Feminism 2.0

by Brad Nelson   2/13/14

Dennis Prager has been revamping his entire Prager University curriculum. The second video in this updated series is Feminism 2.0, by former NOW board member, Tammy Bruce.

It’s a pretty good message, particularly for women. I have a few quibbles about whether a new kind of “feminism” is an answer to the ills of old, but that’s just a quibble at this point.

Have a blog post you want to share? Click here. • (1606 views)

This entry was posted in Blog Post and tagged . Bookmark the permalink.

23 Responses to Feminism 2.0

  1. Timothy Lane says:

    Bruce’s notion seems very similar (but worked out in more detail) to the ideas of Christina Hoff Sommers, who has differentiated between “equity feminism” (which seeks equality) and “gender feminism” (which is based on hatred of men). Note that Bruce is herself a lesbian, but even as a feminist she was apparently a supporter of 2nd Amendment gun rights, a heterodoxy that eventually led her to become a full-fledged conservative.

    A key motivation may have been her experience in the O. J. Simpson trial, when she found that NOW joined the liberal consensus that it was a matter of race rather than “gender” (thereby showing which group identity trumps the other). She also found that conservative women had no compunction allowing a theoretically liberal feminist (she still headed the Los Angeles chapter of NOW) to receive money from them to fight for the feminist agenda (that Simpson had been an abuser of his wife even after they divorced). Yet she knew of a case where liberals who had supported a local charity refused to donate when they learned the person who ran it was pro-life — even though that had nothing to do with the charity’s purpose.

  2. steve lancaster says:

    Great news, men and women are different! I do applaud Ms. Bruce revelation and in general agree with her new agenda. I wonder when both genders will be able to acknowledge that putting people in comfortable cubby holes is outmoded. As a man, other than actually giving birth I can provide everything that an infant needs, and I have.

    I know women who do, “men’s” work with the same skill and ability as men, does that mean all women should, for example, drive dump trucks? There are many professions that not all men do well and some women do better and vice versa. There are women that I would willingly follow into combat and men that I would not follow to a worm wrestle (BHO).

    The only real goal of feminist thought should be the first of Bruce’s pillars-DIGNITY without that everything else is not relevant, with it everything else falls into place.

  3. Kung Fu Zu Kung Fu Zu says:


    The link is to a good article by Dennis Prager. I believe you will applaud his conclusion.


    • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

      Either women remain as oppressed as in the past, or women tend to be malcontents.

      As I was reading this article, that was the thought that popped into my head. Obviously Prager was also guiding us there. This following should be magneted to every refrigerator.

      Each sex has built-in issues that an individual has to overcome in order to develop into a mature and good person. Men have to deal with aggression and the sexual predatory aspect of male nature in order to develop into mature and good men. Women have to overcome the power of their emotions and their chronic malcontentedness in order to mature into good women. But in our disordered society — a society that has rejected wisdom — in raising their children, two generations of Americans have told only their sons, not their daughters, that they had to fight their nature. The feminization of society has brought with it the destructive notion that only males have to suppress their nature. Feminists really believe females are superior, so why would women have to fight any aspect of their inherently beautiful nature?

      Feminine fascism. This is at the core of so much that troubles us. Set loose the hysterical- and control-oriented minds of women in society with few constraints and you get constant craziness. You get caustic nitwits such as Nancy Pelosi, Maxine Waters, and AOC.

      With men you can get never-ending wars. But even then, it’s long been my belief that the violence of men, to a large extent, can be explained by the motivations and expectations of women. We see this in the propensity of women to like the “bad boys.” When we say “nice guys finish last,” this is often true because of this.

      Females are inherently irrational and manipulative. I don’t want to live in a world driven by male violence. But hell would be a world run by irrational and manipulative women.

      Thankfully, as I’ve written often, most women in day-to-day practice are not feminist screechers. Although political correctness abounds, men and women — at least outside of academia — find a way to coexist. But I’m not at all surprised that women, in general, are not made happy by the feminist dream. Frankly, without good men acting as a governor would in a mechanical engine, women will tend to just spin into the craziness of never being satisfied.

      • Timothy Lane says:

        My own reaction to the article suggested that the problem is that most women prefer family and housework to outside jobs, which is why being less “oppressed” has made them less happy on average.

        This doesn’t preclude their being natural malcontents, but explains why being theoretically better off makes them feel worse. Of course, feminist indoctrination probably contributes, as similar race-baiting indoctrination increases blacks’ feelings of grievance despite being much better off than they used to be.

        • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

          My own reaction to the article suggested that the problem is that most women prefer family and housework to outside jobs, which is why being less “oppressed” has made them less happy on average.

          I had that as an element in the back of my mind as well, Timothy.

          One thing I will posit: Men find it much easier to be happy and women don’t particularly like it when their men are happy. The men have to match the moods of the women which are often obsessed with things that they see out of place.

          I’ve seen this over and over again. Nothing drives a woman crazier than when her man is settled and happy.

        • Kung Fu Zu Kung Fu Zu says:

          There is a reason the term “bitching” when referring to complaining, has come into regular use.

          I am not sure there is a great mystery here. As Prager writes, men have their natural impulses such as aggressiveness while women have complaining. I suspect both impulses are most often unconsidered/unrestrained reactions to stress of some sort. Learning to control these reactions and channel stress is one step toward maturity and becoming a good person.

          • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

            Learning to control these reactions and channel stress is one step toward maturity and becoming a good person.

            Rush often notes how stressed out people are….particularly young people…even though they never had it any better. I put half of this down (if not more) to the fact that we’re making girls of boys. So naturally they’ve never learned to think about these things as “suck it up, buttercup” and instead stress about them.

            It takes experience and perspective to grow up. Still getting there. But I watch people around me roll themselves into balls of manufactured stress and I think “I ain’t ever going there.”

  4. Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

    Let us enter momentarily The Daily Drama to talk about…paper towels.

    I buy Brawny paper towels because they are the quicker-picker-upper. Or maybe that’s those other guys. Well, no more. Now proudly announced on the sides of the package is #strengthhasnogender.

    Mental strength? Character strength? Courage strength? Perhaps. But physical strength? Again, we’re being asked by the gender dystopians to ignore reality. Men are physically stronger than women. Period. That’s not even debatable.

    Have women’s egos become so hair-trigger and tender that they need this constant 24/7 stroking of it? This is surely creating a monster with all this overdone fussing and manufactured complimenting.

    Who makes Brawny? As far as I can tell, it’s Georgia-Pacific….who are themselves partially owned by The Koch Brothers.

    I bought Bounty paper towels instead. Who makes Bounty? Ooops. Proctor and Gamble, the libtards who do the anti-men Gillette razor commercials. So I’m still looking for the most politically incorrect paper towel. Kimberly-Clark makes Scott paper towels. Maybe that will be a safe haven from supporting this nonsense.

    Underneath the vapid “#strengthhasnogender” the Brawny packaging also says “Proud supporter of Girls Inc.” What is Girls Inc.? The web site says its purpose is to “Inspire all girls to be strong, smart, and bold.”

    What this means is actually feminism fascism. Women’s ego and sense of superiority to men is to be stroked and strengthened at all times. It might as well say “#CastrateAllMen.” It’s about marginalizing men as women continue to elbow their way to 60% of public space and upward, never stopping, never being sated until all men are re-programmed into compliant Elois. And its all based on an inflated and manufactured sense of victimhood, sanitized for the rabble into terms like “the development of the whole girl.”

    Who is for “the development of the whole boy”? Much like celebrating white (or European) history, that would be considered sexist. I tell ya, I’m this close to declaring StubbornThings to be a pro-homosexual outfit (thinking more in terms of, say, Alexander the Great, not the freaks who march in the San Francisco parades). The last refuge of men may be other men. Women are continuing to become more and more toxic. Just a thought. Please don’t take me too literally.

    • Timothy Lane says:

      I suppose most paper towels are bought by women. If so, it makes sense that their ads would appeal to them. They don’t have to go that far, though. Sometimes men buy paper towels, too. I recall seeing ads from decades ago that seemed to be designed as femocratic, usually denigrating men to some extent.

      For what it’s worth, Bounty is or was advertised as “the quicker picker-upper”.

      As long as Deana and Rosalys are welcome, no one will take your last comment too seriously. And I can’t imagine them becoming unwelcome.

      • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

        As long as Deana and Rosalys are welcome

        I consider neither to be toxic women, so they are always welcome. Those women who need their egos constantly stroked by the anti-male propaganda of the Gender Dystopians are another matter, although I’d be glad to try to walk them through some deprogramming.

  5. Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

    You can’t make this stuff up. And when you do, you get that Seinfeld episode (which Alex Parker notes) where Kramer is karate champ when he competes against a bunch of kids.

    #Defeatallwomen: Man Wins Women’s Cycling Competition

    Just Testing

    How can those other women stand on the podium next to him and have smiles on their faces? I guess that’s the problem in a nutshell. There is such acceptance of gender-bending in all forms, to not automatically be okay with it is to out yourself as a sexist, racist, reactionary, whatever.

