Marxist Feminism’s Ruined Lives

Mallory Millett resides in New York City with her husband of over twenty years. She is CFO for several corporations and a long-standing member of The David Horowitz Freedom Center.

feminists“When women go wrong men go right after them.”
– Mae West

“Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy; its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery.”  Winston Churchill wrote this over a century ago.

During my junior year in high school, the nuns asked about our plans for after we graduated. When I said I was going to attend State University, I noticed their disappointment.  I asked my favorite nun, “Why?” She answered, “That means you’ll leave four years later a communist and an atheist!”

What a giggle we girls had over that. “How ridiculously unsophisticated these nuns are,” we thought. Then I went to the university and four years later walked out a communist and an atheist, just as my sister Katie had six years before me.

Sometime later, I was a young divorcee with a small child. At the urging of my sister, I relocated to NYC after spending years married to an American executive stationed in Southeast Asia. The marriage over, I was making a new life for my daughter and me.  Katie said, “Come to New York.  We’re making revolution! Some of us are starting the National Organization of Women and you can be part of it.”

I hadn’t seen her for years.  Although she had tormented me when we were youngsters, those memories were faint after my Asian traumas and the break-up of my marriage.  I foolishly mistook her for sanctuary in a storm. With so much time and distance between us, I had forgotten her emotional instability.

And so began my period as an unwitting witness to history. I stayed with Kate and her lovable Japanese husband, Fumio, in a dilapidated loft on The Bowery as she finished her first book, a PhD thesis for Columbia University, “Sexual Politics.”

It was 1969. Kate invited me to join her for a gathering at the home of her friend, Lila Karp. They called the assemblage a “consciousness-raising-group,” a typical communist exercise, something practiced in Maoist China.  We gathered at a large table as the chairperson opened the meeting with a back-and-forth recitation, like a Litany, a type of prayer done in Catholic Church. But now it was Marxism, the Church of the Left, mimicking religious practice:

“Why are we here today?” she asked.
“To make revolution,” they answered.
“What kind of revolution?” she replied.
“The Cultural Revolution,” they chanted.
“And how do we make Cultural Revolution?” she demanded.
“By destroying the American family!” they answered.
“How do we destroy the family?” she came back.
“By destroying the American Patriarch,” they cried exuberantly.
“And how do we destroy the American Patriarch?” she replied.
“By taking away his power!”
“How do we do that?”
“By destroying monogamy!” they shouted.
“How can we destroy monogamy?”

Their answer left me dumbstruck, breathless, disbelieving my ears.  Was I on planet earth?  Who were these people?

“By promoting promiscuity, eroticism, prostitution and homosexuality!” they resounded.

They proceeded with a long discussion on how to advance these goals by establishing The National Organization of Women.  It was clear they desired nothing less than the utter deconstruction of Western society. The upshot was that the only way to do this was “to invade every American institution.  Every one must be permeated with ‘The Revolution’”: The media, the educational system, universities, high schools, K-12, school boards, etc.; then, the judiciary, the legislatures, the executive branches and even the library system.

It fell on my ears as a ludicrous scheme, as if they were a band of highly imaginative children planning a Brinks robbery; a lark trumped up on a snowy night amongst a group of spoiled brats over booze and hashish.

To me, this sounded silly.  I was enduring culture shock after having been cut-off from my homeland, living in Third-World countries for years with not one trip back to the United States. I was one of those people who, upon returning to American soil, fell out of the plane blubbering with ecstasy at being home in the USA. I knelt on the ground covering it with kisses.  I had learned just exactly how delicious was the land of my birth and didn’t care what anyone thought because they just hadn’t seen what I had or been where I had been.  I had seen factory workers and sex-slaves chained to walls.

How could they know?  Asia is beyond our ken and, as they say, utterly inscrutable, and a kind of hell I never intended to revisit.  I lived there, not junketed, not visited like sweet little tourists — I’d conducted households and tried to raise a child. I had outgrown the communism of my university days and was clumsily groping my way back to God.

How could twelve American women who were the most respectable types imaginable — clean and privileged graduates of esteemed institutions: Columbia, Radcliffe, Smith, Wellesley, Vassar; the uncle of one was Secretary of War under Franklin Roosevelt — plot such a thing?  Most had advanced degrees and appeared cogent, bright, reasonable and good. How did these people rationally believe they could succeed with such vicious grandiosity?  And why?

