Within Western society, we have seen an increasingly abrasive movement begin to form under the guise of “Feminism,” particularly Third Wave Feminism. Recently, we have witnessed numerous protests regarding women’s societal roles and privileges (or alleged lack thereof) within society. While this initially appears to be an admirable goal, an intricate observation within these protests demonstrates many disturbing factors—a deceptively false accusation towards President Trump regarding women’s rights, a disregard for federal law, personal liberty, and the Constitution, the deliberate incorporation of known criminals and adherents to violent religious doctrine into their political organizations, and finally, an incredibly counter-productive and detrimental alliance with the very proponents of a legitimately misogynistic religious and political movement—that of Islam.
1) To address the first of the above points, one must note that the Liberal Left consistently opposes President Trump in all of his actions, regardless of whether said actions are indeed beneficial to society. The first accusation to be made against him is generally that he is a misogynist. This can be quickly refuted by a simple assessment of his cabinet and political positions. Within his cabinet, he has elected Elaine Chao(an Asian American), to serve as the secretary of Transportation, Betsy DeVos as secretary of Education, and Governor Nikki Haley for the position as Ambassador to the U.N.
He clearly considers these women capable of possessing positions of political authority, and this is demonstrated in his cabinet. A genuine misogynist would consider women inherently incapable of fulfilling these significant governmental roles. (https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/03/trump-cabinet-tracker/510527/)
As for the next inevitable accusation, feminist liberals argue that Trump will serve as a catalyst for the reduction of women’s rights, particularly regarding medical accessibility to abortions. The first flaw within this argument is that women’s rights are being conflated within feminist’s desired privileges. They dismiss the right of Conservative Women to reject abortion as an unethical practice, insisting instead that the only morally acceptable option is to federally fund and permit abortion—despite this being blatantly unconstitutional. Such is President Trump’s position. He has stated multiple times that he is indeed pro-life, but even despite this, he refuses to federally prohibit abortion. He takes a more sensible, moderate position on the matter—certain cases of Abortion are permitted, particularly in situations of involuntary sexual contact, rape, et cetera. Therefore, it would neither be entirely permissible to federally prohibit abortion. In actuality, Trump is merely preserving an already existent set of laws prohibiting the federal funding of Abortion, collectively known as the Hyde Amendment.What Trump emphasizes is the preservation of the Constitution, particularly the 10th amendment; Given that this issue is not explicitly discussed within the Constitution, it falls under the jurisdiction of this amendment. Trump blatantly states that, were his new appointee to the Supreme Court be the required determinant in overturning Roe V. Wade, the decision would immediately be returned to the states, which is constitutionally sound. Even this, however, is not enough to suffice liberal feminists, who instead seek to prioritize their own privileges and demands above Constitutional law. (http://www.cbsnews.com/news/trump-promises-pro-life-justices-supreme-court-same-sex-marriage/)
2) As previously stated, one of the most startling consensuses among the modern Feminist organization, is its refusal to demonstrate any level of respect towards the perspectives of Conservative women. They do not acknowledge that the refusal to agree with the ethical issue of abortion is equally protected under the Constitution, as is advocating it. They aren’t concerned with the fact that federal law prohibits the funding of Abortion, due to this respectability of both perspectives, and not compromising the rights of one to appease the other. Nor are they concerned with individual liberty, when it isn’t pertaining to them particularly. The rights of others may be damned in favor of their own, because Progressivism is, through them, an intolerant and imperialistic ideology. It seeks to dominate the political spectrum, and refuses to even discuss the matter without resorting to emotionally charged accusations of bigotry and misogyny. Therefore, it can be stated with confidence that this “Feminism” is not concerned with the personal liberty, autonomy and rights of women, but the privileges of Feminist liberals only.
3) The third point is likely one of the most incredibly disturbing observations of the recent actions within the Feminist left. During the march on Washington, many controversial figures made an appearance to speak on “Women’s Rights”. Two of the most prominent, and morally bankrupt, of the said representatives are Donna Hylton and Linda Sarsour.
The first of these, Donna Hylton, is a convicted criminal who has served 25 years in prison as a result of a horrific crime. In 1985, she was found guilty after she and several individuals kidnapped a 62 year old caucasian man,Thomas Vigliarole, and imprisoned,physically assaulted, raped, and murdered him. Hylton personally tortured the victim, and sodomized him with a three foot steel pole. Even after torturing the victim to death, they demanded a ransom of over 400,000$. Eventually, all three men and four women were tried and convicted of their hideous crime—only to have Hylton later be portrayed as a victim of allegedly harsh conditions in prison. Rather than her being held responsible for her horrific, despicable and absolutely barbaric crime, she is presented as a female role model, fighting in opposition to the “unfair justice system”. The fact that any women’s rights organization would ever embrace this unapologetic murderer is baffling. (http://dailycaller.com/2017/01/26/womens-march-featured-speaker-who-kidnapped-raped-and-tortured-a-man/)
The second of these individuals is Linda Sarsour, an ironically islamic individual who advocates the acceptance of sharia law within the United States, while simultaneously claiming to reinforce women’s rights. The two are absolutely incompatible, and this is clear to anyone who has ever observed the condoned procedures within Sharia Law. Predominantly Islamic countries have the poorest representation of women, as they are not permitted to drive, speak without a male’s permission, go without a hijab, and a plethora of other legitimately oppressive issues. In scriptural terms, the Quran advocates physical violence against women, pedophilia, the sexual molestation of slaves, and likewise insists that men are a degree above their wives. This is applied in literal situations as well, in which women are stoned to death for being raped, frequently assaulted or executed for refusing to cover their heads, and are unfortunately the frequent victims of similar acts of sexual/ physical assault. Due to this, it is immediately considered reprehensible to attempt to bring both sharia law and women’s rights into reconciliation. Additionally, Sarsour attacked a victim of female genital mutilation(a frequent occurrence in predominantly Islamic countries), insisting that the individual doesn’t deserve to be a female. This animosity towards legitimate victims of physical and sexual assault isn’t at all an effective method of representing feminism—if anything, it provides one an authentic reason to oppose it.
All of the above factors are self-destructive tendencies that have been observed within the feminist left over the course of the last few months, as their protests have become increasingly aggressive and militant. My hypothesis is that, they yearn to introduce a legitimate factor of oppression, so that they may preserve their status of victimization. They do not intend to pursue the humanitarian issues in Middle Eastern countries, in which women are legitimately oppressed. Were these crises resolved, what would remain for feminists to manipulate into an example of alleged “oppression” against them? The traditional Conservative woman is disregarded, in favor rather of the dramatic, sensationalized SJW Feminist who serves as a “Martyr” for their destructive propaganda. The pro-life perspective is disregarded in favor of abortion. The wife and mother are disregarded in favor of the lone adulteress. Traditional values of Femininity are vehemently rejected, and Women’s natural inclinations are considered inherently oppressive. These factors are what constitute the hilariously tragic and discombobulated cult of “Feminism”. Feminists do not desire equality—they desire victimization, and in this way, commit an anecdotal suicide, by embracing criminals and religious militants, opposing men and Conservative women, and adopting increasingly militant methods of protesting, so that they may continue to impale themselves upon the double-edged rapier of victimization.