HOW FEMINIST ABSOLUTISM DRIVES MORAL RELATIVISM
Feminist political players have always tended to take strong oppositional positions on issues of importance. None are based against a reasonable yardstick of moral, ethical, or social behavior.
The latest political trick applied by institutionalized feminists to scare the public away from healthy legislation is to claim that realists are “absolutist.” This word instantly dredges up visions of boorish male dictators, thus derailing meaningful debate into a trench-battle in a swamp that few realists can recover from.
We can now officially add the word “absolutism” to the unabridged Institutional Feminist dictionary. This repository of social terrorism includes other favorite bludgeons such as “intolerance,” “stigma,” “diversity,” ‘patriarchal,” “sexist,” “woman-hater,” and “abuser.”
Absolutism is not limited to spherical feminists (a “spherical feminist” is a person who is a feminist no matter what side you view them from). Conservatives have more than their share of practicing institutional feminists.
For example, former-Senator John Danforth dropped the “divisive” bomb in an attempt to make gay clerics and marriage an irrelevant issue for the Episcopal Church. Danforth is wrong: if practicing simple biblical principles becomes unimportant, the dictionary of institutionalized feminism has become the scripture for an irrelevant church. Not all battles are bad. This one should have been finished long ago. The Episcopal church should simply remove anyone attempting to sell the church into feminism and get on with life.
Its unwillingness of Epicopalians to read the bible brought on the installation of the first feminist Bishop, who immediately opened the floodgates of hell by announcing that homosexuality is no sin and homosexuals were created by God to love people of the same gender.
The Episcopal Church is now an extension of the National Organization for Women. In taking this position, Katharine Jefferts Schori is preaching from the N.O.W. Times, which in 1988 declared, "The simple fact is that every woman must be willing to be identified as a lesbian to be fully feminist."
Mark Alexander, an Episcopalian brother of Danforth, operates the self-proclaimed “Conservative Journal of Record.” Alexander insists that father-absence was caused by “male abdication.” after admitting that divorce was caused by feminists. He should know better: David Blankenhorn’s theory about father-absence was thoroughly debunked long ago. More than half of all husbands are thrown out of their families, as Alexander states, “without any claim of abandonment, infidelity or abuse.” Perhaps he would also blame the holocaust on the Jewish people?
Danforth and Schori are effectively supporting the aggressive lesbian take-over of the institution of marriage and the Episcopal Church itself. Those who actually read the bible are supposed to sit on their hands quietly or be called “absolutist.” Alexander is supporting this take-over passively, by falsely declaring men’s interest in marriage to be so weak as to be meaningless, leaving it open to co-option by lesbian-feminists who now fully intend to remove men from marriage and family entirely.
A “rationalization” is the practice of inventing socially-acceptable excuses for socially-unacceptable behavior. These frail, often-emotional, relativist indulgences melt before lucid moral standards such as “Thou shalt not kill,” or “Thou shalt not bear false witness.” These are but two of the many behavioral yardsticks hated by radical feminists who feel it is reasonable to kill babies and terminate marriages and husbands at-will.
Twenty years ago, feminists realized that it was necessary to take over all major religions in order to eliminate pesky moral yardsticks. Only a handful of churches have not yet been devastated or severely compromised.
The plan backfired on feminists in the Catholic Church. Their idea: since gays could be ministers, feminists could sue the institution for what gays do inside the Church, and put it out of business. The Vatican is finally standing its ground, removing gays and speaking against feminism after finding out what gay feminist ministers do when given power. If the Episcopalian grassroots cannot find the moral resolve to clean house now, perhaps the lessons of the Catholic Church will change their minds quickly.
Feminists failed broaching the Muslim faith. Indeed, one of the reasons Muslim countries see western cultures as being threatening is due to the fact that all western cultures are radically feminist. We insist on exporting absolutist feminism via every possible channel, and then wonder why Muslims are ready for war against the evil West. Do not mistake me: I am not saying we deserved to be attacked. I am saying that it could easily have been avoided had we said “No” to radical feminism in the 1960’s.
We fear it is a rude insult to the American melting pot when American Muslim women wear a chador. It is not. It is a rejection of feminism. We should take this seriously, and clean our own house of the absolutist feminism that Muslims of both sexes so correctly reject.
When relativists drop the “A” bomb, it is always a ruse to crowbar the creation of immoral policy and law. In the absolutist-feminist playbook, “cooperation” means absolute submission to absolutist perspectives. Any disagreement with feminist mandates is “abusive.” They vociferously declare that conflict is always verboten unless it involves feminists waging war on morals, marriage or fatherhood.
There is no “middle ground”, as Danforth suggests. We are either a moral society or we are not. Feminists win simply by poking one hole in morality, from which Hell spews quickly.
V-Day luna-chicks entirely disregard the fact that women initiate slightly over half of all serious domestic violence. Their circus of emotional rants, demanding guilty-ridden reparations by post-Victorian feminist males, continues to successfully terrorize Congress into funding the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA). As Dr. Steve Baskerville points out, VAWA is the most powerful weapon in the feminist arsenal, most often misused to destroy heterosexual marriage and fatherhood in a complete absence of fact.
Politicians and policy makers must avoid ideological feminist stumbling blocks at all costs. My recommendation: never get into arguments with feminists. They will drag you down to their level and beat you with experience. You can’t get caught if you do not bite the emotional bait.
In public debate, we must calmly stand our ground and simply point out that sound moral and social principles are mainstream values that most Americans ascribe to in every respect. We can easily force entitled radicals to battle on our turf. The benefits of marriage far outweigh the tremendous social costs and damage caused by feminist policy. Radicality becomes self-evident if one is wise enough to quietly allow it to hang itself publicly. Feminists have little traction in the public sphere. They succeed only by making politicians think they do.
Now, it is my turn to drop the “A” bomb on liberal feminists, who “are the absolutists.” They absolutely cannot stand the healthy moral values of marriage, family, and fatherhood. They will say anything to scare or threaten politicians and religions into doing what they demand.
have only one option: we must stand firmly against all aspects of
institutional feminism, or heterosexual marriage and fatherhood will
be replaced in both the secular and ecclesiastical worlds by entitled
marriages between Murphy Browns under the insidious connivance of
“equal rights for lesbian women.” Any politician, policymaker, or
church leader who cannot rise to this necessary duty must necessarily
be removed from positions of authority.
© 2006 David Usher - All
E-Mails are used strictly for NWVs alerts, not for sale
David R. Usher is Legislative Analyst for the American Coalition for Fathers and Children, Missouri Coalition And is a co-founder and past Secretary of the American Coalition for Fathers and Children
We have only one option: we must stand firmly against all aspects of institutional feminism, or heterosexual marriage and fatherhood will be replaced in both the secular and ecclesiastical worlds by entitled marriages between Murphy Browns under the insidious connivance of “equal rights for lesbian women.”