I dismissed it as academic-lounge air-castle-building.  I continued with my new life in New York while my sister became famous publishing her books, featured on the cover of “Time Magazine.” “Time” called her “the Karl Marx of the Women’s Movement.”  This was because her book laid out a course in Marxism 101 for women.  Her thesis: The family is a den of slavery with the man as the Bourgeoisie and the woman and children as the Proletariat.  The only hope for women’s “liberation” (communism’s favorite word for leading minions into inextricable slavery; “liberation,” and much like “collective” – please run from it, run for your life) was this new “Women’s Movement.”  Her books captivated the academic classes and soon “Women’s Studies” courses were installed in colleges in a steady wave across the nation with Kate Millett books as required reading.

Imagine this: a girl of seventeen or eighteen at the kitchen table with Mom studying the syllabus for her first year of college and there’s a class called “Women’s Studies.” “Hmmm, this could be interesting,” says Mom. “Maybe you could get something out of this.”

Seems innocuous to her.  How could she suspect this is a class in which her innocent daughter will be taught that her father is a villain?  Her mother is a fool who allowed a man to enslave her into barbaric practices like monogamy and family life and motherhood, which is a waste of her talents.  She mustn’t follow in her mother’s footsteps. That would be submitting to life as a mindless drone for some domineering man, the oppressor, who has mesmerized her with tricks like romantic love.  Never be lured into this chicanery, she will be taught.  Although men are no damned good, she should use them for her own orgasmic gratification; sleep with as many men as possible in order to keep herself unattached and free. There’s hardly a seventeen-year-old girl without a grudge from high school against a Jimmy or Jason who broke her heart.  Boys are learning, too, and they can be careless during high school, that torment of courting dances for both sexes.

By the time Women’s Studies professors finish with your daughter, she will be a shell of the innocent girl you knew, who’s soon convinced that although she should be flopping down with every boy she fancies, she should not, by any means, get pregnant.  And so, as a practitioner of promiscuity, she becomes a wizard of prevention techniques, especially abortion.

The goal of Women’s Liberation is to wear each female down to losing all empathy for boys, men or babies. The tenderest aspects of her soul are roughened into a rock pile of cynicism, where she will think nothing of murdering her baby in the warm protective nest of her little-girl womb.  She will be taught that she, in order to free herself, must become an outlaw. This is only reasonable because all Western law, since Magna Carta and even before, is a concoction of the evil white man whose true purpose is to press her into slavery.

Be an outlaw! Rebel! Be defiant!  (Think Madonna, Lady Gaga, Lois Lerner, Elizabeth Warren.) “All women are prostitutes,” she will be told.  You’re either really smart and use sex by being promiscuous for your own pleasures and development as a full free human being “just like men” or you can be a professional prostitute, a viable business for women, which is “empowering” or you can be duped like your mother and prostitute yourself to one man exclusively whereby you fall under the heavy thumb of “the oppressor.”  All wives are just “one-man whores.”

She is to be heartless in this.  No sentimental stuff about courting. No empathy for either boy or baby.  She has a life to live and no one is to get in her way.  And if the boy or man doesn’t “get it” then no sex for him; “making love” becomes “having sex.” “I’m not ‘having sex’ with any jerk who doesn’t believe I can kill his son or daughter at my whim.  He has no say in it because it’s my body!” (Strange logic as who has ever heard of a body with two heads, two hearts, four arms, four feet?)

There’s no end to the absurdities your young girl will be convinced to swallow.  “I plan to leap from guy to guy as much as I please and no one can stop me because I’m liberated!”  In other words, these people will turn your daughter into a slut with my sister’s books as instruction manuals. (“Slut is a good word. Be proud of it!”)  She’ll be telling you, “I’m probably never getting married and if I do it will be after I’ve established my career,” which nowadays often means never. “I’ll keep my own name and I don’t really want kids.  They’re such a bother and only get in the way.”  They’ll tell her, “Don’t let any guy degrade you by allowing him to open doors for you. To be called ‘a lady’ is an insult. Chivalry is a means of ownership.”

Thus, the females, who are fundamentally the arbiters of society go on to harden their young men with such pillow-talk in the same way they’ve been hardened because, “Wow, man, I’ve gotta get laid and she won’t do it if I don’t agree to let her kill the kid if she gets knocked-up!” Oppressed? Woman has always had power. Consider the eternal paradigm: only after Eve convinced Adam to eat the fruit did mankind fall. I.e., man does anything to make woman happy, even if it’s in defiance of God. There’s power for ya! Without a decent womankind, mankind is lost. As Mae West said, “When women go wrong men go right after them!”

