Jack Kemp

A few days ago I had an exchange in the comments section of an Amer. Thinker blog piece on the subject of feminists being angry at VP Mike Pence not wanting to eat dinner alone with any other woman but his wife. The irrationality of feminists came up in both a retelling of a surprising discussion I had with a feminist in 2012 and in a surprising reply I got on the Amer. Thinker discussion boards

https://disqus.com/home/discussion/americanthinker/mike_pence_vs_rebecca_watson/#comment-3244574696

JackKemp • 2 days ago

A few years ago I was in a writing class in NY. One woman there, a feminist, wrote a piece about some nice food item and that both sides in the U.S. Civil War should have gone home to eat such a food item instead of fight. To this I replied in class that if both sides went home, slavery would had continued to exist in America.

She had no reply to this, acting as if I, the class conservative, was not worthy of a reply, nor would anyone else making this observation be worthy of a reply to this obvious result of her wish that both armies would go home early in 1861-65.

Before taking that class, if anyone had suggested to me that a feminist in favor of equal rights, etc., would publicly advocate for a de facto continuation of slavery after 1861, I would have said they were going too far in their accusations and they were absurd to suggest such callousness by a feminist to the plight of black people. Yet here I was listening to exactly that from a feminist with a university education. The feminists are, in many cases, really quite self absorbed and quite nuts.


gerald carbonneau (replies to) JackKemp • 2 days ago

She may have been right. Slavery would have ended on its own. And 700,000 lives would have been saved.

JackKemp (replies to) gerald carbonneau • 2 days ago

If slavery would have ended on its own, it would have happened a number of years later and with much additional suffering by blacks. It would, gerald, probably not involved any additional suffering to you or your family. For a woman who was more or less a social justice warrior, it was very surprising to hear her say this. I cannot give too many details about her here to avoid identification but there is one other thing she said in a private conversation with me before class started (in an
otherwise empty room).

When I mentioned the case a few years ago of the boy who thought he was a girl - and his mother's efforts to get him into a Girl Scout troup which had sleepover weekend camping trips the feminist just sat there with total indifference to the problems that could arise. The local Girl Scout troop leaders (I believe in Texas) disbanded the troup, even as the national Girl Scout organization advocated for allowing this confused boy to join them, probably in defiance of local laws that protect children. When I then asked the feminist if she had (was the mother of) a girl, she angrily said to me, "No, do you have a girl?" I said no, I don't - but even without being the father of a girl I was interested in young girls being protected in our society.

I submit to you, gerald, that my answer was that of a regular person with decent standards (and I'm not claiming sainthood here) - versus the answer of a feminist with total indifference to the safety and privacy of the young Girl Scouts. Hers was the attitude of someone who either wants to tear down society or has no concept of what a workable society should do to protect its children, especially its female children.

Once again, I state that this woman's remarks were totally the opposite of what one would expect - or at least expected 15 years ago, let alone in the 1950s - from someone advocating for females and their rights. She was - and probably still is - a feminist loon, a total nut.

Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at 07:59 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 696 words, total size 4 kb.