was a horrific womanizer – it’s his socialism that’s really sexy!

In his piece entitled, “Guns and Communism,” Poe offers: “Most historians agree that modern feminism began in 1963, with the publication of a best-selling book called The Feminine Mystique, by Betty Friedan. The conventional account holds that Friedan was a suburban housewife who became bored with her life, realizing that her marriage was nothing more than a ‘comfortable concentration camp.’ Three years later, in 1966, she founded the National Organization for Women (NOW) and became its first president. Friedan’s struggle to break free of the deadening routine of childrearing and housekeeping was held up as an example for other women to follow.”

Poe continues, “This story, while widely accepted, gives a misleading view of Friedan’s life and motivations. In 1999, Smith College professor Daniel Horowitz… published a book called Betty Friedan and the Making of the Feminine Mystique. It revealed what had previously been known only to the small circle of hard-core leftists who knew her; that Friedan had never in her life been a normal housewife or, indeed, a normal anything.”

Poe then sheds light on the real foundations of Betty Friedan’s feminism: “Beginning in college, Friedan – then known by her maiden name of Betty Goldstein – was already a hard-line Stalinist, active in the communist movement. Though Jewish, she supported Stalin’s 1939 non-aggression pact with Hitler. When orders went out from Moscow to all Communist Parties worldwide to treat Hitler as a friend, many communists couldn’t stomach it and broke ranks with Stalin. But Friedan was among the loyal few who obeyed.

‘Friedan’s secret was shared by hundreds of her comrades on the Left, though not, of course, by the unsuspecting American public – who went along with her charade presumably as a way to support her political agenda,’ writes David Horowitz, in a 1999 FrontPageMagazine.com article called ‘Feminist Icon Debunked.’

Friedan later married a fellow leftist, Carl Friedan, and devoted her life to the cause of Marxist revolution. Friedan spent her married years working as a ‘labor journalist’ – a professional propagandist for the Left. Her full-time maid did the housework. As her ex-husband Carl later noted, Friedan ‘was in the world during the whole marriage’ and ‘seldom was a wife and mother.’”

Of course, both the intent of Poe’s book as well as the excerpts derived from it was intended only to address the feminist overtones of gun control. It should be clear that Poe’s investigative journalism, carrying him to the analysis of the feminist movement as it relates to communism, was only incidental. But that incidental reference is unmistakable: Gun control has heavy communist overtones.

Poe goes on: “The conventional account implies that Friedan developed her feminist views in a spontaneous, trial-and-error fashion, based upon her experience with the ‘comfortable concentration camp’ of middle-class married life. In fact, Friedan had no need to invent this philosophy. Feminism – or what we call feminism today – had been a standard feature of Marxist thought at least since the publication of the Communist Manifesto in 1848. Writing in a June 2000 FrontPage article called, ‘Feminism's Dirtiest Secret,’ David Horowitz observes:

Not at all a neophyte when it came to the ‘woman question’ (the phrase itself is a Marxist construction), she was certainly familiar with the writings of Engels, Lenin, and Stalin on the subject and had written about it herself as a journalist for the official publication of the communist-controlled United Electrical Workers union.

In the Communist Manifesto, Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels had shocked the world by calling for the abolition of marriage and family, which they viewed as oppressive institutions. They wrote:

What is the present family based on? On capitalism, the acquisition of private property. It exists in all of its meaning only for the bourgeoisie… and will vanish when capitalism vanishes. Are you accusing us that we want to end the exploitation by parents of their children? We confess to that crime… The bourgeois sees in his wife nothing but an instrument of production.

Marx and Engels argued for free love, in which everyone would have sexual access to everyone else. They mocked the "moral outrage of our bourgeois," who found the notion scandalous.

Our bourgeois find their main amusement in mutually seducing their wives.

The bourgeois marriage is in reality the community of the wives. One could at best accuse the communists that instead of a hypocritical, hidden one, they want to introduce an official, openhearted women’s community.

Of course, Marx and Engels were men. One has to wonder whether the notion of communal lovemaking appealed to them for reasons other than ideological. Be that as it may, generations of Marxists dutifully strove to put the curious teachings of their founding fathers into practice. Few went so far as to embrace the extreme of free love. However, a deep ambivalence toward marriage and family was instilled in every Marxist heart.”

Of course, those that put down Adolf Hitler as a mere corporal or a former vagrant, fail to follow through by accurately describing Karl Marx as an unemployable vagrant as well. His brilliance was to adjudicate and theorize literally that the whole world and its industriousness was wrong, and should serve the higher moral road of supporting him because he chose neither to work nor to support his family. And while living on the dole and being supported by his breadwinner, Friedrich Engels, he committed adultery and impregnated his housekeeper. This is the “expert” on marriage and family commitment Betty Friedan and her feminist worshippers, such as Gloria Steinem and Patricia Ireland, rely upon for their direction and guidance as to the true nature of the American male.

And feminism is, of course, a mentally retarded and intellectually blunted movement against American maleness and everything that represents it, including firearms. In his article “Guns and Feminism,” Poe writes: “The feminist position on guns was expressed with unusual candor by Alana Bassin in a 1997 article in the Hastings Women’s Law Review, entitled, ‘Why Packing a Pistol Perpetuates Patriarchy.’ Bassin bluntly confessed that the anti-gun agenda was really an anti-male agenda. [Emphasis added]

‘Firearms are a source of male domination – a symbol of male power and aggression,’ she wrote. ‘First, the gun is phallic. Just as sex is the ultimate weapon of patriarchy used to penetrate and possess women, the gun’s sole purpose is to intrude and wound its victim. Historically, men have used guns to conquer and dominate other people.’ Bassin concluded that women needed to oppose gun rights, in order to ‘curb the perpetuation of patriarchy.’”

Thus, writer Richard Poe ties in the feminist movement, communism, and gun control. Never mind, that communism has served as the justification for the butchering, torture and enslavement of more people than any other “ism.” Women who support feminism, and their milquetoast male supporters, mostly employed by the New York Times and Hollywood, support attacking “maleness,” even if such blunted intellectual capacity supports the slaughter of millions of men, women and children. This is the essence of compassionate liberalism and political activism. And this compassionate liberalism and feminism is what communism is all about.

Theodore E. Lang

© 2003 THEODORE E. LANG All rights reserved

Ted Lang is a political analyst and a freelance writer.


Drafting the Draft -- "Froggy" And The Reds

Shut-up Abe!!! The ADL's Self-Induced Anti-Semitism

Big Government Terror Spikes

The Tiger Force Massacres

Complete Archives for Ted Lang

Visit Etherzone for other articles by Ted Lang

Submit Feedback