I’ve known women who fell for this creed in their youth who now, in their fifties and sixties, cry themselves to sleep decades of countless nights grieving for the children they’ll never have and the ones they coldly murdered because they were protecting the empty loveless futures they now live with no way of going back.  “Where are my children?  Where are my grandchildren?” they cry to me.

“Your sister’s books destroyed my sister’s life!”  I’ve heard numerous times. “She was happily married with four kids and after she read those books, walked out on a bewildered man and didn’t look back.”  The man fell into despairing rack and ruin. The children were stunted, set off their tracks, deeply harmed; the family profoundly dislocated and there was “no putting Humpty-Dumpty together again.”

Throughout the same time these women were “invading” our institutions, the character of the American woman transformed drastically from models portrayed for us by Rosalind Russell, Bette Davis, Deborah Kerr, Eve Arden, Donna Reed, Barbara Stanwyck, Claudette Colbert, Irene Dunn, Greer Garson.  These were outstanding women needing no empowerment lessons and whose own personalities, as well as the characters they interpreted, were strong, resilient and clearly carved.  Their voices were so different you could pick them out by that alone.  We all knew Rita Hayworth’s voice.  We all knew Katherine Hepburn’s voice.

I dare you to identify the voices of the cookie-cutter post-women’s-liberation types from Hollywood today. How did these “liberated” women fall into such an indistinguishable pile of mush? They all look exactly the same with few individuating characteristics and their voices sound identical, these Julies and Jessicas!  My friend, Father George Rutler, calls them “the chirping fledglings of the new Dark Ages.”  The character of the American woman has been distorted by this pernicious movement. From where did this foul mouthed, tattooed, outlaw creature, who murders her baby without blinking an eye and goes partying without conscience or remorse come?  And, in such a short little phase in history?

Never before have we heard of so many women murdering their children: Casey Anthony killing her little Caylee and partying-hearty for weeks; Susan Smith driving her beautiful little boys into a lake, leaving them strapped in the water to die torturous deaths; that woman who drowned her five children in the bathtub?  “Hey, if I can kill my baby at six months of gestation why not six months post-birth, just call it late late-term abortion.”

I insist that woman always has been the arbiter of society and when those women at Lila Karp’s table in Greenwich Village set their minds to destroying the American Family by talking young women into being outlaws, perpetrators of infanticide, and haters of Western law, men and marriage, they accomplished just what they intended.  Their desire — and I witnessed it at subsequent meetings till I got pretty sick of their unbridled hate — was to tear American society apart along with the family and the “Patriarchal Slave-Master,” the American husband.

We’re all so busy congratulating each other because Ronald Reagan “won the Cold War without firing a shot” entirely missing the bare truth which is that Mao, with his Little Red Book and the Soviets, won the Cold War without firing a shot by taking over our women, our young and the minds of everyone tutored by Noam Chomsky and the textbooks of Howard Zinn. Post-graduate Junior is Peter Pan trapped in the Never Neverland of Mom’s (she’s divorced now) basement. Christina Hoff Sommers says, “Moms and dads, be afraid for your sons. There’s a ‘war on men’ that started a long time ago in gender studies classes and in women’s advocacy groups eager to believe that men are toxic… Many ‘educated women’ in the U.S. have drunk from the gender feminist Kool Aid.  Girls at Yale, Haverford and Swarthmore see themselves as oppressed.  This is madness.”

If you see something traitorous in this, a betrayal of my sister, I have come to identify with such people as Svetlana Stalin or Juanita Castro; coming out to speak plainly about a particularly harmful member of my family.  Loyalty can be highly destructive.  What about Muslims who refuse to speak out right now?  I was one of the silent but at last I’m “spilling the beans.” The girls have been up to something for years and it’s really not good. It’s evil. We should be sick to our souls over it.  I know I am. And so, mass destruction, the inevitable outcome of all socialist/communist experiments, leaves behind its signature trail of wreckage.

So much grace, femininity and beauty lost.

So many ruined lives.

Mallory Millett resides in New York City with her husband of over twenty years. CFO for several corporations, she is a long-standing member of The David Horowitz Freedom Center and sits on the Board of Regents for the Center for Security Policy.

Freedom Center pamphlets now available on Kindle: Click here.  

Subscribe to Frontpage’s TV show, The Glazov Gang, and LIKE it on Facebook.

  • Ella Lohan

    Feminist, I like your attitude! :D

  • Ella Lohan

    If you really think that, although I am quite kind to everyone, I will pass you by if I see you are hurt somewhere, because your judgementalness doesn’t get you anywhere. It will smack you in the face someday.

