“WE ARE BECOMING THE MEN WE ONCE WANTED TO MARRY"

.

.
FEMINIST FANTASIES
by Phyllis Schlafly (foreword by Ann Coulter)
published: 2003
.
The title of this review is a statement that feminist author Robin Morgan once made to a Phil Donahue show audience. She certainly chose the right forum for it, seeing as how Phil Donahue himself had long before become the kind of woman that his Dad’s generation of men once wanted to marry.
.
My favorite Anti-Feminism book is 'MANHOOD REDUX' by C. H. Freedman, and in that book he wrote: “I consider Phyllis Schlafly to be the most outstanding American in our history. Notice I did not say the outstanding American WOMAN.” Naturally, being staunchly opposed to Feminism myself, I too have great respect for the lifework and intelligence of this American icon who practically singlehandedly defeated the potentially disastrous Equal Rights Amendment.
.
'FEMINIST FANTASIES' is a collection of 92 essays, all of them one to five pages long, written over parts of four decades, and covering a vast array of Feminist-related topics. Although I highlighted passages in nearly all of the essays, I consider 22 of them, in their totality, to be truly essential reading.
.
Before telling you some of the many reasons you should acquire 'FEMINIST FANTASIES', let me first tell you about some of my own fantasies... uh... well... no. On second thought, let me tell you about the rare times where I thought Mrs. Schlafly went a little wrong:
.
1) The first section of this book is titled 'The Revolution Is Over'. Here, Mrs. Schlafly wants to give the reader the impression that the Feminist Movement has been running out of steam as “last year’s models” begin to concede the foolishness of their youthful ideals (e.g., an op-ed piece written by a Feminst in the Chicago Tribune in October 1982 started out, “Let’s face it. The revolution is over. I just turned 31 and all I want is a husband.” ~pg.3). Well, let’s REALLY face it, if the revolution is over, it’s only because the revolutionaries have declared victory! It’s a very easy thing to call off the revolution (and even proclaim that the “revolution was a mistake” ~pg.80) after you’ve taken and now possess nearly every piece of ground you ever coveted! For the most strident TWISTED SISTERS, the war may never end until every man is lying naked at the end of a leash held by a female soldier (think: Abu Ghraib military prison which coincidentally [?] was under the control of a female brigadier general.)
.
But for the more moderate Feminists (yeah, I know that’s an oxymoron) – the ones who share the ideology even if they shun the label – it’s easy to yell “truce” when you own the judiciary, the congress, academia, and the media. They may have lost the E.R.A. but they got nearly everything they ever wanted, anyway. And we may not be a full-blown matriarchy just yet, but the snowball is still rolling. And if you don’t think they’re justified in declaring victory, try reading 'LEGALIZING MISANDRY' by Paul Nathanson. While a handful of the old guard members of the movement may have died off or tempered the “Faster, Pussycat! Kill! Kill!” verbiage, the feminists are still in high gear, and after four decades of indoctrinating youth, they have even increased their numbers. If Mrs. Schlafly wants to give us the impression that the tide is moving back out, she’s mistaken; men are now standing neck deep in it and it’s still rising!
.
2) On page 112, she writes, “The true answer to the pay differential is to have open access to all occupations so that women are not barred from any.” Well, Mrs. Schlafly is playing a bit loose with her words here since we know that she (rightly) opposes women in military combat, and yet a ranking officer who leads soldiers into combat IS engaged in an OCCUPATION. Should women have open access to that position? Even Mrs. Schlafly would say no. Furthermore, I could give at least four very sound reasons why women should NOT be employed as police officers even if they were capable of passing all of the physical requirements previously demanded of men before those standards were lowered, enabling women to pass the police academies.
.
3) On page 208, Mrs. Schlafly writes, “What is presumptuously called ‘the women’s movement’ has supposedly ‘liberated’ women from the drudgery of housework and given women new opportunities for careers in the paid labor force, especially in non-traditional (formerly all-male) occupations (from astronaut to coal miner).” And on page 55, concerning the feminist college student Linda LeClair, she writes, “No, Linda didn’t do something constructive based on personal achievement like Dr. Sally Ride.”
.
Now, I find that just a shade disingenuous because, truthfully, Sally Ride gained her notoriety primarily as a result of the Feminist movement. I believe that since 1983, every major NASA mission has included at least one female on the flight crew. This has clearly been NASA’s way of throwing a bone to the bulldogs in N.O.W., et al. Although I do respect their dedication and their hard work to get there, the fact remains that every time a woman has donned her space suit and climbed into a rocket for a high profile mission, more technically and physically qualified male astronauts have been passed over in the name of a politically correct quota. I’m sorry, but I don’t think bashing Feminist Linda LeClair with Sally Ride in an Anti-Feminism book is a good idea. I say, hit her over the head with Amelia Earhart – now there’s a famous female flier who needed no assistance from the Feminist movement in order to reach new heights.
.
But these are the only noteworthy complaints I have about Phyllis Schlafly’s erudite book. Otherwise, 'FEMINIST FANTASIES' is a clearheaded examination of the illogical and unnatural arguments that serve as the shifting, hypocritical foundation of one of this country’s worst diseases. Mrs. Schlafly comes at this false religion from every angle and the aggregate force of her keen mental swordplay slices right through the movement’s crapola to expose the heart of truth. (As I’ve written elsewhere, “crapola” is a Liberal landscape colored over with an excrement-hued Crayola crayon.) Just a few of the essays I particularly enjoyed are:
.
* SEXIST SOFTWARE (“I discovered that one of the software programs will search material on the word processor, identify ‘sexist’ words, and instruct the operator how to purge all sexist words and substitute different words. ... A busboy is a clearer. The next time you dine in a restaurant, ask the ‘server’ to have the ‘clearer’ remove your dishes.”)
.
* THE INTELLIGENT CANDIDATE’S GUIDE TO THE WOMEN’S VOTE (Mrs. Schlafly gives us a list of dos and don’ts for candidates who want to prepare themselves for traps laid by Feminist reporters. Number 9 is: “Don’t use expressions that some women find obnoxious. Don’t call any woman a ‘women’s libber’; call her a feminist.” When I worked for a magazine publisher in ‘93/’94, we had a card-carrying N.O.W. member in the Art Dept. I remember her once expressing great displeasure at being referred to as a “gal.”)
.
* THE FEMINIST ASSAULT ON V.M.I. (In 1990, the Fems insisted that women be admitted to the all-male Virginia Military Institute because we are forbidden to recognize the differences between men and women. But once they got in, Janet Reno’s Feminist Justice Department went to court to argue that failing to make adjustments for female recruits would amount to "discrimination" because it would discourage women from applying, or lead them to drop out. Whoa! How do they pull these stunts off with a straight face?! Well, maybe “straight” wasn’t the right word.)
.
In closing, let me also point out that I even like the photograph on the dust jacket of 'FEMINIST FANTASIES'. It’s a shame that she turned out the way she did, because the “women’s libber” in the picture has pretty eyes. Yeah, I gotta say, once you get past the Indian war paint, that little “gal” is kinda cute.
.
~ Stephen T. McCarthy
.

