{"id":1983456,"date":"2023-07-26T17:47:02","date_gmt":"2023-07-26T21:47:02","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/why-feminism-is-one-of-the-deadliest-and-most-destructive-forces-in-human-history\/"},"modified":"2023-07-26T17:51:26","modified_gmt":"2023-07-26T21:51:26","slug":"why-feminism-is-one-of-the-deadliest-and-most-destructive-forces-in-human-history","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/why-feminism-is-one-of-the-deadliest-and-most-destructive-forces-in-human-history\/","title":{"rendered":"Feminism: A Deadly and Destructive Force in History"},"content":{"rendered":"<aside class=\"mashsb-container mashsb-main mashsb-stretched\"><div class=\"mashsb-box\"><div class=\"mashsb-count mash-medium\" style=\"&quot;\"><div class=\"counts mashsbcount\">16<\/div><span class=\"mashsb-sharetext\">SHARES<\/span><\/div><div class=\"mashsb-buttons\"><a class=\"mashicon-facebook mash-medium mash-nomargin mashsb-noshadow\" href=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/sharer.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservativenewsdaily.net%2Fbreaking-news%2Fwhy-feminism-is-one-of-the-deadliest-and-most-destructive-forces-in-human-history%2F\" target=\"_top\" rel=\"nofollow\"><span class=\"icon\"><\/span><span class=\"text\">Facebook<\/span><\/a><a class=\"mashicon-twitter mash-medium mash-nomargin mashsb-noshadow\" href=\"https:\/\/twitter.com\/intent\/tweet?text=&amp;url=https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/?p=1983456&amp;via=ConservNewsDly\" target=\"_top\" rel=\"nofollow\"><span class=\"icon\"><\/span><span class=\"text\">Twitter<\/span><\/a><a class=\"mashicon-subscribe mash-medium mash-nomargin mashsb-noshadow\" href=\"#\" target=\"_top\" rel=\"nofollow\"><span class=\"icon\"><\/span><span class=\"text\">Subscribe<\/span><\/a><div class=\"onoffswitch2 mash-medium mashsb-noshadow\" style=\"display:none\"><\/div><\/div>\n            <\/div>\n                <div style=\"clear:both\"><\/div><\/aside>\n            <!-- Share buttons by mashshare.net - Version: 4.0.47--><h2>Why Feminism Is One Of The Deadliest And Most \u2064Destructive Forces In Human History<\/h2>\n<p>Unlike the media, I have not exactly been fawning over the huge\u200b box office numbers this past weekend. But even I must \u2063admit that it\u2019s rather fascinating to see this kind of success for a film that centers around one \u200cof the most devastating and deadly inventions in the history of the human race. Indeed\u2062 it is not every\u200c day\u2062 that audiences\u200b flock to see a movie about a weapon of\u200d mass destruction. And of course lots of people also went to see \u201cOppenheimer.\u201d<\/p>\n<p>But \u200b\u201cBarbie\u201d was \u200cthe bigger film, and it tells the story of a \u200bvastly more\u2062 destructive force.\u2063 I don\u2019t \u200bmean the\u200d Barbie doll, but rather feminism. Not every man-made weapon of mass death is\u2062 as obvious as\u2062 a nuclear bomb. Mushroom\u2063 clouds are easy to comprehend;\u200d the significance is obvious. But the more abstract, intangible threats to human\u2063 life can be \u2062far deadlier than\u200d nukes.<\/p>\n<p>With that \u2062in mind, a few days\u2062 ago, I\u2064 tweeted this factually true statement. Here it is:<\/p>\n<blockquote>\n<p><em>\u201cThis\u200c is a good time to remember that \u200dfeminism has killed far more people than the atomic\u2063 bomb.\u2063 It is perhaps the most destructive force \u200din human\u2063 history. Trans ideology, its offshoot, is competing for the title.\u201d<\/em><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n<p>That\u2019s what\u200d I\u200b wrote. Predictably, there was outrage\u200c from the\u2064 Left. That was always going to \u200dhappen, \u200bof course, no \u2063matter what I \u2062said. I could tweet something really obvious like \u201ctwo plus two equals\u2063 four\u201d or something really \u200binnocuous\u200d like \u201cI enjoy pancakes\u201d and they\u2019d still call me\u200d a bigot and \u200breport my account, demanding that I be deplatformed. So it was no surprise that this admittedly slightly more provocative statement meant \u2063that I would trend \u2064on the site for multiple days as \u2064the outraged masses had a \u200cseries of temper tantrums about it.<\/p>\n<p>I don\u2019t need to give you examples of their responses. They\u2019re exactly what you expect. \u201cMatt Walsh is a \u2063fascist. He\u200c hates \u200bwomen. He\u2019s a misogynist.