  • Ella Lohan

    Would you prefer that a single mother be left alone and destitute? There is an entire population of women and children in Indonesia who are like that because there is no welfare program, and many many uneducated children as a result. Think before you judge.

  • Ella Lohan

    Don’t you know that the Bible says “thou shalt not judge” before you insult someone like that? A woman’s worth is not dependent on her hymen, either.

    • bob smith

      Ella, aside from your hymen gazing, your post reals of paranoia weaned from stupidity.

      However, stupidity and obtuseness aside I will clarify in a dumbed down obamaesque manner fools like you can only understand.

      Sharon is an affirmed socialist who, gutless and brainless like you deleted her post advocating Socialism for The USA. The derogatory term used in asking if she is one and the same that the author describes in her story was used in quotation of said author.

      If your feminist skin is as thin as your paranoia suggests, I would advise estrogen or testosterone therapy, whichever your hymen prefers.

      A primer on reading comprehension wouldn’t hurt you either.

    • Mallory Millett

      A woman’s worth is dependent upon the self-respect with which she conducts herself. Period!

  • Ella Lohan

    That has everything to do with culture, not with the procedure itself.

  • Ella Lohan

    Monogamy has always been destroyed among men. Men have traditionally taken on more than 1 lover, even in traditional European society. Ironically it’s feminism that has made the cultural change to divorce from cheating men.

    • georgetrue

      Not really. It was enlightened modern civilization – which had nothing to do with so-called feminism.

  • PeterPan

    incredible, it seems Feminism is for equality as Nazis are for Peace. For instance the quote for the C level positions, what kind of person can’t noticed this as privilege of one gender. The divorce no-fault laws which clearly benefit the woman. There is so much more….

  • PlainOldTruth

    Thank you. Far to many writers who criticize feminism devote endless energy to censoring the facts of feminism and its larger agenda. When critics complain that MRAs (Men’s Rights Advocates) are “blaming women” for everything it is true — but true only for those who struggle to deny and cover up the utopianist collectivist methods and goals of the anti-”patriarchy” philosophy. Feminism is most certainly a cult in the broader sense of the term and its perpetuation relies on fanaticism and zealotry — and above all, in censorship of facts.

    It has to be realized that the ill-informed, shallow criticism that ignores feminism’s actual and discoverable ideology (and the coercive unethical and corrupt institutional fostering of that ideology) by men (including poorly-informed MRAs) who see the problem merely being opportunistic “mean girls” and gynocentrisam (which is an important issue up to a point) are the blind leading the blind. Articles like this are thus valuable and we need more of them. Many more.

  • Sharon Stewart

    I am pretty damn old and was a feminist long before these second-wave feminists took up the pen. My mom (truly ancient) was a feminist before me. In fact, she was an Anglican priest. I grew up in a huge, egalitarian family: the boys and the girls did everything (dishes, laundry, snow shovelling, cooking, baking, ironing, vacuuming, lawn mowing, floor washing, etc.). We had no experience of sexism. I didn’t experience any sexism until after spending 9 years in university (where I was the only woman in my class) and getting my first full-time job. I ran into sexism right away: men with no experience starting in the same position as I was but earning 66% more money. My idea of feminism is simply men and women being treated with equal respect and being given equal opportunities, just how I was brought up from infancy. No man-hating needed.

    • ShlomoShunn

      > “I…was a feminist long before these second-wave feminists took up the pen….We had no experience of sexism.”

      So…”Good German” that you are, what did you and your ilk DO when Feminazism spread? What have you done that countered the ease of divorce, slut-walks, etc.

      You sound like a frau who walked past death camps every day, talking about how good your Jewish nanny was back in-the-day.

      > “My idea of feminism is simply men and women being treated with equal respect and being given equal opportunities”

      And, er, where on Earth do you see that happening?

  • Sharon Stewart


  • Sharon Stewart

    I could not bear to reread the article.

  • Sharon Stewart

    I agree with your first two paragraphs.

  • Sharon Stewart

    I did reply with some examples of blocking, but apparently saying any such thing means your comment doesn’t get past the censors here.

  • Sharon Stewart

    Ad hominem arguments are a weak offence. And why do you assume that my political leanings are towards the left? In my country there is more choice than left and right.