I DON’T SEE YOUR PARADISE, CRUELLA DE VIL

.

.
THE GENDER AGENDA
by Dale O'Leary
copyright: 1997
.
At the United Nations’ International Conference on Women in 1995, a Sudanese delegate demanded of a French delegate (although it could just as easily and accurately have been a U.S. delegate), “Why are you so angry? You have all those rights you want us to accept. ... Please show me a little window of your paradise, because all I see in your world is increased promiscuity among young people, increased divorce, increased abortion, homosexuality, venereal diseases. ... I don’t see your paradise.”
.
Dale O’Leary attended the 1994 U.N. Conference on Population in Cairo and the Conference on Women in 1995 at Beijing, and in her 1997 book, THE GENDER AGENDA, she gives us her firsthand account of the proceedings with their behind-the-scenes mendacity and maliciousness, and the destructive Feminist goals promoted at these gatherings. I have read many books on the Feminist Movement, but none better than THE GENDER AGENDA.
.
O’Leary writes, “What happened in Cairo and Beijing matters. Not so much because the U.N. can force its will on the United States, for only poor countries who depend on foreign aid will be forced to accept the agendas promulgated at these conferences. It matters because the culture war is a battle of ideas, and the U.N. has the resources and prestige to promote its agenda to world leaders, schoolchildren, and the media. ... What happened in Beijing does matter, because what was planned in Beijing will be coming to every town, every school, and every business (if it isn’t there already) – unless it is exposed and we stand up against it.” [pgs. 20 & 26]
.
President Bill Clinton insisted the Beijing conference was “true blue to families”, but I’m pretty sure that would depend on what the meaning of “families” is. Dr. James Dobson of Focus On The Family called it “the most radical atheistic, anti-family crusade in the history of the world.” Let’s see now, who should I believe, Dobson or the licentious liar (whose feminist wife may be leading this country after the next presidential election)? 
.
[*NOTE: Thank God that didn't happen!! 
Nor in the 2016 election that followed it.]
.
On page 188, O’Leary tells us, “To make things even more difficult, no translation was offered in the contact groups. This clearly disadvantaged the pro-family delegates who came mainly from Latin America, French-speaking Africa, and the Moslem countries. Since the debate was over language, correct translation was crucial. Protests about these abuses were ignored.”
.
Did you notice a glaring omission there? Tha-aaaa-t’s ri-iiii-ght! The U.S. delegates sent to the Beijing conference were NOT pro-family; they were pro-Feminism and they supported every perverse abnormality and immoral sickness associated with radical Feminism! Remember that, you proud American, the next time you remove your hat to sing God Bless America before the kickoff or during the seventh inning stretch!
.
One thing that Dale O’Leary’s book has going for it that few other anti-Feminsm books do, is its clear articulation of the disturbingly overlooked connection between Marxism and Feminism. Chapters 8, 9, and 10 elucidate the way in which Feminists have co-opted the dogmas of Marx and Engels to create a Neo-Marxist paradigm based upon gender rather than economics, but ultimately affecting both and all classes. It is because the feminist goals are in lockstep with the outcome so sought by the hard-line Marxists that the old guard has supported, promoted, and protected the feminists with their powerful Communist front groups such as The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU). 
.
The connection is indisputable, and O’Leary’s research clarifies this logically incestuous relationship that has seemingly eluded some pretty good anti-Feminism writers over the decades. The next time you pick up a copy of Ms. Magazine, remember that you’re choosing Gloria Steinem over Thomas Jefferson. Or to put it another way, you are choosing Communism over our Constitutional Republic. Tell THAT to your daughters!
.
If THE GENDER AGENDA has any weakness, it’s that Dale O’Leary evidently had not yet recognized that power invested in any global organization such as the United Nations, not founded upon the Word of God, will inexorably slide into tyranny. And while O’Leary unhesitatingly denounces the 50/50 gender quotas in every occupation insisted upon by the radical feminists, nowhere does she acknowledge that a few select jobs should be filled exclusively by men (i.e., police officers, firefighters, military combat troops, and priests / ministers, as stated by Saint Paul).
.
Nevertheless, THE GENDER AGENDA, though I read it some time ago, remains (along with Why Women And Power Don’t Mix by J.P. McDermott) one of the most important anti-Feminism books I've ever found. It should be required reading for EVERY American citizen!
.
In 1995, Mother Teresa sent a letter to the U.N.’s Beijing Conference on Women, and I’m going to give her the last word here with an excerpt:
.
“Those who deny the beautiful differences between men and women are not accepting themselves as God has made them. ... I have often said, abortion is the greatest destroyer of peace in the world today, and those who want to make women and men the same are all in favor of abortion.”
.
~ Stephen T. McCarthy
.

