Feminism Can't Even Condemn the Killing of Female Fetuses: Why is it Called "Feminism"?

Feminism is not about advancing the rights of women. It is about something else. It is all about individualism, individual autonomy and selfishness. It is really extreme libertarianism applied to a set of issues deemed to be "private" and by advocating private, individual liberty in these areas it creates the illusion of freedom at the same time as it rolls over and accepts total state control of most of life - the areas deemed "public."

It is the worst of both worlds: private selfishness and public totalitarianism, or as Bill Gairdner puts it "libertarian socialism."

Heather Mallick, in today's Toronto Star, demonstrates the moral hollowness and hypocrisy (not to say inner contradictions) of contemporary third-wave (Marxist) feminism. She shamelessly calls for society to take a hands off attitude to female feticide.

"Many GTA hospitals, particularly those in “ethnic” areas, the Star reported Tuesday, won’t let their ultrasound staff tell pregnant women the sex of the fetus. One admitted it worries that women and their spouses (if any) might have the female fetus aborted in order to try again for a male.

A recent study done by St. Michael’s Hospital researchers has shown that though the male/female ratio for the first child of immigrants born in India is normal Canadian stuff — 105 boys to 100 girls — the ratio for third children born to such women was 136 boys to 100 girls. This may mean something. This may mean something wildly other than what it seems.

It’s complicated."

Complicated? Now, of course we understand that feminists can comprehend the political and logical implications of accepting even one restriction on the abortion license. Once it is admitted in principle that society at large has a compelling interest in protecting human life at the pre-birth stage, then who knows where the logic will lead from there. So, yes, we should read her article as a desperate bid to prop up an illogical position using a bad faith argument.

But the sheer hypocrisy is breath-taking. And it is evident that she feels the pressure because she tries to deny the reality that is staring her right in the face by denying that it is what it is:

I don’t leap to judgment of any woman seeking an abortion. No one should. By deploring sex-selection — if that’s what this is and we don’t yet know that — we’re saying “this is a bad reason to have an abortion.”

We don't know what it is? What planet is she living on? We know beyond a shadow of a doubt that we are dealing with families desiring boys rather than girls and we should be able to count on the so-called Feminists, of all people, to protest that attitude. But no, it is left to Evangelical Christians and Roman Catholics to defend women when the Feminists act like apologists for the oppressors and the woman-haters.

Feminism has lost all the moral credibility it once had. A century ago, courageous women campaigned for the vote and admission to the professions and I bet they never in their wildest imaginations foresaw a time when, having attained the vote, women would use it to defend the killing of unborn children merely because they were women.

Feminists are anti-women and anti-children. They are apologists for socialist tyranny and they don't deserve sympathy, support or respect. They are primary agents of the culture of death and they must be fought with all the strength that decent people can muster.

And why, exactly, other than clever marketing techniques, are they called "Feminists"?