  • PlainOldTruth

    It is worth noting that it has become fashionable for some (very dishonest) collectivist control-freaks to hide behind the label of “classical liberal,” a device that exploits the ignorance of the historically illiterate public. Before anything else the classical liberal recognizes that top-down power bureaucracies (whether monarchial, religious, or state collectivist) — despite the presence of phony trappings of rigged “democratic” voting systems that exploit a propagandized and increasingly ill-educated (by the state appartus!) public — is anathema to liberty.

  • soliel67

    I agree except not all women who don’t have children are that way because they are ardent feminists. Some are very feminine but just didn’t go that route. They show their femininity in other ways.

  • Rick

    Thanks for the truth despite how late it is. I long suspected Women were the arbiters (final authority) of Society.
    Funny Phyllis Schlafly has long thought women in America have lived some of the most privileged lives in human history.
    The Roman philosopher Seneca (4 B.C.- 70 A.D.) “As Women go so goes the nation”.
    There is a price for everything. This might be a little indication of what is coming
    on all of us.

  • DIane Zinn

    Mallory! Such a powerful article! I can understand how so many who read it are shouting “hallelujah” from the rooftops. Very cathartic!

    • Mallory Millett

      Thanks, Diane….very cathartic for me, too….waited far too long to write it.
      Should have done it ages ago.

  • Mallory Millett

    Wow! So well said!

  • wholerest

    Much of this truth is painful; over the years I’ve pondered the so very many broken, shattered lives (women and men and girls and boys) over the years of this monstrosity of a movement, and this brave author works to purge some of the sickness. I wish to thank her immensely.

    • Mallory Millett

      What a beautiful thing to say. It is out of that same hurt that I was compelled finally to write this piece.

  • Titan000

    “Thus, the females, who are fundamentally the arbiters of society go
    on to harden their young men with such pillow-talk in the same way
    they’ve been hardened because, “Wow, man, I’ve gotta get laid and she
    won’t do it if I don’t agree to let her kill the kid if she gets
    knocked-up!” Oppressed? Woman has always had power. Consider the eternal
    paradigm: only after Eve convinced Adam to eat the fruit did mankind
    fall. I.e., man does anything to make woman happy, even if it’s in
    defiance of God. There’s power for ya! Without a decent womankind,
    mankind is lost. As Mae West said, “When women go wrong men go right
    after them!””

    The ultimate arbiters of morality are men. It is men who invented patriarchy and hence civilization and its men and women who enforce it.

    By enforcing sexual law and order men were motivated to produce surplus wealth for their families due to guarantee of paternity. Delegating that role to women in the victorian era was a mistake.

  • mrparker1

    Hardly, you need to visit the “blue” cities.

  • Here today Gone to Maui

    For all the destruction of lives that criminals caused to black communities, families and males alike , they should be prosecuted. If they were beaten, hung, drawn and quartered in public, no one would stop or condemn it.

    • Eric V. Kirk

      What did Mao do to the black communities?

  • Here today Gone to Maui

    They destroyed the black communities and families.

  • Pete_Brewster

    So why didn’t you start telling your side of the story of your sister’s career long before this? Did the MSM simply not care?

    (Hardly a surprise. While the MSM glorified the “anti-psychiatric” movement and its claims that mental illness did not exist and people like Kate were being locked up for making trouble for the patriarchy and not for being crazy, they never bothered reporting—at least till the Berlin Wall came down and they had to pretend they had never been fellow travelers—how the Soviet Union used lunatic asylums as dumping grounds for dissidents who had made trouble for the CPSU but who were assuredly not crazy.)

  • BobSmith101

    As a society grows affluent, a small percentage of the population finds itself with too much time on its hands. This group then tries to destroy the vary society that made it possible for them to “intellectualize beyond their capabilities.”

  • Shandra

    “Trying to disconcert and to shame, …… and when called upon it probably feigning of having been bullied.”

    But that’s exactly what feminism does. It’s their entire M.O.
    Ignore them, and ignore what they say, and you will inflict on them the worst insult possible for their kind of personality.
    It is atention seeking in its purest form.

  • Omegaman

    Because someone does not believe in some magical made up being in the sky does not mean:
    1. That they are a communist
    2. Support or even believe in the idea of government
    3. Are a feminist
    4. Support murder (abortion)

  • WalterBannon

    A very sad but accurate story. Our society truly is doomed, thanks to the regressive “progressives”…

    • Mallory Millett

      Very well said…May I steal “regressive progressives” from you?

  • CanadaGoose1

    i also blame the Playboy movement which made married men who were faithful look like suckers.

    • daized79

      I guess, but all men knew there are guys like that but that it’s not something for most people. And honestly, you may not like it, but “cheating” for a guy doesn’t destroy his soul as it does for a woman just because of how we are made.