OH MAN, YA GOTTA... Er-- I MEAN, OH *PERSON*, YA GOTTA READ THIS BOOK!

.

.
WOMEN WHO MAKE THE WORLD WORSE
by Kate O'Beirne
copyright: 2006
.
KATE O'BEIRNE's book, WOMEN WHO MAKE THE WORLD WORSE, is an excellent overview of the destructive and dishonest aims of the Feminist movement. It clearly illustrates the fallacies upon which that movement is based and the myriad ways that all of society is negatively impacted by its preposterously extremist and psychologically warped theology. (Yes, "theology", because Feminism is not unlike some fanatical religious cult.)
.
I fear that O'Beirne may have done her book a disservice by giving it a silly title and having the cover display caricatures of some prominent misandrists who do indeed make the world worse. The subject of this book is too important and the text too seriously researched and revealing to be wrapped in a goofy dust jacket that might cause it to be misinterpreted as nothing more than a fast-buck Republican screed. That's not what this is and I assure you that the old maxim "Don't judge a book by its cover" certainly applies here.
.
I strongly urge you to read WOMEN WHO MAKE THE WORLD WORSE even though I nearly gave it only 4 stars for the following reasons:
.
* While the book's 199 pages are nicely organized and densely packed with eye-opening meat 'n' potatoes information, I felt that the text could have been expanded and the subject explored even deeper. The book stands as a thorough overview of Feminism, but it is not a comprehensive treatise on the subject.
.
* Missing is any significant examination of Socialism's part in perverting the healthy gender roles in our society. In his COMMUNIST MANIFESTO, Karl Marx wrote "The Communists everywhere SUPPORT EVERY REVOLUTIONARY MOVEMENT AGAINST THE EXISTING SOCIAL and political ORDER OF THINGS... The Communists disdain to conceal their views and aims. They openly declare that their ends can be attained only by the forcible OVERTHROW OF ALL EXISTING SOCIAL CONDITIONS." 
.
Overlooked by most researchers and commentators on Feminism is the fact that undergirding and promoting the whole movement is (and always has been) socialists in positions of power and influence. THE GREAT IRONY is that without the muscle of MALE socialists in Congress, journalism, television, film, education, publishing, and in the Judiciary, the Feminists could NEVER have made the advances that they have in the past 40 years. (And by "advances" I don't mean laudable progression; I'm talking more like territory taken in battle during an unjust and deceptive ground war!)
.
* Curiously absent is any mention of the inadvisability of having women employed as officers at the street (or "beat") level of law enforcement. Just as O'Beirne accurately decries the lowering of previously established physical standards for military combat and firefighting positions in order to accommodate women, the same has occurred within the law enforcement community. (Space does not permit me to give a detailed accounting of the many ways female police officers have inadvertently endangered fellow officers and the public at large, and whose presence can sometimes unnecessarily escalate volatile situations in the field. Male officers are constrained by department policy and a desire to be promoted through the ranks from speaking openly their thoughts on the subject of female cops, but get them to talk "off-the-record", as I have done, and you'll learn the various reasons why the vast majority of them oppose the idea.)
.
* And finally, O'Beirne is the Washington Editor of NATIONAL REVIEW magazine founded by her guru, the NeoCon William F. Buckley Jr., the Skull And Bones "adept", Bilderberger participant, and Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) member. If that doesn't set any alarm bells ringing in your mind then "You've got a long way to go, baby!" (Be sure to read my Amazon guide, 'SO YOU'D LIKE TO... SEE THE NEW WORLD ORDER IN BLACK & WHITE' when you're done here.)
.
Nevertheless, I gave this publication 5 stars because of O'Beirne's sense o'humor, and because she has written a fine and valuable book on a dire issue. Also because I knew 5 stars would anger the Feminists (and the males whom they rule) a full one-fifth more than 4 stars would!
.
Here are some excerpts from WOMEN WHO MAKE THE WORLD WORSE:
.
[Page XIV] (A law firm) recruiter asked me, "What do you expect to be in ten years?" I was expected to say something about being a hardworking partner or about specializing in some esoteric area of the law or something equally dry. I said that I expected to be about five years older."
.
[Page XV] Most radical feminists are qualified for only one job: professional Feminist.
.
[Page 14] In 1960, only 9 percent of all children lived in single-parent households. Presently in the United States, almost one third of children are born to single mothers.
.
[Page 36] Dr. Benjamin Spock, who, after frankly informing 1950s mothers that day nurseries are "no good for infants", deleted this advice from 1990s editions of his manual 'BABY AND CHILD CARE', which has sold millions. He explained that such advice would make working mothers feel guilty, and he recognized they were heading to work regardless. Spock admitted: "It's a cowardly thing that I did; I just tossed it in subsequent editions." Feminist intimidation has created plenty of cowards.
.
[Page 98] Title IX has been four times more effective in eliminating male athletes than in developing female athletes.
.
[Page 119] Feminists recognize the vulnerability of women when they are concerned with the plight of women who are victims of domestic abuse... Their position on integrating combat ranks puts them in the position of saying that violence against women is a terrible thing unless it is at the hands of the enemy, in which case it's a welcome tribute to women's equality... Minimizing the feats of men and exaggerating those of women is a familiar feminist tactic to promote their woman-as-warrior myth.
.
Personally, my greatest concern is that unless these extremist Wacky Women are stopped, they will eventually transform men (myself included) into the very mangy misogynist dogs they've always accused us of being. Nah, who am I kidding? My biggest fear is that so many Feminists (and the males they rule) will attack this review with so many negative votes that I'll suffer a nervous breakdown and cry like a little girl.
.
Read O'Beirne's book because, as the Brut Cologne TV commercial says: "MEN ARE BACK."* (*Pending permission from women to remain.)
.
~ Stephen T. McCarthy
.

