Several days ago David Gray's essay Eradicating The Heterosexual Family was distributed and prompted a number of replies. EJF newsletters are intended to be provocative and stimulating and, from that viewpoint, Gray's essay was certainly a success.
However, many of the comments I've received deserve a more general reply. I assume that our readers are willing to accept that a subclass of women can be categorized as "extreme." I am equally willing to describe the actions of many men as "extreme."
Oh how quickly we seem to have forgotten the history of the 20 th Century. The role of Fifth Columns, and the destruction they are capable of, seems to have been completely forgotten, and certainly ignored by most of the respondents.
One recurring theme in the responses concerned the comparison of radical feminism with Marxism. For example, a local medical doctor, whose family, career, and health have been destroyed by what is locally referred to as the "Filthy Fourth" judicial district stated that:
"I think you're an intelligent man; therefore, why do you spread the misrepresented/anti-Semitic crap of these ignorant Christian writers. Marxism if read without the 'Christian haters bias' is nothing about promulgating the corrupt feminist agenda. Marxism at it core is an overly idealistic belief that each person will be responsible and supportive of the human race and each other with the resultbeingaclassless...society and a better world. The article you sent is a perverted Marxist/Jew hating misrepresentation of the facts."
That ignores the fact that at the "core" of Marxism is a statement that class struggle begins in the family. Also, I found nothing anti-Semitic in Gray's essay, and if there were any references to Christianity, or any religion, I missed them.
According to Dale O'Leary in her book The Gender Agenda (p. 103):
"The radical women of the sixties saw in Marx's and Engel's analysis the justification of their own dissatisfaction with liberal reforms. They became convinced that previous Marxist revolutions had failed because they had failed to target the family. If Marxist analysis was correct, the family was the cause of oppression and would have to be eliminated."
Now I am no Marxist scholar, or student of communism, and I defer to Erin Pizzey on the relationship between extreme, radical, gender feminists, feminazis, Redfems, or whatever you want to call them, and Marxism.
Ms. Pizzey became world famous after opening the first refuge (shelter) for battered women in Chiswick, London, England in 1971. Virtually all modern efforts to curb family violence are traceable to her work. In her essay From The Personal To The Political Erin relates the growth of modern feminism as she lived it. Born in China in 1939, her parents and brother were arrested and held by Chinese Communists for several years during WW II. Later she was exposed to communist propagandists while working with medical missionaries in the African bush in Senegal. Then she was driven out of England into exile for ten years by radical feminists after publishing her book Prone To Violence, in which she dared to point out that in domestic relationships women are as violent as men. So when Erin tells me there is a close relationship between Marxism and extreme feminists, who have seized upon the very human concern society has for family violence as a cash cow, I accept her word.
In response to the ACFC officer who commented about the comparison between Marxism and radical feminists that:
I would agree fully, but note that I am much more deeply concerned that these women have no idea of why ad misericordiam is a fallacy, or why an ad hominem attack is considered the last refuge of a scoundrel. Indeed, Redfems regard all logic as a form of patriarchal oppression, one of the themes of David Gray's essay.
Is there really any need to expound on the widespread, indeed global observation that family courts are acting on the Marxist dictum: "From each according to his ability, to each according to their need," and thereby destroying families and children on an unprecedented scale? In Foundations of Civilization I point out that, using the government's own figures, statistically there is very little chance that a child born today will reach age 18 living with both biological parents in an intact family. It would seem that the topic of David Gray's essay has already come to pass.
"I know this material [David Gray's essay] will cause bile to rise in your throat, but it is necessary to know some of the intense hatred and deep fear some men have for women. Couple that with ignorance and they are dangerous. Especially if we ignore them. We tend to dismiss this as 'immaterial rantings of the mentally immature.' Regretfully, these can claim a following, and they can lead to disasters (look at Hitler in Germany, and the Secretary of State in GA who wants to eliminate the word 'evolution' from the school texts of that State, and the fellow who shot Jews and non-whites on the streets of LA). Respond any way you would like, but don't let Gray and his ilk have the uncontested podium."
Now I don't know how he got from Redfems to evolution, and I deplore the ad hominem nature of his response. However, I think(?) one of his objections is to Gray's discussion of the Redfem attack on the patriarchy. I would note that in Colorado the DV Offender Management Board standards require treatment providers to undergo formal training in the problems with patriarchy as a matter of State policy. Gloria Steinem has asserted that "The patriarchy requires violence or the subliminal threat of violence in order to maintain itself...The most dangerous situation for a woman is not an unknown man in the street, or even the enemy in wartime, but a husband or lover in the isolation of their own home." Feminist analysis thus states that a patriarchal society is a direct cause of oppression and violence against women. An extensive, scholarly discussion of the fallacy of patriarchal oppression in feminist thinking has been done by Dr. Donald Dutton's essay Patriarchy and Wife Assault and I would refer the reader to that work for additional details.
In this attorney's comments there also seems to be the oft-recurring theme of misogyny, in that if any man dares question feminist ideology then they must hate all women. What David Gray refers to as "the socialist collective" form of thinking. Perhaps if law schools required course work in logic this attorney might have become familiar with ignoratio elenchi.
But the best proof of David Gray's statements are in the words of Redfems themselves. Some years ago I put forth Why Radical Feminists Concern Us with an included brief essay by Mrs. Dale O'Leary on Radical Feminism As A Psychological Disorder.
2. "Since marriage constitutes slavery for women, it is clear that the women's movement must concentrate on attacking this institution. Freedom for women cannot be won without the abolition of marriage" (radical feminist leader Sheila Cronan).
3. In response to a question concerning China's policy of compulsory abortion after the first child, Molly Yard responded, "I consider the Chinese government's policy among the most intelligent in the world" (Gary Bauer, "Abetting Coercion in China," The Washington Times, Oct. 10, 1989).
5. "Marriage has existed for the benefit of men; and has been a legally sanctioned method of control over women.... We must work to destroy it. The end of the institution of marriage is a necessary condition for the liberation of women. Therefore it is important for us to encourage women to leave their husbands and not to live individually with men.... All of history must be re-written in terms of oppression of women. We must go back to ancient female religions like witchcraft" (from "The Declaration of Feminism," November, 1971).
7. "Let's forget about the mythical Jesus and look for encouragement, solace, and inspiration from real women...Two thousand years of patriarchal rule under the shadow of the cross ought to be enough to turn women toward the feminist 'salvation' of this world." (Annie Laurie Gaylor, "Feminist Salvation," The Humanist, p. 37, July/August 1988.
8. "In order to raise children with equality, we must take them away from families and communally raise them" (Dr. Mary Jo Bane, feminist and assistant professor of education at Wellesley College, and associate director of the school's Center for Research on Woman).
9. "Being a housewife is an illegitimate profession...The choice to serve and be protected and plan towards being a family-maker is a choice that shouldn't be. The heart of radical feminism is to change that." (Vivian Gornick, feminist author, University of Illinois, The Daily Illini, April 25, 1981.
One could go on but the case against Redfems seems established and David Gray's essay is one of the better short summaries of the situation. Clearly we have a Fifth Column working within our society whose ultimate goal is its destruction. There is perhaps no better description of this process than the essay on How Civilizations Fall by Prof. Ken Minogue of the London School of Economics.