Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Radical Feminists on the USC - Barf Alert? Humor Alert? WTF alert!

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU
 
Madrone Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-18-04 12:04 AM
Original message
Radical Feminists on the USC - Barf Alert? Humor Alert? WTF alert!
Radical Feminists on the U.S. Supreme Court

March 17, 2004
by Carey Roberts

Just five short days after President Bill Clinton’s nomination, Ruth Bader Ginsburg had been confirmed by the Senate and sworn in as Justice to the U.S. Supreme Court. That was during the Dog Days of August 1993. Obviously, the Clinton Administration wanted to fast-track the process so no one would have time to ask any embarrassing questions.
Because of her low-key manner, people believed Ginsburg was a moderate. But if the Senate had bothered to look into Ginsburg’s background, they would have been troubled, indeed.

Ruth Ginsburg received her law degree from Columbia Law School. In 1971 she established the Women’s Rights Project at the American Civil Liberties Union. Throughout the 1970s Ginsburg acquired a first-hand knowledge of the workings of the Supreme Court as she argued six cases – all feminist issues – to the Justices.

Ruth Ginsburg made the same assumption as the rest of the feminist movement. She accepted without question the Marxist claim that women’s role as mothers and wives is inherently oppressive. And she believed that equality of opportunity should always translate into identical social roles.

In 1977, Ginsburg wrote a report for the Commission on Civil Rights titled “Sex Bias in the U.S. Code”. This report demanded 800 changes to federal laws in order to eliminate any and all distinctions between men and women.

For starters, the report claims that the Boy Scouts perpetuate stereotyped sex roles, so they must be gender-integrated or abolished. You can’t help but wonder if the current Leftist hostility to the Boy Scouts stems from this recommendation.

Then we are instructed to clean up our speech: "manmade" must be changed to "artificial," "midshipman" to "midshipperson," and so forth. Why the report fails to object to such obviously sexist terms as “mother tongue,” “Mother Nature,” “ladybug,” and “sister city,” I can’t possibly guess.

But page 206 of this report is where it all comes out. There we learn of Ginsburg’s grand vision to reshuffle the deck of the traditional family. She proposes to do away with the husband-as-primary-breadwinner concept:

"Congress and the President should direct their attention to the concept that pervades the Code: that the adult world is (and should be) divided into two classes--independent men, whose primary responsibility is to win bread for a family, and dependent women, whose primary responsibility is to care for children and household. This concept must be eliminated from the Code if it is to reflect the equality principle."

But we’re still not done. On page 214 Ginsburg urges us to adopt Communist-style day care services: "The increasingly common two-earner family pattern should impel development of a comprehensive program of government-supported child care."

Radicals often moderate their stance as they get older and wiser. But not Ruth Ginsburg.

On January 29, Justice Bader appeared at a lecture sponsored by the National Organization for Women Legal Defense Fund. Over the years the NOW Legal Defense Fund has used the cover of gender equality to promote their agenda of destabilizing the family and promoting Marxist ideals. Justice Ginsburg not only appeared at the meeting, she introduced the speaker for the 4th Annual Ruth Bader Ginsburg Distinguished Lecture Series on Women and the Law.

In that appearance, Ginsburg showed that she remains ever-faithful to the Sisterhood. Plus, she fostered the perception that she lacks judicial impartiality and objectivity. As Hofstra University law professor Monroe Freedman remarked, “I think this crosses the line.”

Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s writings reveal the true intentions of radical feminism: achieve a gender-less society and impose totalitarian ideals on American society. And her recent appearance at a NOW conference reveals she still hews to the fem-socialist line.

Justice Ginsburg is now 70 years old, and may step down from the bench in a few years. But for now, radical feminists can rest assured that they have a friend in very high places.

Carey Roberts
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
ant Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-18-04 12:22 AM
Response to Original message
1. "radical feminists can rest assured ...
...that they have a friend in very high places."

And probably not many others. This radical feminist will take what she can get. Go, Ruth!