“F” Stands For: FANTASTICALLY FAR-FETCHED FEMINIST FANTASY FLICK

.
[*This review was originally published at Amazon.com 
on Thurs. Jan. 18th, 2007*]
.

.
GIRLFIGHT
directed by Karyn Kusama
released: 2000
.
Karyn Kusama’s GIRLFIGHT is nothing more than a strident misandrist pleasuring herself on film!
.
Ordinarily, I would never consider wasting my valuable time watching this type of movie, much less bothering to write anything about it, but because I recently wrote a series of reviews for some mostly older anti-Feminism books, it was suggested to me that I should also “weigh in” on GIRLFIGHT, which I had previously never even heard of.
.
Written and directed by then-newcomer Kusama, the title, GIRLFIGHT, is simply a rather pedestrian substitution for “Woman’s Struggle”, that is, “Feminism.” Her title displays the same sort of “heavy-handed” touch that she exhibits throughout the movie. As a filmmaker, Kusama has all the subtlety of a Great White Shark in a feeding frenzy. The movie consists of one “ham-fisted” symbol after another, decrying all of the usual exaggerated and simplistic contentions regarding men that radical Feminists have been screeching about for over forty years; illustrating the feminist anthems; and portraying resolutions dreamed up in their wishful fantasies.
.
It should come as no surprise to any educated person that GIRLFIGHT won a couple of awards at Robert “Red” Redford’s Sundance Film Festival in 2000; the incestuous relationship between Marxism and Feminism has long been established, and GIRLFIGHT was bound to be enthusiastically embraced at Sundance, and promoted as another vehicle for further conditioning the masses -- particularly young women -- toward the Socialistic goals of hard-core feminism. (If you want to turn off your TV one day and read a nonfiction book, The Gender Agenda by Dale O’Leary, or The Privilege Of Being A Woman by Alice von Hildebrand, would be a smashing place to begin.) It was, after all, no less a Communist than Vladimir Lenin himself who stated in 1920, “We must create a powerful international women’s movement.” (Was keeping the spectators seated and talking during the singing of The Star-Spangled Banner before GIRLFIGHT’s climactic bout a Marxist “jab” at America?)
.
* Although I will not be discussing anything that the majority of the previous reviewers have not already revealed, be advised that this review will examine the major plot points and the ending of GIRLFIGHT. If you don’t want to know how this movie ends, you should discontinue reading this review.
.
Ostensibly, the story is about a high school girl, Diana Guzman (Michelle Rodriguez), who, prone to violent outbursts, redirects her aggression by taking up boxing and ultimately confronts her emotionally abusive dad, and then later, her boyfriend in the ring. The entire movie is simply a kaleidoscope of embarrassingly overt visual metaphors meant to convey the concept of Patriarchy getting pummeled to a pulp by Womanhood, and the castration of perceived masculine power. (Diana or Artemis, the goddess of the hunt, is portrayed in mythology as having killed various men and male gods.)
.
Early on, we get a barely veiled glimpse of Diana’s (writer/director Kusama’s mouthpiece) disdain for the traditional role of women in society when she stares out of her 11th story bedroom window at a mother pushing a baby carriage with a crying toddler in tow. That she’s “looking down on Motherhood” couldn’t have been more obvious.
.
There are three “types” of one-dimensional men (or malignancies) in this movie. (The “father”, the “son”, and the “emasculated ghost”?)...
.
#1) The domineering, emotionally and physically abusive male determined to “keep women in their place.” This type of man is represented by Diana’s drunken dad, and in a typical exhibition of Kusama’s over-the-top symbolism, he is knocked around and nearly strangled to death by Diana in the family’s kitchen (after she has received some boxing training). Get it? A woman’s place is in the kitchen, but only if that’s the location she chooses for bloodying the Patriarchy! “You belong to me now! ... All these years you just looked right through me”, Diana says to her beaten dad on behalf of women everywhere.
.
#2) The unfaithful romancer who refuses to accept women on equal terms in every single facet of social endeavor. He is represented by Diana’s love interest, Adrian, who dreams of “winning” his way out of the projects with a successful boxing career. Giving him the name of Rocky Balboa’s wife was an obvious slap at the character and at men in general who express their manhood through a fascination with sports and sports movies. That slap becomes a punch, however, when 18-year-old Diana, with perhaps two months worth of training, defeats 19-year-old Adrian in the ring -- despite the fact that he’s been training for nearly a year, and supposedly has true professional boxing potential. (In a sorry display of how far Kusama was willing to go to get the most “punch for the buck”, she wants us to believe that these two characters would be fighting in the same weight class. Never mind that Adrian is obviously 6” taller than Diana and appears to outweigh her by about 40 pounds. It simply wouldn’t do to have the Feminist hero defeat a man merely her own size!)
.
#3) Diana’s brother, Tiny, is the way men ought to be in Kusama’s warped world. He is artistic, sensitive, effeminate, satisfactorily de-masculinized already. He is tolerable because he is pathetic, as he can do nothing but stand back, wring his hands, and plead for his dad’s life, while the “new” man (Diana GuzMAN -- get it?) strangles the “old” man in the kitchen and usurps his authority (i.e., transforms the Patriarchal family unit into a Matriarchy). 
.
But in an ironic twist, Kusama also reveals her revulsion at the feminine man as well, by naming him TINY. Diana’s brother is neither excessively large or small for his age, so we must assume that the name hints at something else: His unmanly “endowments” literally or figuratively; his diminished social status in the imagined new Matriarchy; or simply Kusama’s personal view of such effete men?
.
GIRLFIGHT begins with one of the silliest opening shots ever conceived. (Diana Guzman looks up and glares directly at the camera, i.e., at “you”, the viewer. Why? Uh, well, because Kusama told her to.) And it ends with one of the most improbable scenes ever filmed: After losing to her in the ring -- bringing his dream of a boxing career to an end -- Adrian practically begs Diana not to break up with him. This shows just how out-of-touch with reality and Male Psychology these extreme Feminists really are. If such a scenario as presented in this movie were even truly possible, does Kusama and her Feminist horde actually believe that a “man” in this situation would REALLY want to retain his romantic relationship with his female conqueror? That he would be willing to take a licking and keep on kissing?) GIRLFIGHT is indeed a Feminist fantasy from the opening bell to the final round.
.
It does, however, contain a few positive ingredients: Technically, the screenplay is competently constructed and well-paced, and some of the cinematography is imaginative. The score nicely compliments the images and adds an exotic tone. Herb Lovelle as Cal is good in a very small part, and Jaime Tirelli in the role of Diana’s trainer, Hector, delivers a fine, multi-layered performance. However, having read the script, no self-respecting “man” would have consented to appear in this propaganda piece. (But divesting men of their self-respect has been a goal for Feminists for over forty years now, and they’ve been largely successful.) Otherwise, the acting was uneven across-the-board. This was Rodriguez’s first role, and it sometimes showed.
.
I could excoriate the artificial dialogue, the nonstop profanity, and the sloppy editing in GIRLFIGHT, but that would be like criticizing a dead dog for being lazy. Instead, let me give you one small dose of reality: Men generally possess nearly 50% more muscle mass than women, and testosterone (a steroid hormone which studies have linked to enhanced aggressiveness and increased muscle formation) is approximately thirty times more prevalent in the adult male body than it is in the adult female. (That’s 30 times, not 30%!) In other words, there are genuine physiological reasons why women trained in boxing are never going to be serious competition for men trained in boxing -- Karyn Kusama’s fantasy notwithstanding. (Don’t blame me; blame God. But your arms are too short to box with Him.) 
.
Lucia Rijker is universally regarded as the best fighter in the history of female boxing; she has had 54 fights with women and won them all -- most by knockout. In earnest competition, she stepped into a ring only once with a man: In 1995, she fought Muay Thai boxer Somchai Jaidee, who was far from being a world elite fighter in the men’s competition. Rijker managed to survive the first round but in the second round, she was laid out on the canvas, unconscious for several minutes. (If she didn’t have a clue about Women Vs. Men in Boxing when she climbed into that ring, I’m sure she had one when she woke up in it!)
.
What disturbs me is not that a misandrist would put her neurosis on film (wrong, Cyndi -- these days, “Girls Just Want To Be Boys”), but that anyone would tout this fiction as some kind of inspiring movie to be shown to youngsters -- THAT'S what bothers me! As if Diana Guzman represents some viable means to conflict resolution in the real world. My heart goes out to any child of a rigor mortis-brained parent who believes that “fighting” -- even in a square “ring” -- is the best way to channel aggressive behavior. 
.
When my Brother (nicknamed “Napoleon”) was only about 12 years old, a professional trainer recognized that he possessed a chip on his shoulder the size of Mount Rushmore and an almost freakish, innate aptitude for fighting. This man offered to prepare my Brother for a professional boxing career. Being an Irish-American fighting in sub-Middleweight divisions, and being as proficient in physical destruction as he is, Napoleon would have made many millions of dollars as a successful boxer. But even at that young an age, he was intelligent enough to recognize the senselessness of making a living knocking other guys senseless, and so he turned down the trainer’s offer. Instead, he was able to sublimate his anger without needing to unleash it on others in any harmful form. With his fiery energy redirected into more constructive activities, he eventually grew into a very good and caring man (who could still decapitate any one of us with either fist, though he would never do so).
.
That anyone would show GIRLFIGHT to a young person as motivation for anything, and would hold up this fictional character as a role model for young women to emulate in any way, is deplorable and irresponsible! GIRLFIGHT is not just a Feminist cartoon fantasy masquerading as a gritty, urban tale -- it’s a bad cartoon with bad language and a bad agenda, and that’s a bad “combination.” This crappy movie is out for the count!
.
~ Stephen T. McCarthy
.

"REAL WOMAN" Defined

.

.
THE PRIVILEGE OF BEING A WOMAN
by Alice von Hildebrand
published: 2002
.
In a recent E-mail exchange with a 43-year-old female friend of mine living on the East Coast, I asked her to give me her definitions of the terms "Real Man" and "Real Woman". She replied with a beautiful little one-sentence definition of a "Real Man", but then followed that up with this: "A real woman? That's easy: a girl who rides a motorcycle in a skirt." I can't even begin to describe the depth of my disappointment in that definition, coming as it does from a generally spiritually-minded woman. But then I suppose I shouldn't have been surprised seeing as how she (and every other female of her generation) has been exposed to 40 years of Feminist indoctrination. I thought how sad it was that she -- a woman herself -- seemed to have even less understanding of what makes a "Real Woman" than I had, and here I -- being a man -- am a supposedly insensitive brute of a thing ("a bear with furniture" to quote the very funny comedienne, Elaine Boozler).
.
This only goes to emphasize the point that those extremist social engineers we call "Feminists" have been so effective in twisting and confusing the minds of the vast majority of the female gender that even "spiritual" women no longer recognize what they are and what they are supposed to do in support of the human society (as dictated by their Creator, The Lord God).
.
I do not read anything without having a yellow (yellow ONLY!) highlighter nearby. I highlight favorite sentences and passages in EVERYTHING I read, that includes fiction and even magazines. 'THE PRIVILEGE OF BEING A WOMAN' by Catholic writer and thinker Alice von Hildebrand is, at only 108 pages, not much more than a booklet, but don't let that fool you into thinking that she doesn't have much to say about the privileges of being a woman: my copy of her book is thoroughly filled with yellow highlighted sections. In fact, there are so many penetrating insights packed into each page that I have rarely highlighted so many sentences per page in any book other than The Holy Bible!
.
When I first read 'THE PRIVILEGE OF BEING A WOMAN', I was blown away by how much of great value Hildebrand had to say on the subject. (And I finished the book sort of feeling that I had been cheated by being born "a bear with furniture".) Hildebrand dedicated her excellent book "WITH LOVING GRATITUDE TO MY DEAR FRIENDS WHO ALL LOVE TO BE WOMEN." Following is just a very small sampling of the many profound and extraordinary observations Hildebrand shares with us about the privileges of being a woman:
.
* As sanctity is devalued in [Socialistic feminist, Simone de Beauvoir's] eyes (as a poor substitute for great achievements), the highest praise that can be given anyone, male or female -- namely holiness -- is, to her mind, only a left-handed compliment. ... What characterizes holiness is this limitless readiness to serve others. [pages 6 & 32]
.
* Yet it seems evident that even in the face of their physical vulnerability, given their greater sensitivity, their more subtle intuitions, their talent for feeling themselves into others, women have greater possibilities of uplifting or of hurting others than those usually granted to the opposite sex. [page 9]
.
* The feminists acknowledge the superiority of the male sex by wishing to become like men. [page 10]
.
* The denigration of women is clearly a sad consequence of original sin which has subverted the hierarchy of values. ... Original sin was a sin of pride, of disobedience, of irreverence, and of metaphysical revolt that led to an inversion of the hierarchy of values. ... As women are weaker than men, and as they do not bask in the limelight as much as men do, as they are less "creative" than the strong sex, they are bound to be the victims of this distorted hierarchy of values. ... but that feminists have endorsed this inversion is still more pitiful. Imprisoned in the spiritual jail of secular categories, they fail to understand that their true mission is to swim against the tide and, with God's grace, help restore the proper hierarchy of values. By living up to their calling, women will succeed in guaranteeing a proper recognition of the unique value of femininity and its crucial mission in the world. ... The "weakness" of the female sex, as far as accomplishments and productivity are concerned, can be more than compensated by her moral strength when she lives up to her calling. ... But feminists -- blinded by secularism -- do what, in fact, will lead to a worsening of women's situation. Feminists are women's great enemy. [pages 21, 26 & 29]
.
* Nietzsche perceived clearly that the emancipation of women is a symptom that their feminine instincts are weakening. ... The whole tragedy of contemporary feminism -- which Cardinal Josef Ratzinger [now the Pope] considers one of the greatest threats menacing the Church -- stems from a lack of faith and a loss of the sense of the supernatural. Feminism is inconceivable in a world rooted in Judeo-Christian values. ... The new age philosophy of feminism, in waging war on femininity, is in fact waging war on Christianity. For in the Divine plan both are intimately linked. Not Socialism, as Simone de Beauvoir believed, but Christ is the great ally of women. Modern ideology wages war on the Gospel which teaches humility and that those who lower themselves will be exalted. [pages 30 & 32]
.
[Speaking of humility, let's not forget that Jesus Christ said that He "did not come to be served, but to serve." (Matthew 20:28) And after all is said and done, who would you prefer to be remembered in this world as being most like, Bill Clinton and Arnold Schwarzenegger, or Mother Teresa and even Jesus Christ Himself? ~STMcC]
.
* Here is a truth worth meditating upon: Women are more geared to piety because they have a keener awareness of their weaknesses. This is their true strength. [page 66]
.
[And let's not forget that Saint Paul was directly told by Jesus Christ that his strength would be "made perfect in weakness". See 2 Corinthians 12:9. ~STMcC]
.
* (Regarding the context of women and childbirth, the great Christian commentator G.K. Chesterton (1874-1936) writes...) "No one staring at that frightful female privilege, can quite believe in the equality of the sexes." [page 87]
.
And in keeping with the spirit of that observation, I am about to reveal one of my secret inner beliefs; something that I -- until now -- have never told a single person, but a thought that I have entertained in my heart and mind for many years. This is an exclusive!:
.
It seems to me that if all of the world's masterpieces of art, and all of its most uplifting and poetic writings, and all of its most emotionally moving musical compositions were gathered together in one place, they would still not come close to equalling the beauty in the simple God-created concept of a mother feeding her baby from her own body. Maybe you wouldn't expect such a thought coming from an "old school" man like myself, but there it is! That's what I really think. And the world's most supreme beauty is something that I, being a male, will never experience! (Now, try to imagine the revulsion I felt during that disgusting scene in that disgusting movie, 'Million Dollar Baby', when Clint Eastwood tells his female boxer, "I want you to jab, right in the tits, until they turn blue and fall off." Phuq Clint Eastwood and the horse he rode in on!)
.
Never having been a Catholic, the only aspect of this book that I have less than glowing comments for are its few (and I do mean "few") instances of Catholic dogma with which I do not concur. But these are rare occurrences and are easily overlooked. In light of the Spiritually deep and worldview-altering insights that Alice von Hildebrand shares with us, lowering this publication's 5-Star grade because of them would be an irresponsible act.
.
It seems that God never intended me to marry and become the head of a family. One problem was that -- in this feminist-dominated era -- I could not find "Real Women" potential mates. One great, notable exception was (my ex-girlfriend) "The Countess", a Real Woman for sure! But evidently marriage was just never in the cards that God dealt to us.
.
At nearly 47, a "family" is now out of the question for me. But if I'd had any children, I would have insisted that they read and display a comprehensive understanding of 'THE PRIVILEGE OF BEING A WOMAN' by Alice von Hildebrand. And I don't mean that just my girls would have had to read it; it would have been on the REQUIRED READING list for my boys as well. Why? Because once a male has understood the awesome privilege and responsibility that God has entrusted to the female gender, he would thereafter be perfectly incapable of physically or sexually abusing or mistreating women in any way!
.
I now urge you to read 'THE PRIVILEGE OF BEING A WOMAN' and then pass it on to your own daughters (and sons) before "Real Women" become an even greater rarity in our culture than "Honest Politicians". And as it stands right now, I'd call that one a draw.
.
~ Stephen T. McCarthy
.

I LIKE A SPICY CUBAN DISH (In A Little Black Dress)

.
[FUN FACT: In the 5 years I spent reviewing products at Amazon.com, of the 199 reviews I posted -- including topics such as Senator Joe McCarthy, Darwinism, Creationism, Feminism, Communism, Religion, and Liberal Politics -- the one review that received the most negative feedback was THIS one. Why? I dunno. I think they were screaming at me about objectifying women or something. But it got so screechy in that comment section that even my dear friend Amy, the "Flying Aardvark", one of the sweetest, least confrontational persons I've ever met, posted a comment in defense of me. My major crime follows, so read on...]
.

