by Scott Darnell
Daily Lobo Columnist
The term "feminazi" irrationally compares America's feminists to one of the most ruthless groups of people this world has ever seen.
But, "feminactivist" is a term that better describes the intensity and voracity with which today's feminists operate, allowing for their control over entities such as the media to be more readily obvious.
First let's compare and contrast Gloria Steinem, a feminactivist hailed by Time Magazine in a 1986 "Almanac of Victories, Disasters, Heroes, and Hurrahs" as the "Hero" of 1971, alongside people like Dwight Eisenhower (Hero of 1944) and Mother Teresa (Hero of 1979) to Phyllis Schlafly, the antithesis of a feminactivist, who has never had her best-selling books reviewed by the New York Times and has been called extinct, fading, or irrelevant by the New York Times and other media outlets for a couple of decades.
Get content from The Daily Lobo delivered to your inbox
Looking at the credentials, Schlafly has written 10 books, some of which include an 800-page discussion of Henry Kissinger's policy of dÇtente, and another called A Choice, Not an Echo, which sold 3 million copies, as compared to the average non-fiction book, which sells 5,000 copies. In college, she worked 48 hours a week testing machine guns and still managed to not only earn straight A's, but graduate a year early as well.
Harvard Law School was so impressed with her intellect that it accepted her into the school at a time when women weren't allowed. She has been credited with single-handedly defeating the Equal Rights Amendment (ERA) at a time when 90 percent of the Congress, almost every major media outlet and both major parties endorsed it.
She mobilized an army of women to take on the amendment well before the Internet was around and surprisingly enough, it worked; she doesn't brag about her accomplishments, however, and the media, whose bias tilts firmly left, won't mention her name for fear of giving her any greater power.
Other than Gloria Steinem's glamour and outward appearance being praised and reviewed by the media incessantly as a personification of the modern woman, her accomplishments are few and far between; her pet project, the ERA, failed, her Economic Equity Act failed, and her anti-male campaign, "A Woman Without a Man Is Like a Fish Without a Bicycle" failed. Her magazine, Ms., flopped miserably, even after she slept with Mort Zuckerman, a rich liberal media mogul, to keep it afloat (she openly admits that she never loved him).
Why, then is Gloria Steinem hailed as a hero and visionary in the media? Schlafly defeated almost every aspect of her sexual revolution - against great odds - and is still very active in political policy today and yet gets no recognition, no mention. If this isn't an example of a "hidden" media agenda, I don't know what is.
Schlafly's party favor at one of her luncheons was a book titled, We Must Defend America, by General Daniel Graham; Gloria Steinem's party favors at a Democratic National convention were condoms. Jay Schadler, of ABC News, once asked Steinem, "When a woman dresses in a sexy way, what is she trying to say?" Her answer was, "I don't want to embarrass you, but I was about to say that your pants are at least as tight as mine. You know, we enjoy looking at men's asses."
She's our hero of 1971, paraded by the media as quite comparable to Allied Supreme Commander Dwight Eisenhower or Mother Teresa. A woman with very little intellect and very few, if any, political or social accomplishments is who our media chooses to endorse as they unfurl their leftist agenda in front of us all.
The media and anchors such as Katie Couric, openly broadcasted their deep emotional support for Hillary Clinton following the Lewinsky saga, in the name of feminism, labeling her a strong woman. This begs the question: how is a woman strong and inspirational by standing by as her husband cheats, fondles, uses and abuses other women?
That's not honorable; that's being at the beck and call of a man, something feminactivists cringe at the idea of. And in Steinem's case, how is a woman a hero by sleeping with a powerful man to keep her magazine in publication? That's compromising the female body to a man for personal gain, a practice that feminactivists won't stand for.
The media doesn't understand what they endorsed and doesn't understand what have created.
In today's society, women are objectified by men to a much larger degree than they ever have been. The media can't sell a show without a half-naked woman somewhere in it, if a product isn't being advertised by scantily clad women, it's not a worthy product and if a woman hasn't had her breasts augmented and her tummy tucked, there seems to be no future for her in the pop culture world. For women, is that at all self-respecting?
Feminactivism continues to be embraced by our media, spiraling disrespect and the objectification of women out of control; until feminactivists step back, and examine their work - the scars they've put on society by touting some sort of intense sexual revolution - America's turn toward immorality will only hasten.