Interesting side note: I assume she finished law school late 60s or so. I saw Iron Jawed Angels on HBO last week and was surprised to learn that Alice Paul died in 1977. Given Ginsburg's activities I wouldn't be surprised to learn she interacted with or at least met Alice Paul and the other women she worked with. Imagine meeting the women who were arrested and abused for simply demanding their right to vote be recognized. Imagine hearing the stories of the women who got us all the right to vote! I can't imagine NOT being "radicalized" by that.

Anyway, 1977...that's only two years after I was born. What made it REALLY interesting, though, was that the older feminists in the movie made reference to their work with Susan B. Anthony. It just struck me how close in time I am to all these people. It really wasn't that long ago. It's just amazing to me.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
maxanne Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-18-04 12:27 AM
Response to Original message
2. radical feminists
merit a barf alert?

The undercurrents of sexism and misogyny here at DU never cease to disturb me.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Madrone Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-18-04 12:32 AM
Response to Reply #2
3. Ummm no. Articles pulled from the ass of some guy named Carey Roberts
merit a barf alert. Articles that try to discredit Ruth by painting her as a "radical feminist" which we all know is codeword for socialist man-hating lesbians practicing witchcraft with the religious wrong.

Sheesh -

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Sinistrous Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-18-04 02:21 AM
Response to Original message
4. A short bio on this "Carey Roberts" character:
from: http://www.renewamerica.us/columns/roberts


Carey Roberts

Carey Roberts is an analyst and commentator on political correctness. His best-known work was an exposé on Marxism and radical feminism.

Mr. Roberts' work has been cited on the Rush Limbaugh show. Besides serving as a regular contributor to RenewAmerica.us, he has published in The Washington Times, LewRockwell.com, ifeminists.net, Men's News Daily, eco.freedom.org, The Federal Observer, Opinion Editorials, and The Right Report.

Previously, he served on active duty in the Army, was a professor of psychology, and was a citizen-lobbyist in the US Congress. In his spare time he admires Norman Rockwell paintings, collects antiques, and is an avid soccer fan. He now works as an independent researcher and consultant.



The term *curmudgeon* comes to mind.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-18-04 04:34 AM
Response to Original message
5. How does "government-supported" equate to "Communist-style"?

Given the bad name communism has in the US, this seems like an attempt to denounce anything that is "government-supported".
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ComerPerro Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-18-04 04:36 AM
Response to Original message
6. Ehh... The fasci.. I mean Republicans, needent worry
The Supreme Court will be irrelevant soon enough. All they need is a Bush reselection and another massive terror attack here at home
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Nobody Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-18-04 06:43 AM
Response to Original message
7. And being a feminist is a bad thing?
As a radical feminist myself (I believe in that crazy notion that female human beings are just as good and just as deserving of opportunities and respect as male human beings), I say

WAY TO GO RUTH!!!!!!! May there be more like her.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Moderator DU Moderator Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-18-04 01:15 PM
Response to Original message
8. Proud DemocRAT
Per DU copyright rules
please post only four
paragraphs from the
news source and provide
a link back to the
source.

Thank you.

DU Moderator
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
never cry wolf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-18-04 02:23 PM
Response to Original message
9. The Chicago Tribune must be on this guy's mailing list
Check out this smarmy op-ed piece from today's trib:

When conservative Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia took a free ride on Air Force Two to go duck hunting with Vice President Dick Cheney, a lot of people were upset, and with good reason. The trip took place just three weeks after the Supreme Court agreed to review a lower court decision ordering Cheney to divulge the names of people his energy task force met with in 2001, something Cheney has insisted on keeping secret. But blindness about conflicts of interest is not limited to conservative justices.

It turns out Ruth Bader Ginsburg has been similarly obtuse about her ethical obligations. A onetime lawyer for liberal causes like abortion rights, she has publicly affiliated herself with the NOW Legal Defense and Education Fund, which often takes part in cases before the Supreme Court. In January, she gave a talk to kick off the Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg Distinguished Lecture Series on Women and the Law, which was co-sponsored by the organization and the New York City bar association.


more----> http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/chi-0403180145mar18,1,4918465.story?coll=chi-newsopinion-hed
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Fri Dec 27th 2024, 10:11 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC