In the eyes of the Abrahamic religions, the archetypal woman is …disobedient, unreliable, easily led astray, and a seductive temptress of man…Woman is the source of danger, the one who corrupts him, the conduit for all that is evil in the world. She is dangerous … yet irresistible; and this very irresistibility makes her more dangerous still.
To paraphrase the late Dorothy Parker, the New Testament’s view of women runs the full gamut from A to B. Prostitute or virgin: take your pick, ladies.
… It is time women everywhere woke up to it.
What does it mean to wake up? Having awoken, what would one expect a woman to do in response to this cultural pressure, that is, to play a role she is not interested in playing? How aggressively should she act in asserting her rights?
Is this the same person, having written the above passages only about a year ago, who recently used the term “feminazi” to describe some determined women, quite awake and asserting their rights in the most uncompromising manner?
With regard to the tactics of the totalitarian state (the “nazi” in “Feminazi”, get it?), suppression of dissent is near the top of the list. Such a state simply silences that person’s voice. Have the individuals and groups to whom she referred engaged in such behaviour? In the totalitarian state, direct aggression is hardly necessary as the first tool (that’s what hired thugs are for) and even then it is a tool of intimidation, not one of argumentation and consensus building. Such a state makes irritating opinions simply go away. The feminists to whom she referred don’t appear to be blocking, silencing, or banishing anyone, as far as I can see.
Ms. Kirby, what, precisely are the “strains of totalitarian thought“? Please cite examples and explain for the simplest among us how these examples can be construed as “totalitarian”.