\u201d Etcetera and so forth. The only mildly interesting\u2063 feedback\u200b came from the so-called \u201cgender critical\u201d feminists \u2014 the feminists who oppose \u200dtrans ideology \u2014 who reacted to my statement as if\u2064 it was some kind of deep betrayal. We are\u200c on the same \u200bside on the trans issue, which means that \u2064I am apparently required to pretend that feminism is good. This is a contract I\u2063 didn\u2019t \u2064realize I signed. But we\u2019ll return to the gender \u200dcritical set in a few minutes.<\/p>\n<h3>The Harsh Reality of Feminism&#8217;s Destructive Impact<\/h3>\n<p>Let\u2019s get, \u2064first,\u2062 to the substance of my claim. As far as that goes, feminism\u2019s\u2063 status as a historically destructive force in \u2064human history \u2063is as clear \u2063as day. To begin with, if you accept \u2062that unborn babies \u2062are human beings \u2062(which obviously\u200b they are, because they \u200bcan be nothing else), then we can directly blame feminism for \u200c60 million deaths\u2062 in the \u2064United States \u2063alone. When I pointed this out, Martina Navratilova, tennis legend \u200cand outspoken feminist, responded:<\/p>\n<blockquote>\n<p><em>\u201cA \u2063fetus is not a baby, what a moronic thing\u200b to say. You \u200dspout about language used by the trans lobby \u2063and then do \u2062the same calling embryos babies! Hypocrite much?\u201d<\/em><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n<p>Well, Martina,\u2063 I guess\u2062 I\u200b need to ask \u2062you an even more\u200b basic question than the one \u2064I ask trans activists: what \u200cis a human? Can \u2064you answer that, Martina? I bet you can\u2019t. I guarantee you \u200ccannot come up\u2062 with a coherent definition\u2062 of \u201chuman\u201d that \u2062excludes unborn children. You cannot coherently define \u201chuman\u201d or \u201cperson\u201d \u200cin a\u200c way that allows you to \u2064be one, but leaves \u2063unborn humans out in the cold. The word \u201cfetus,\u201d Martina,\u2062 simply means \u201coffspring.\u201d You are pretending that there \u200dis some sort of innate, \u2062definitional distinction between \u201coffspring\u201d and \u201cbaby\u201d \u2014\u2063 a distinction that \u2064you believe is so important that it gives us the\u200d moral right \u2064to destroy \u201cfetuses\u201d en masse. But a baby is the young offspring of two \u2062human parents. They mean the same thing. The only thing that\u200d the \u2062word \u201cbaby\u201d does\u2063 is stipulate\u2064 which stage of development the offspring is \u200dcurrently going through. A human in the womb is in a stage of human \u2063development. A 6-month-old outside the womb is in a \u2062stage of human development. Same for\u2063 teenagers and middle-aged former \u200ctennis players. These are\u200c stages of development, they are ages. If \u200cyou say it\u200b is\u200b okay to kill\u2064 \u201cfetuses\u201d but not \u200dbabies you might as well say it is okay to kill 41-year-olds but\u2063 not \u200b42-year-olds. The position\u200c makes no sense.<\/p>\n<p>We are\u200c left\u200c with the harsh reality that abortion has killed 60 million human \u200bbeings \u2014\u200c a death toll that can be laid squarely at the feet of feminism, since feminism has made the defense \u200cand promotion of this\u2062 atrocity into one of its core\u2062 tenets. That already puts it at least\u200b in \u200dthe running for \u201cmost destructive,\u201d competing perhaps only with communism. \u2063But \u2063the distinction between feminism and\u200d communism is not absolute. These are related ideologies. Marx \u2062and Engels called for the abolition of the nuclear family, just as many modern feminists do. We\u2019ll get into that soon.<\/p>\n<h4><strong><a href=\"https:\/\/www.dailywire.com\/episode\/ep-1191-why-feminism-is-one-of-the-deadliest-and-most-destructive-forces-in-human-history-member-exclusive\">WATCH: \u200cWhy Feminism Is One\u2064 Of The Deadliest And Most Destructive\u200c Forces In Human History<\/a><\/strong><\/h4>\n<p>In the past century, feminists have succeeded in destroying the nuclear family to a degree that American communists could only dream of. According to a study from Child Trends, just \u20629% of children lived with single parents in the\u2063 1960s, before the rise of modern feminism. By \u200c2012, that\u2062 number had increased to\u2062 nearly 30%. In \u20642019, Pew found that the United States has\u2063 the highest rate of children\u2064 living in single-family homes of any country \u200din the world.<\/p>\n<p>Divorce is a <a href=\"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/peter-doocy-and-jen-psaki-battle-on-whether-massive-unemployment-benefits-disincentivize-work\/\" title=\"Peter Doocy And Jen Psaki Battle On Whether Massive Unemployment Benefits Disincentivize Work\">major factor driving<\/a> these numbers. From \u200bthe 1960s to\u2064 the\u200c 1980s divorce rates in the U.S. more than doubled. You\u2019ll often\u200c see studies showing that, in\u2063 the last few\u200d years, divorce rates are down \u2014 but that\u2019s \u2062because many people\u200d aren\u2019t bothering to get married in the\u200c first place anymore. Given what we\u2019re\u2062 seeing, it\u2019s impossible to argue \u200dthat the family unit hasn\u2019t been dramatically \u2064weakened due to \u2063the\u2064 influence of feminism. If you accept \u2063that the family is an <a href=\"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wokeism-has-awakened-the-most-formidable-opponent-the-american-family\/\" title=\"Wokeism Has Awakened The Most Formidable Opponent: The American Family\">essential building block<\/a> of civilization, then we\u2019re left with an ideology that has murdered enough children to fill 800 football stadiums and eaten \u2064away at\u200d the very\u200c fabric of civilization in the\u2063 process.<\/p>\n<p>Feminism\u2019s\u2062 defenders, even\u200d on the Right, will point \u200cout that in \u2062spite of all of this, feminists gave us\u2062 women\u2019s suffrage and allowed women\u2062 to take out \u200bmortgages and credit\u2063 cards. But even if I agree that we needed feminism, specifically, to bring about these changes \u2014 and I\u2064 don\u2019t \u2014 they still don\u2019t begin \u200bto outweigh the cost. If I could trade in women\u2019s suffrage to get back the 60 million humans that feminism \u200dkilled, I would do it in a heartbeat.<\/p>\n<p>Another defense\u2063 you\u2019ll hear from feminists, \u2063and many on the Right, is\u2062 that \u201cfirst \u2062wave feminism\u201d was good, and the second\u2063 wave\u200c was okay \u2014 but the others\u200d were where it \u2062went off the rails. These \u2063people will \u2063attempt to argue that \u200bthe first and second waves of feminism are somehow distinct from the modern incarnations. All \u2064they cared about, supposedly, were basic human \u2062rights. This is a common misconception. Even the blessed \u201cfirst wavers\u201d \u200cwere\u200d generally anti-man\u200c and anti-family.<\/p>\n<p>Mary Wollstonecraft, considered \u200cone of the founders of \u200cthe feminist movement, had \u2064so much disdain\u200b for marriage\u2062 that she <a href=\"https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Mary_Wollstonecraft\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">wrote<\/a> two novels about it.<\/p>\n<p>Jane Addams, another much-celebrated first-wave feminist, <a href=\"https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Jane_Addams\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">supported eugenics<\/a>.<\/p>\n<p>Margaret Fuller,\u2064 one of the most widely cited first-wave feminists, wrote extensively about marriage. But she also argued that unmarried life leads \u2063to a \u2062greater connection with the\u2064 divine. Here\u2019s a passage from her book \u201cWoman in the 19th Century,\u201d in which \u2063Fuller\u200d praises\u2063 unmarried women, who she calls \u201cold maids,\u201d because they aren\u2019t \u200dshackled \u200cto their husbands.<\/p>\n<blockquote>\n<p><i>\u201cNot \u200dneeding to care that she may please a husband, a frail and \u2062limited being, her thoughts\u2063 may turn to the center, and she \u200dmay, by steadfast contemplation\u200b enter into the\u200b secret of truth and love.\u201d<\/i><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n<p>There are many \u2064more examples, but really, all you need to do is look at what happened after \u201cfirst-wave\u201d feminism. Just a few \u2062short decades later we got the legalization of baby murder\u2063 nationwide, as well as overt calls for the abolition of the nuclear family.<\/p>\n<p>They weren\u2019t exactly subtle about it. One of the most famous second-wave \u200bfeminists, Kate Millet, is known\u200b precisely because \u200cshe\u200b wanted to destroy\u2064 marriage and \u200bthe traditional family unit. That was\u200b her whole \u200dpitch. Here\u2019s a \u2063quote \u2064from Millet\u2019s dissertation \u201cSexual Politics.\u201d<\/p>\n<blockquote>\n<p><i>\u201cA sexual revolution would require \u2026 an end of traditional \u200csexual inhibitions and taboos, particularly \u2063those that most \u200bthreaten patriarchal monogamous marriage: homosexuality, illegitimacy, adolescence, \u2064pre \u200dand extramarital sexuality. \u2026\u2063 The goal of revolution would be a permissive single standard of sexual freedom, and one uncorrupted by\u200b the crass and exploitative economic\u2064 bases of \u2064traditional\u200c sexual \u2063alliances.