So, 2017 was the year of feminism. That is, according to Merriam-Webster, the term “feminism” was the most searched word in its online dictionary.
That may well be because the movement is hard to define. The so-called Women’s March had every grievance industry in it, from gay rights to an introduction to Sharia law.
The year began with women of the Left complaining in a loud demonstration that Donald Trump was the worst disgrace to American democracy; by year’s end, a prominent female Democrat in the Senate admitted that maybe that distinction belonged to Bill Clinton all along.
It’s like the women’s movement, which I am happily not a part of, decided that if we weren’t going to get a female president, they’d go ahead and finally talk about the mostly liberal male predators in their lives. But why did they wait? Was it a political strategy by political activists?
You’ll recall it was Ashley Judd who went to the New York Times with the first salvo at what turned out to be an open secret in Hollywood: that Harvey Weinstein was a sex-entitled pig. Her story was that he asked for a massage or for her to watch him shower.
This was the same Ashley Judd who ran for office in Kentucky, the same one who was front and center at the Women’s March, where she nearly lost her voice screaming that she was a “nasty woman.” For the life of me, I cannot understand the correlation between demanding “equality” while degrading yourself by screaming such a thing, but this is the hyper-emotional type of craziness that the women of the feminist movement demand that all women, and even men, become a part of.
But the little snowball rolled into an enormous, crushing avalanche when week after week, the news cycle was dominated by which celebrity or politician was accused of sexual impropriety, finally revealing that female actresses lived with abuse for years and our esteemed halls of Congress had a slush fund to pay off sexual harassment claims. But was it not just a little odd that Judd waited until after Hillary lost to bring up these memories? Wouldn’t the impact have been much bigger in 2016?
To think that the entire feminist movement was behind Hillary Clinton, that she lost so amazingly, and here they were sitting on a political time bomb that they refused to light. Talk about a day late and a dollar short. But then, there was Bill, wasn’t there?
The state of feminism today is the inability to recognize human nature. Of the litany of complaints listed by feminists today, if you can stand to listen to all the whining, almost every single one is a rejection of biology, nature, and, dare I say it, God. Women aren’t taught by today’s feminists to rise above; they are taught to loudly demand things. Today, the so-called women’s movement is a groupthink exercise in mobocracy.
The movement itself is hypocritical and misogynistic to be sure. Pro-life women were banned from the Women’s March, and that shouldn’t have been a surprise. The dictatorial misogyny of the feminist movement has only one criterion upon which all kinds of social justice activism is accepted — the murder of the unborn. That dishonorable and horrifying practice has killed 30 million baby girls since 1973, and those on the side of life are abused by feminists, mocked and insulted as religious zealots who bow to the God of mankind instead of the new female religion of violence and death.
Those women who believe they are improving the lives of women, just like the suffragettes did one hundred years ago, have their history wrong. The suffragettes didn’t declare that because they had female genitalia, they ought to be able to vote. They actually cited religious beliefs and hung their desire to vote upon their skills and accomplishments in their communities. But today’s movement stands for the violent murder of the unborn first, second, and third. The only way the movement could ever become politically devastating would be if they recognized that people who are pro-life are well-intentioned, but that will never happen, and that’s why these so-called women’s rights movements are always false starts.
It’s not clear whether there was a concerted effort by feminist activists to make the sexual impropriety accusations a political strategy. However, if there was, it kind of backfired. It merely showed that morally deficient industries such as politics and filmmaking have more morally deficient people in them. Funny how Hillary Clinton’s moral corruption never bothered those in the morally deficient industry of Hollywood.
The year of feminism, such as it was, might only have been cited by Merriam-Webster because in general, people are having a tough time understanding what it has become. Instead of a solid movement of people who seek specific change, it is now a cacophony of grievances rolled into one package with the label of feminism slapped on it.
And all they want is everything they can’t get.
Author: Jen Kuznicki
Jen Kuznicki is a contributor to Conservative Review, a blue-collar wife and mom, a political writer, humorist, and conservative activist, a seamstress by trade, and compelled to write. Follow her on Twitter @JenKuznicki.