http://davidthompson.typepad.com/davidthompson/2009/08/in-the-church-of-the-sisterhood.html
Pretty much exactly the conclusion I came to on reading that drivel.
I view women as strong, intelligent, able, and independent. Capable of making decisions that have value and taking responsibility for those decisions and the consequences of them. This is one of the fundamental precepts of the entire concept of ‘freedom’. Freedom – the opposite of oppression, Margaret.
It’s lose-lose situation, catch 22. If you are not a androcide-promoting man-hating radical feminist then you have clearly been indoctrinated, duped, and oppressed by the male gender. Thus your decisions are not your own, nor your loves, desires, wants, dreams, ideals, et al. As such, you cannot be trusted to make decisions for yourself. The only way to be ‘free’ in Margaret’s book is by destroying everything male. Male children are not to be mothered, such would instill in them the belief that women are subject to them. Male children should not even be born – if a zygote is confirmed to be male, it should be terminated forth-with. In fact, being male should be a crime and we should all be kept on leashes, locked up, or killed off. Only when women are free from the disease that is the human male, will they be capable of making their own decisions.
That’s Margaret’s utopia. Now, keep in mind, Margaret is a self-declared spinster, that means she has never been married, and never had children. She was – by her own words – popped forth from her mother’s womb fully cognizant of the evils of men and the need for their erradication. So vehement and violent is Margaret’s distaste for male-kind that not only does she promoted killing male offsprint before they are born, but killing female offspring before they are born should their birth be into a ‘male dominated society’ such as we live in today.
Of course, Margaret completely misses the fact that swapping one set of doctrine for another still results in indoctrination, and if women are not free to make decisions in the current cultural environment, then they will be no more free to make their own decisions under her totalitarian ideals.
Despite her vocabulary, and propensity for describing simple concepts in long legal-political-ese, Margaret displays nothing more than ignorance and hate. Which is not suprising, since each is the birth place of the other. For a woman who has never been married to comment on the evils of marriage is ridiculous. For a woman who has never born a child to comment on the evils of child birth and motherhood, is beyond ludicrous. For the same woman to do both is simply certifiable. That kind of intellectual appropriation of the lives and experiences of women is dishonest, and nearly as abhorrent as the vile and abusive doctrine it is used to support.
Of Minds and Matters 
Leave a comment