  • daized79

    As a teenage boy I loved this stuff–these idiots were actually making it easier for me to get girls. :) Thank G-d my wife never bought into it though.

  • daized79

    She doesn’t say that the Chinese Cultural Revolution was about promiscuity–of course it wasn’t. She was merely quoting this idiotic and seriously dangerous group of NOW founders (specifically her sister) who referenced a cultural revolution (I don’t think they were talking about China and even if they were then they were the ones obviously wrong). Nor is she telling you that the people at feminist gatherings even know what they are promoting (we would call them “useful idiots”), but her description of Women’s Studies seems spot-on–how is that wrong?

    • Eric V. Kirk

      I understand what she’s saying, and I don’t believe her. I’ve been to a thousand of those meetings, even those run by Marxists. I’ve heard some pretty stupid stuff, but never anything like that. Not saying she’s lying, but memory is a very tricky thing as time passes, and I think there’s a bit of retroactive interpretation in those quotes. It’s a bit pat. And I really doubt that many marriages fell apart over books, though I’m sure it comforts the ex-husbands to think that way.

      • daized79

        Okay so I don’t know. But what she said appears verbatim and shocking. I would hope she wouldn’t lie.

        As to marriage. That’s probably not true. In some sense the husband wasn’t meeting his wife’s needs, but many women go through mid-life crises as much as many (and I think they start earlier because women get married earlier). How you deal with a mid-life crisis has everything to with your influences. So the husband may very well not have the tools or ability to meet his wife’;s needs (especially of those “needs” are escaping the feeling of being trapped and chained to husband and children. I know this from personal experience with a number of marriages. In those marriages the woman ultimately stayed, but it was because of powerful good influences. So maybe a more mediocre husband would have prompted more exits. But influence and “freethinking” as the terms goes has alot to do with how a wife reacts to those feelings of being trapped that almost everyone has at one or more point sin a marriage.

        • Eric V. Kirk

          I’m not accusing her of lying. I don’t trust memory in general where political ideology is involved, and the mind is a really tricky thing. As someone who has taken depositions where two impartial witnesses have testimonies where you would think they were talking about two separate events – we’re talking almost 5 decades here. And there are a million reasons marriages break up, and probably the most common reason is that they shouldn’t have married to begin with. But the whole theme is undermined by the fact that divorce rates are actually higher in conservative “red” states and self-defined feminists do not divorce at significantly higher rates than women in general. I don’t credit feminism or liberalism for the lower divorce rates, at least not in terms of the impact of the ideology itself. I lean towards a correlative explanation – women in blue state culture tend to marry when they’re older. And I lean towards the argument that when you wait until you know more about what you want in life, you’re more likely to make the right choice about marriage. But she’s throwing out all kinds of anecdotes to support her argument, including, I think irresponsibly, the infanticides with no evidence whatsoever that any of those women ever so much as cracked a book on feminism let along took a woman’s studies class or participated in a feminist political action. The whole article actually reads to me like the college-age level feminist screeds she describes, and I’ve seen some pretty stupid stuff. But Barbara Ehrenreich is not Andrea Dworkin and very few feminists identify with the Cultural Revolution – almost none at this point. I do think feminism tends to overreach, and can stand some strong criticism. I don’t think this article contributes to the discussion in any kind of productive way. It seems more intended to rally the troops to battle, and that’s fine. Plenty of that comes from my side of the spectrum too. I was just hoping for a little more.

          • daized79

            You gave me a lot to ponder–I am surely biased by my own ideologies. But I’m curious about those divorce statistics (unless by Red you mean commie and Blue you mean Classical Liberal :) — remind me again why red is Republican?). Where did you find that? You also need to factor in how many out-of-wedlock births there are–can’t have a divorce when nobody’s getting married.

          • Eric V. Kirk

            Here’s an article on the divorce statistics. Plenty more on Google.

            In current political discourse “red states” are the states which vote Republican and Blue vote Democratic. I’ve heard different explanations. Where they all seem to agree is that when color television arose the networks started to use red and blue color coded maps for their election coverage. Different networks apparently had different schemes. One network used the traditional European scheme making Democrat red and Republican states blue because red was associated with socialism and blue with conservatism in the symbols of the political movements. Another network always made the incumbent candidate state wins red and the challenger blue. And another one reversed the colors each election to avoid any bias issues should any arise. One story I heard, but can’t find any confirmation, is that Democrats complained about being designated red and associated with communism and that Republicans complained about being regarded as the “blue blood” party and so NBC went with Republican states as red and Democratic blue. Again, I can’t find any support for that.