.
Buena Vista Social Club Presents
IBRAHIM FERRER
1999
.
(I first became conscious of the strange phenomenon when I was about 15 years old: I ordered something to eat in a little fast food Mexican joint on Venice Boulevard in West Los Angeles. Unbeknownst to the young Latinas working behind the counter, the very next person to place his order was my Pa, and when he joined me at a table afterwards, he related to me how one girl said to her co-worker after I walked away, “That guy was cute,” and the other agreed.)
.
Good Friend Melanie gave me the IBRAHIM FERRER album of Cuban Jazz as a gift the Christmas before last. (I had mentioned beforehand to her that I have more music than time to hear it, but she listened to me about like men listen to women. No one’s to blame for the communication disconnect between the genders, really, because we have such disparate origins: A woman is from Venus and a man is from a woman’s “Monologue.”)
. 
(Including my ENTIRE life, I can count on two fingers how many White, Black, or Asian women have had me and the “Mystery Dance” occupying the same thought in their mind. But Hispanic women have always found me to be irresistible, and I don’t know why. I am a very ordinary looking but extremely analytical individual who tends to mentally dissect everything in order to comprehend why and how such and such is so. But I’ve yet to concoct even the most rudimentary theory to explain the Latin woman’s attraction to me.)
.
I almost gave up on the IBRAHIM FERRER recording because I just couldn’t seem to warm up to it for the longest time. At one point, I considered posting a Two-Star review on the BigBitch.com website which I thought to title, "I'll Have The Number Three Combination Plate And A Margarita, Please." The music just made me feel like I was sitting in a booth at a Mexican restaurant. “Not that there’s anything wrong with that”, but tunes for home listening? And since Good Friend Melanie wasn’t too crazy about 'Bright Size Life' -- the Pat Metheny disc I had given to her -- we even considered trading, and each of us keeping the item we had purchased.
. 
(The brilliant and world-renowned South American sociologist, Yoey O’Dogherty, once observed that, “Hispanic women are especially drawn to the warm magnetism of masculine intensity, just as conversely, snowmen are drawn to frigid climates.” And in my youth I was sometimes known by the nickname, “Mister Intense.” Perhaps this accounts for why Latinas are so susceptible to the energy of my aura?)
.
I finally decided that I would play nothing but IBRAHIM FERRER whenever I was writing on my computer until either my ears became educated enough to enjoy it, or until I could stand it no longer and gave it away to Lupe, the waitress at Abuelo’s Mexican Food Embassy who always gives me extra guacamole and a wink.
. 
(You know how women can give men “the once over” without tipping their hand to the guys, while men just ogle openly? Well, these spicy Hispanic gals sometimes lose their highly refined skills around me, unable to extinguish the hungry flames in their orbs. Even at my advanced age of 47, wearing spectacles, and with plenty of grey cohabitating with the brown on my scalp and in my goatee, I still sometimes catch ‘em eyeing me.)
.
Well, to my great surprise, I not only eventually came to differentiate between all of these melodies, but came to embrace them as if they were part of my own culture. The tremendous blasts of brass; the lively, intricate percussion work; the sparse but soulful guitar touches of Ry Cooder; and the emotional and romantic Spanish vocals really move me... and they make my writing move, too. I’ve found that IBRAHIM FERRER puts some added zest into my words -- really gets the creative juices flowing. (Can’t you tell?) Because of its dancing rhythms, it’s become maybe my very favorite disc to play as background music while writing anything.
. 
(I once had a sweet and shy Mexican girl tell me about a week before her wedding that all along it was me she had been hoping to catch. And less than twelve months ago, this 18-year-old hot Hispanic thang let it be known that she was interested in me. She went by Wendy, but I’m pretty sure her Mama named her Maria. She was a real cutie and had an absolutely OUTRAGEOUS body to go with that face: all the curves in just the right places and very well pronounced like: “The rain in Spain stays mainly in the plain!” To borrow from The Commodores, she was truly built like a “Brick OWse!” The night I had to turn her down, pointing out that at my age I was nearly old enough to be her grandpa, I drove home gnawing on my knuckles and chanting over and over again, “There had better be a Heaven! There had better be a Heaven!”)
.
As if the music alone weren't reason enough to purchase IBRAHIM FERRER, the song MARIETA contains one of the funniest lyrical passages ever. Translated into English it says: “My wife was suffering from an illness of the heart in Havana. So the doctor came one morning to examine her. He took off her dress, her panties, too. And her slip. But when I saw that indecency I said: This isn’t good; I really don’t think my wife’s heart is that far down.” Imagine that, a song about a doctor “playing doctor.”
. 
(So, you’re wondering why I told you how attractive Latinas find me? Well, it just so happens that I wasn’t talking to you, Dude; I was trying to send a discreet message to your hot, Hispanic girlfriend. But you know what? To heck with subtlety: Hola guapa, llamame cuando tu novio esta fuera.)
.
~ Stephen T. McCarthy
.