ifeminists.com: A central gathering place and information center for individualist feminists.   -- explore the new feminism --
introduction | interaction | information

ifeminists.com > introduction > editorials

The Pink Pussy-Cat Bares Her Fangs
February 23, 2005
by Carey Roberts

Following their November 2 electoral melt-down, the Sisterhood and the rest of the radical Left lapsed into bitterness and despair. Sensing that Middle America is turning a cold shoulder on their socialist agenda, the rad-fems have now unleashed a last-ditch campaign of intimidation, accusations, and threats.

On January 9, former Indiana representative Tim Roemer announced he was running for the top post of the Democratic National Committee. Many believed Roemer was exactly the boost the wilting Democratic Party needed - someone with a moderate ideology, fresh ideas, and Midwestern roots. But there was a slight problem: Mr. Roemer is a Catholic, and his resumé revealed a pro-life voting record.

That was more than the pro-abortion jihadists in the Democratic Party could stomach.

With cat-like stealth, "they" put together an "opposition research memo," pol-speak for a smear campaign. I put "they" in quotation marks because no one was willing to admit who perpetrated the hatchet job.

Next, Nancy Keenan, incoming president of NARAL Pro-Choice America (that's a feel-good name, isn't it?) powered up the feminist buzz-saw. She ordered NARAL's state affiliates to pressure the 447 DNC delegates to toe the pro-abortion line.

Roemer is as feisty a politician as you will get. But the NARAL activists turned his abortion views into a single-issue litmus test, and soon he was forced to withdraw. An angered Roemer later commented they "tried to make abortion the radioactive anvil that hung around my neck. They threw two kitchen sinks at me."

Then just five days after Roemer announced his DNC candidacy, Harvard president Lawrence Summers made a comment that "innate differences" between the sexes may account for why top science positions are filled mostly by males. Sitting in the audience was one MIT professor Nancy Hopkins. Upon hearing his remarks, Hopkins nearly swooned and had to exit the room.

The Fearsome Felines became so enraged over Summers' suggestion that they mounted a campaign designed to embarrass and humiliate the Harvard president. Summers soon confessed to his ideological revisionism and commenced a round of self-criticism. But that wasn't enough, and now the N.O.W operatives are calling for a complete ideological cleansing.

Dismayed by the Soviet show-trial atmosphere at Harvard, civil-liberties lawyer Harvey A. Silvergate remarked, "The modern university is the culmination of a 20-year trend of irrationalism marked by an increasingly totalitarian approach to highly politicized issues."

The missteps of Roemer and Summers were bad enough, but after all, they were made by members of the male oppressor class. What really stirs up a cat fight, though, is when a woman -- a woman! -- hisses at the Sisterhood.

That's what happened on February 13, when the Los Angeles Times ran a piece by Charlotte Allen. Commenting on the dearth of female intellectuals, Allen explained, "Ideological feminism has ghettoized and trivialized the subject matter of women's writing."

The feminist catechism does not take well to apostasy, and it fell to one Susan Estrich to deliver the ex-communication. Estrich is the ultra-liberal University of South California law professor who likely would have been John Kerry's first nomination to the United States Supreme Court.

First, Estrich broadcast a thermonuclear e-mail accusing the Times of "blatant sex discrimination" and calling for a quota for female columnists. Worst of all, she branded Miss Allen a "feminist-hater." Off with her head!

Then in an exchange of e-mails with opinion-page editor Michael Kinsley, Estrich pulled out every intimidation tactic in the book. She threatened to approach the LA Times advertisers. She accused the Times' male editors of "unconscious discrimination" -- how's that for the mother of all guilt trips?

And then showing incredibly bad taste, she suggested that Kinsley's health "may have affected your brain, your judgment, and your ability to do this job." But Kinsley refused to give in to Estrich's sourpuss demands.

Estrich made a slight miscalculation, though -- she cc'ed her hot-head threats to the Examiner. This past Saturday the Examiner published the entire acerbic exchange.

Now, the cat is out of the bag, so to speak. Let's just say that Susan Estrich is no longer on anyone's short list for the U.S. Supreme Court.

Anyone who has had dealings with the rad-fems knows how they rely on every type of psychological, social, and legal manipulation to get their way. Give them an inch, and they take a mile. In the past, these machinations took place behind closed doors, so the public remained in the dark. But now, their storm-trooper tactics have come out of the closet, for all the world to see.

Hooray for editor Michael Kinsley and all the other men and women who Just Say No to the feminist bullies.

ifeminists.com > home | introduction | interaction | information | about

ifeminists.com is edited by Wendy McElroy; it is made possible by support from The Independent Institute and members like you.