            But where it apparently stuck was in 2000 when Tim Russert at NBC was looking up at the NBC map and referred to the Gore states as “blue states” and Bush’s as “red states.” Apparently it became universal and stuck after that.

  • ShlomoShunn

    > “Is there a term for turning someone’s comment around and trying to force them into a box of your own choosing”



  • Mallory Millett

    Stand strong, keep praying. We’re with you. Sanity will return….nature will have it’s way!!

  • Mallory Millett

    You are so indoctrinated and so wound up in your own mind that you wallow in missing the obvious. There are men”. There are women. They are all individuals. The fact remains that men are men and women are women. You are either under eighteen or you were raised by a feminist mother. Never forget that pesky Y chromosome…….very powerful that little Y. All I can say is that you have so much to learn…….it makes me weary to think of it.

  • Dan_Kurt

    re: “including the recent Popes who are now saints” D Kay

    Steam Rolled or Greased “Saints” by the impostors, the Modernists. Note: NO 50 year wait to begin the canonization procedure and NO devil’s advocate. Clearly canonization by fraud.

    Dan Kurt

  • Servo1969

    Modern feminism is not a movement for equality; it is a movement for female supremacy.

  • Don Hagan

    This EXACT thing happened to our father (killed him), and destroyed the lives of myself and 2 other brothers. I saw this article referenced at Ace of Spades. Started to read it and had to stop. It was so painful to read that it took me several days to finish the whole thing. So much just thrown away because of jealousy and envy.

  • LisaGinNZ

    Just like Beeeyonce and Meeeechelle

  • fntsmk

    God bless you Mallory Millet for saying what needs to be said. From your lips to God’s ears, and thence from God’s mouth, to the people.

  • Kevin Pearson

    I have to comment on this.

    ” Her mother is a fool who allowed a man to enslave her into barbaric practices like monogamy and family life and motherhood, which is a waste of her talents. She mustn’t follow in her mother’s footsteps. That would be submitting to life as a mindless drone for some domineering man, the oppressor, ”

    In the first and second centuries, some Roman women had virtually the same sentiment and would become Christian virgins. The caveat was not that they were tricked by romantic love, but that they were entered into arranged marriages.

    The Christian virgins were the first feminists, because they chose the FREEDOM of not marrying and not being burdened with the practices and duties of being a Roman wife.

    Understanding this, it is interesting to note the irony as to how modern feminists view Christians, and how, 2000 years ago, freedom meant NOT marrying and today we have liberals and libertarians (as if there were any difference) proclaiming that freedom means allowing two men TO MARRY one another. .

  • Sabandija del terror

    I almost bought it, but that heavy religious bias made me doubtful about the whole thing

  • MNguy

    Although I am male, I took a women’s studies course in college. It was either that or one of the other “studies” courses, e.g., african american studies, minority studies, etc. I was interested in none of them, but the college made us take one of them as a requirement for graduation, and it was the women’s studies course that fit my course schedule. Having no idea ahead of time what to expect, I was simply curious as to what the course would be about. As it went along, I found myself agreeing with none of it, but at only age 18, a freshman in college, I did not yet know how to articulately speak out against it. We had to read articles portraying men as domineering patriarchs who were culturally conditioned to keep women subordinate. That was basically the theme of the course, that western civilization had conditioned men to keep women subordinate and conditioned women to accept it and be happy with their subordination. …and, of course, the feminist movement was needed to snap society out of its stupor and rid itself of the culturally engrained patterns. I guess I didn’t know that a happy, intact family was “subordination.” I guess I didn’t realize that falling in love with my girlfriend and wanting to marry her was my evil nature exhibiting itself as the domineering patriarch. Feminism… what the ???? What folly this ideology hath wrought. Thank you, Mallory Millet for speaking so plainly and openly about it.

  • Mallory Millett

    I think you have put it is wisely with the exception of keeping feminism in the equation. If what you describe in your last sentence is being practiced feminism is irrelevant. You have a woman and a man doing the dance that God set them here to do.and that’s the purpose of the design. You don’t need feminism because you have love and beauty and cooperation and empathy and generosity and harmony and that makes the world good. It’s so much simpler than it is complicated.

  • Mallory Millett

    The sound you hear is my deafening applause. I’m clapping my brains out because your passion and grasp on the truth about life is exquisitely thrilling. I’m thankful that my writing this elicited that from you so that I could sleep really well tonight just knowing that you and many others like you are out there. Thank you! God love you!!