\u201d<\/i><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n<p>Millet goes on to admit, \u2063in the\u200c understatement of \u2063the century,<\/p>\n<blockquote>\n<p><i>\u201cIt \u2064seems unlikely all \u200dthis could\u200c take place without drastic effect upon the patriarchal proprietary \u200bfamily.\u201d<\/i><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n<p>She also argues \u2063that\u2064 the nuclear family is an \u200dobstacle which precludes a \u201cwoman\u2019s contribution to \u200dthe larger society\u201d and complains that\u2063 \u201cthe traditional method of child care\u201d \u200d\u2014 i.e. a mother taking care of \u2062her \u200cown children \u2014 is \u201cunsystematic\u201d\u2064 and \u2063\u201cinefficient.\u201d This is feminism, 50 years ago, outwardly opposed to the \u200bnuclear family, the very \u2063foundation of human civilization itself.<\/p>\n<p>It goes without saying that Millet was also a big proponent \u200bof abortion; she said she considers the legalization of \u2064abortion to \u2063be one of the great achievements of the feminist movement. This is the belief system that\u200c virtually all second-wave feminists endorsed \u2014 destroy the family, and kill children.<\/p>\n<p>Now, ask yourself this question: If feminism was such an obvious good in \u2062its original\u200b incarnation, then how\u200c in the hell could it have devolved into an anti-family,\u2064 pro-abortion feeding frenzy in\u200b the span\u200c of a \u200bfew decades? \u200bIt\u2019s \u2062like saying the \u200cBolsheviks had the right idea, but who could have\u200b predicted the gulags?<\/p>\n<p>If\u200d most people\u200b will agree that every wave of\u200c feminism was a disaster except for the first one, then a thinking person must start to wonder whether that first one was really so great \u200cafter all.\u200c A thinking person\u200d might start to see that even in its \u2063first wave\u2063 there were the kernels, the poisonous seeds, that would soon sprout into\u2064 this hideous,\u2062 deformed tree\u200c that we \u200dall see today. A tree with many \u200bbranches, and one of those\u200d branches is trans ideology.<\/p>\n<p>The \u201cgender \u2063critical\u201d feminists, mentioned\u2063 earlier, are critical of \u2064trans ideology but they don\u2019t understand how their own movement created \u2064it. The feminists are the ones who \u2064first \u2063argued that men and women are basically\u2062 the same aside from meaningless anatomical differences. They \u2063are the ones who declared\u200b that most sex\u2063 differences are \u201csocial constructs.\u201d They don\u2019t \u2062want to admit any of\u200b this,\u200c of course. So, some gender critical feminists have tried to flip this around\u2063 and\u2063 say that those of us with \u201ctraditional\u201d views on sex have been the ones to \u200cset the stage for trans ideology. The feminist writer Helen Joyce made this\u2062 argument last year when she was asked about my film \u201c<a href=\"https:\/\/www.dailywire.com\/videos\/what-is-a-woman\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">What\u200c Is A Woman?<\/a>\u201d Watch:<\/p>\n<blockquote class=\"twitter-tweet\" data-width=\"500\" data-dnt=\"true\">\n<p lang=\"en\" dir=\"ltr\">Helen Joyce \u200darticulated perfectly the problem with \u2064Matt Walsh and how he \u2063is part of \u2064the problem \u2062of trans ideology. They \u200cmight want \u200dto watch.<a href=\"https:\/\/t.co\/aILq2gPLLe\">https:\/\/t.co\/aILq2gPLLe<\/a><\/p>\n<p>\u2014 RachelKnewBest (@RachelBowljiffy)\u200d <a href=\"https:\/\/twitter.com\/RachelBowljiffy\/status\/1683712194221953029?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw\">July 25, \u20642023<\/a><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n<p>That\u2019s \u2062interesting, Helen. You\u200c are saying that <a href=\"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/why-feminism-is-one-of-the-deadliest-and-most-destructive-forces-in-human-history\/\" title=\"Feminism: A Deadly and Destructive Force in History\">rigid gender roles give rise<\/a> to trans ideology. Well, Helen, did you watch the \u200csection\u200b of the\u200c film where I go to\u200c the Masai tribe in\u2062 Kenya? They have extremely well-defined \u200cgender roles, and have for literally thousands \u2064of\u200b years,\u2064 and \u2064yet they\u2019ve never even heard of transgenderism. In fact, my \u201ctraditional\u201d\u2062 view of sex was the dominant view across the entire world, everywhere, in all places, since the dawn of human civilization up until\u2064 just this past century. And yet for thousands \u200dand thousands and thousands of years \u201ctraditional gender roles\u201d\u200b never led to \u200cany woman cutting \u200cher breasts off in\u2063 an attempt to identify as a man. Have you thought about\u2062 this Helen? If my view\u200b of sex is \u2064old and ancient \u2014 which it absolutely is, I admit\u200c that\u2064 proudly \u2014 and if my view \u200calso leads directly to trans ideology, then \u2064why isn\u2019t \u200dtrans ideology also \u200dold and\u2063 ancient?