What Beltway Republicans Need To Do
The premier source for
California political news
your part to do right by our troops.
They did the right thing for you.
tOR Talk Radio
the Feminist Occupation
Women Who Make the World Worse
[Sally C. Pipes] 4/6/06
recently noted that some forecasters view the election of female
as a sign of a new and better world run by women. Of course,
not everybody sees it that way — certainly not Kate O'Beirne,
author of Women Who Make the World Worse: and How Their
Radical Feminist Assault is ruining Our Schools, Families,
Washington editor of National Review and familiar
to television viewers, believes that the modern women's movement
is totalitarian in its methods, radical in its aims, and dishonest
in its advocacy. Kate O’Beirne attempts to show this
in a topical manner, through chapters on the family, the military,
sports, and other relevant subjects. She makes a strong case
that is too detailed to outline at length in this space, but
worthy of support on key points. The cast of characters will
be familiar to readers of the Contrarian.
virtue of this book is its linkage of ideas with consequences.
Bad ideas translate to bad public policy. This is not an issue
of faculty lounge chit-chat, nor even formal debate. The radical
feminists outlined here are and have always been at war with
society. They have managed to occupy much territory, even without
the facts on their side.
Who Make the World Worse is also a convenient refresher
course on what might be called feminism's greatest hits.
For those new to the fray, or who may have forgotten, O'Beirne
recounts the Super Bowl hoax of 1993. Feminists floated the
idea that Super Bowl Sunday is a veritable D-Day of violence
toward women. It isn't, but only a single reporter at the Washington
Post took the trouble to check the facts. The unfactual
campaign rolled on unabated because of the vast credulity
toward feminist claims.
notes that Senator Birch Bayh, an Indiana Democrat, was one
of the chief sponsors of Title IX, which he saw as a measure
against gender quotas. It hasn't exactly worked out that way.
The measure's "proportionality" provision has led
to the elimination of hundreds of men's sports teams, including
the UCLA men's swimming team. The University of Miami dropped
men's crew, swimming, and diving. Princeton dropped wrestling.
was not the purpose of Title IX," former Senator Bayh
lamely explained. According to O'Beirne, he's wrong on that
as well. Feminists wanted a law mandating discrimination against
men, and they got what they wanted.
Late in the
book, O'Beirne gets into the differences between men and women,
something the radical ranks deny even as they attack those
who point them out. O'Beirne was part of a 1995 ABC News special
on sex differences in which she was asked to talk about the
effect of lawsuits that forced fire departments to lower their
physical standards in order to accommodate women. This would
probably mean, she said, that we would now be dragged out of
burning buildings by our ankles, our head hitting the steps
along they way. Gloria Steinem's response is one of the many
collector's items in this tough-minded book.
better to drag them out, because there's less smoke down there," Steinem
said. "I mean, we're probably killing people by carrying
them out at that height, you know, so – I mean, you know,
we need to look sensibly here at these jobs and what they really
require, and not just some idea of what macho is." The
author concluded that "desperate creativity must be a
shows similar insight on the travails of Harvard president
Larry Summers, who at a conference suggested that sex differences
might have something to do with the underrepresentation of
women in science. Nancy Hopkins of MIT felt a need to flee
the room lest she black out or throw up, thereby exhibiting,
according to O'Beirne, "an innate difference between men
and some women when they hear something they find unpleasant."
unpleasant reality in Women Who Make the World Worse is
the lack of symmetry in the consequences department. While
the results of feminist propaganda are evident throughout society,
the high-profile feminists suffer no adverse consequences for
their campaigns of misinformation and intimidation. Indeed,
they keep getting money, grants, fawning attention from politicians,
and free publicity from media outlets that should be checking
the facts. That dynamic will have to change if radical feminists
are to be prevented from making the world worse than they already
2006 Pacific Research Institute