  • Emilio Lizardo

    If there were any question that Feminism is simply the brand name of gender Marxism, it should be dead and buried right here. The Feminist hydra has many heads to hide behind, but it is but one beast where in beats the heart of Mao and Karl, Lenin and Stalin.

  • Mallory Millett

    Happy, are we? There’s a word for you. Sociopath is what describes your unfortunate state. You, very clearly, know not the difference between right and wrong. You possess no conscience and it’s obvious you have no empathy for the lonely souls you use for your own manipulations. I suspect your mother dumped tender little you with strangers whilst she pursued her own pleasures/ambitions and our unlucky world was saddled with yet another unbonded baby crashing about life without a care for the wreckage he leaves behind. Sociopaths end up only one of three ways: suicide; murdered; or a murderer punished by death or a life of imprisonment. Rock on, lady killer………bit by bit your doom will emerge and you will be left thinking, “Wha’ hoppin’???” Shows you it isn’t only women this movement has ruined. It is saddening that you will never know the bliss of LOVE.

    • UCSPanther

      I have seen a few aging playboy types myself. They are generally quite pathetic.

      They pump themselves up with arrogance, but you can clearly detect the emptiness within.

  • beastlet

    I agree with most of your article, but to be pedantic the woman who drowned her 5 kids in the bathtub was clearly psychotic at the time. I watched the videos of her arrest and she was emaciated, unkempt with long filthy hair that hadn’t been washed in weeks and in filthy clothes. She looked like the typical unmedicated schizophrenic. The blame there was on her husband who didn’t do anything about her obvious post-partum psychosis and instead kept leaving his obviously severely mentally ill wife home alone with all those children. This was definitely a different crime than that perpetrated by Casey Anthony, Susan Smith or Meagan Work.

    • Mallory Millett

      My contention, along with a number of other commentators, including David Horowitz, Ann Coulter, Jamie Glazov and many many others, is that Marxism and plain ole’ Liberalism are generally embraced by people who are mentally off. I’ve rarely known a person of the Left who wasn’t gripped by some form of mental illness or delusionary perception. The woman of whom we’re speaking grew up in a culture that had been skewed by the feminists and, as I have purported in other comments on this site, you don’t have to be a feminist or an avowed Lefty or even literate to be poisoned by the anti-child culture with which America has been infected. This woman committed infanticide because she was festering in an infanticidal world. Don’t you think that any woman who murders her child is, by that very fact, whether that child is prebirth or post partum, necessarily performing an insane act. Sure, she was nuts. She killed her five children. You imply that it’s possible for a sane woman to do such a thing. I say, “no way, baby, no way”. The feminists have led women down the road to crazy. Singer, who presides over the Ethics Department at a major University, teaches that parents ought to be able to murder their child up to the age of two. This is the climate that women are inhabiting and they don’t necessarily have to be aware of the philosophical discussions or the dialogue of society in general to be infected with the madness.

      • beastlet

        I disagree in this case. Equating the callous disregard for life that liberals have with true mental illness cheapens the argument and makes people tune out. I agree 100% that our culture is responsible for Susan Smith, Meagan Work, Casey Anthony and all the women I see on a daily basis who put themselves ahead of their children, even though they don’t outright do anything you’d call abuse.

        Watch video of that woman right after arrest. She looks like the homeless schizophrenics who wander the streets of inner cities. She looks so deranged I can’t believe her husband would have left her alone by herself, forget with a bunch of little kids. I’m a physician and have rarely seen even schizophrenics off their medication look that bad. People that are psychotic have no connection with reality.

        I also doubt a married couple, that were very religious, with 5 kids, the oldest ones which were homeschooled were liberals, as well.

    • Mallory Millett

      Dear Doctor, I still suspect that had this happened in 1955 this seriously schizophrenic woman may have killed her husband or herself, set her hair on fire or burned the house down. I am, in no way, claiming her to be a Liberal or the like. My point is that the degradation of the value of human life by the Feminists, Liberals, etc has infested society in such a way that even illiterates and utterly apolitical people are committing infanticide when in earlier times they would not. The Feminists have created a “War on Babies” which has ballooned to enormous proportions. Also, I repeat…anyone who kills his/her own child is CRAZY!!! You seem to believe that there is a sane way to destroy one’s off-spring. Perhaps you, too, have been infected with a careless nonchalance regarding the sanctity of human life. No sane person kills their son or daughter. There are degrees and degrees but, come on……it’s inhuman to do such a thing.