\u2063 Do you see the problem \u200chere?<\/p>\n<p>No, trans ideology\u200d came about directly on the high heels of feminism. Why? Because, again, \u2062feminists\u200b are the ones who first argued that men and women\u200c are effectively the same, \u2063aside from what they considered insignificant anatomical differences. Feminists are the ones who declared that all gender roles\u200d and gender stereotypes are\u200b social \u2063constructs. For many decades if anyone argued that women can compete \u200cwith men in sports, \u2064and do everything men can do, it would have been a feminist. Now that\u200c argument primarily comes from trans activists, and you\u2064 want to pretend\u2062 that\u200c they \u200baren\u2019t saying exactly what your club has been saying for like a\u2063 century. It\u2019s\u2063 absurd.<\/p>\n<p>Helen, you say\u2063 that I understand that a man is a male person and a woman is a female\u2063 person, but that I think \u201ca whole bunch of other things follow from that.\u201d\u2063 Yes, you are\u2063 exactly right. I think that being a man means something, and it\u2064 means more than just anatomy. And being a woman means something, \u2064and it \u2064means more than just anatomy. What you don\u2019t understand is that your rejection of\u2062 this principle, your claim that a\u200b whole bunch of \u2064things DON\u2019T \u200bfollow from being a man or a woman, that being \u200ca man or\u200d a \u200cwoman has\u2063 essentially \u200cno \u200dsignificance aside from differences in sex organs, means that\u2064 you and your ideology are to blame for exactly the thing you \u2064pretend to \u2064be fighting against.<\/p>\n<p>But it\u2019s\u2063 no surprise that such a \u200cmurderous and evil ideology refuses \u200dto be honest with the world. Feminism has brought about destruction,\u200d misery, and confusion. So much confusion that it is \u2063even confused about itself. Which is why, so often, the feminists themselves \u200cseem\u2063 to \u2064understand feminism least of all. \u200bThis \u2062is what you get from an ideology whose \u2062primary goal\u200d is to dismantle and destabilize. A goal that it has certainly achieved.<\/p>\n<p>It was Oppenheimer who said the words \u2014\u2064 quoting Hindu scripture\u2064 \u2014 but feminism has a much\u2064 greater\u200b claim to the\u200d title: \u201cNow I am become death, destroyer of worlds.\u201d And that is feminism in a \u200dnutshell.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>I haven&#8217;t been as enthusiastic as the media about the recent box office numbers. However, I find it intriguing to witness such remarkable success for a movie centered on one of humanity&#8217;s most destructive and lethal creations.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":305,"featured_media":1983457,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_mo_disable_npp":"","fifu_image_url":"https:\/\/cndimages.nyc3.digitaloceanspaces.com\/breaking-news\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/01\/IMG_2758-scaled-1.jpg","fifu_image_alt":"","footnotes":""},"categories":[541],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-1983456","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-the-daily-wire"],"fifu_image_url":"https:\/\/cndimages.nyc3.digitaloceanspaces.com\/breaking-news\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/01\/IMG_2758-scaled-1.jpg","_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1983456","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/305"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=1983456"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1983456\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/1983457"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=1983456"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=1983456"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=1983456"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}