    I can’t get over my overriding feeling of “It serves them right” even though I know insanity such as this has wider consequences. But it serves them right. How can you not root for “Rachel” to keep doing what he’s doing and thereby explode the phoniness of it all?

    • Timothy Lane says:

      I suspect a lot of that smiling was just acting. They’d get trashed for frowning at a man winning a women’s event by saying that he feels like he’s a woman.

      Note that the House voted to add sexual dysphoria (transgenderism) to the anti-discrimination protected classes. This would require all schools to allow boys pretending to be girls to compete against the girls. Every Demagogue voted for it except Dan Lipinski of Chicago, a somewhat pro-life Demagogue who barely won his 2016 primary. A pair of liberal Republicans (from New York and Pennsylvania) also voted for it.

      • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

        I was reading an article by Dan Flynn this morning at The American Spectator: The Quiz Whiz Who Wasn’t. Dan notes the interesting coincidence between James Holzhauer winning a record $110,994 on Jeopardy! on Tuesday and the death of Charles Van Doren. It’s a fine article on its own.

        But what struck me in the context of this pretend-gender stuff was a quote he offered by Steinbeck:

        “A strange species we are. We can stand anything God and nature can throw at us save only plenty. If I wanted to destroy a nation, I would give it too much and would have it on its knees, miserable, greedy and sick.”

        I’ll have to tune in tonight if I get a chance between watching the NHL playoffs which have just started (on Tuesday as well, by coincidence). I don’t know if this fellow is currently still champ. Perhaps Jeopardy! will one day (long after the passing of the distinguised Alex Trebek) accept incorrect answers as correct ones.

        One commenter astutely noted that why is this cycling competition even bothering with age categories if it matters not even if you’re in the correct sex category? He (or she) makes a great point. Not only should a man be able to enter the age 35-39 cycling event, so should a 20-year-old woman (or man, for that matter).

        And, as another commenter (the same one?) noted, why should anyone be restricted to a bicycle. Why couldn’t a fellow say that his motorcycle is really a bicycle?

        • Kung Fu Zu Kung Fu Zu says:

          Stop, you’re confusing me with logic, which is soon to be known as “hate speech.”

          Steinbeck hit the nail on the head. Humanity needs to struggle. Once that is gone, humanity starts to make up all sorts of non-existent problems to replace the struggle which is part of our lives.

          • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

            Stop, you’re confusing me with logic, which is soon to be known as “hate speech.”

            A thought popped into my head-bubble, Mr. Kung. Timothy is, of course, correct that the smiles on the women on the pedestal are fake because otherwise they’d get trashed for frowning at a man winning a women’s event. So let us create an honest rule and dispense with the double-talk, half-truths, etc.:

            Entry into polite society now requires accepting complete nonsense.

            If you want to live and thrive socially in the modern world, in most places now you are required to accept complete nonsense. Look at the glee with which the nonsense is spread even on paper towel wrappers: Strength Has No Gender.

            You can appreciate this pre-emptive caving to the nonsense. If you can’t beat it, why not get ahead of it? And, indeed, a vast competition has opened up amongst the “woke” to be even more nonsensical then the established nonsense.

            We can sit back and laugh at this bizarre show. Even so, we are at least as consternated by the fact that the participants in these Nonsensical Olympics have apparently lost the means to chortle or chuckle at the absurd. One would always suppose some element of self-consciousness would burst through occasionally and laughter erupt spontaneously.

            • Timothy Lane says:

              Well, we’ve noted the similarity between IngSoc and the Demagogues, and this includes those who effectively control the culture. So it’s no surprise that doubting the party line is risky, though we don’t yet have the full Miniluv effect for those guilty of thought crimes.

              One wonders how often the party spouts nonsense as a test to see if people will accept it. If they don’t, they can be marked as thought criminals. (I suspect that the accidental appearance of the photo of Aaronson, Jones, and Rutherford meeting Big Brother at the same moment they were conspiring with Eurasia was actually a test of Winston Smith.) I doubt we’re quite at that level yet, but who knows?

            • Kung Fu Zu Kung Fu Zu says:

              Look at the glee with which the nonsense is spread even on paper towel wrappers: Strength Has No Gender.

              Modern marketing, which includes the marketing of politics, has learned how to turn losers into winners, because there are logically more losers in life than winners. Everybody loses at something sometime, so the marketing gurus have figured out how to rub that sensitive point and make it sore in order to sell something, be it a product or insane idea.

              A winner doesn’t have a chance against the mob. How dare he or she stand out and above the vulgar?

              • Timothy Lane says:

                During World War II, some nations kept close attention to the scores of major aces, and others didn’t. The Americans and their British cousins celebrated individual achievement. Germany had a superman cult, which made it natural to celebrate the best (especially when done for the good of the Reich and the Volk).

                But such listings in Russia and Japan were unofficial and informal, for political reasons in Russia and cultural reasons in Japan. We’re not there yet, but a large part of society would probably prefer to go there.

            • Steve Lancaster says:

              Much of this nonsense is perpetrated by the myth that women are paid less than men for the same work, at one time perhaps true but now an absurd notion.

              At the professional level doctors, lawyers, professors and the like the market determines wages and women are paid in accordance with their skills, talents abilities and experience. More often it is more than men.

              Experience is the key at every level of employment. Lets say two high school graduates 25 years old applying for a entry level management position one male one female. The male has been working in his chosen field for 6 years and has a proven track record of accomplishment. The female had a child and entered the work force at 22 instead of 18. Unless there is a compelling reason (government mandates ) the hiring decision should be easy. Unfortunately, it is not.

              Not hiring the woman needs to be justified by conforming to the illogical decision of hiring someone less qualified in order to avoid possible intervention by government. Large businesses can absorb and adjust for this kind of blindness but small companies can not.

              The end result is more less qualified people dealing with customers and ultimately a decline in sales and an increase in cost of goods sold, or services sold and labor costs. Bottom line—the only bottom line is bankruptcy, or in the best case growth so slow as to make further investment in expansion too risky.

              I don’t hold women at fault for this crazy situation but the liberal mythology of equalizing out comes instead of opportunity. We see it in college admissions, and even in the military. No one can convince me that a 110 lb woman, no matter how motivated, is as combat capable as 200 lb man. There is a place for women in the military but few are capable as men. There are surely some women who are able steeplejacks but the number must be few.

              • Timothy Lane says:

                And women who have such high physical capacity may decide that they can do well in sports. Especially since they’re also less likely to have the killer instinct of most men.

                The first rule of generalizations is that there are always exceptions. This is why we don’t like discrimination. But there also are cases like this where nature itself discriminates. Good law should take that into account.

              • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

                Not hiring the woman needs to be justified by conforming to the illogical decision of hiring someone less qualified in order to avoid possible intervention by government. Large businesses can absorb and adjust for this kind of blindness but small companies can not.

                This is why I say we’re dealing with Feminine Fascism. Estrogen Uber Alles and all that.

                Luckily for big business (this will trickle down to small ones too….already has in the form of computers) there are robots. Bezos and others can build their token wind mills. But at the end of the day, the whiny kids who want $25.00/hr for just showing up are going to find themselves replaced by robots. And I can’t blame the capitalists. Well, I can blame these rich liberals for a lot of two-faced talking out of both sides of their mouth. But I can’t blame them for replacing dishonest, spoiled-brat, lazy yutes with a hard-working robot.

                And whether these robots think they are a man or a woman is irrelevant to their efficiency. And they’ll never stay at home on paid sick leave because they have a blister on their pinky.

                I don’t hold women at fault for this crazy situation but the liberal mythology of equalizing out comes instead of opportunity.

                I hold women completely at fault. Hey, I thought we were completely re-ordering America for the sake of “fairness”? What’s so fair about a man competing in women’s sports? Are women so feeble and helpless that they can do nothing about it? I thought they were all “empowered” and all that? It’s almost as if they need men to swoop in and set things right and reinforce sound rules.

                No one can convince me that a 110 lb woman, no matter how motivated, is as combat capable as 200 lb man.

                I doubt that the Chinese fear the America soldier. I would suspect they have due respect for our technology. But if push ever came to shove, I think we’d find we are becoming a paper tiger. I see these 110 lb (if that) women in camo all over the place. And I know this is only for-show. This is using the military for social engineering. This is not the best, the brightest, and the most able being brought into the ranks with no other judgment but suitability as a soldier.

                Yes, there’s a place in the military for women, blah blah blah. But I think our military, just like our police forces (Seattle is such a great example) are being eaten out from within by replacing objective standards and sane goals with purely Leftist political ones.

              • Timothy Lane says:

                Many decades ago, I occasionally got Soldier of Fortune (a friend recommended it to me). One of the issues had a single-page editorial on women in combat which basically pointed out that the sole issue was (or should be) whether or not they made the military stronger. The military is no place for social engineering because mistakes can get them (and in the long run us) killed.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *