Betty Friedan: A womanoid departs

Published 13 years ago -  - 13y ago 39


The Playboy dream, as expressed by Professor ‘enry ‘iggins in My Fair Lady’s version of Communist George Bernard Shaw’s play, Pygmalion, was always that a woman should be “more like a man.” Why waste precious time and money courting? Let’s just have a few drinks at the bar, enough to get lubricated, off with the clothes and jump into bed. If there is a pregnancy, well, that’s her problem, isn’t it? By morning, you’ll be gone.

And mirabile dictu, that’s exactly what the womanoid movement has done, in the name of “liberation.” A “womanoid,” by the way, is a creature that has some of the physical accoutrements of womanhood, it sticks out fore and aft, but it isn’t a real woman. A womanoid is to a woman as a humanoid is to a human.

The womanoid movement is profoundly anti-woman, no surprise because of the plethora of bull dykes who run it. You see them at Democrud Party events, strutting officiously in pants, seething even when pleased because they lack what it takes to fill them. Of course, not all womanoids are bull dykes. Some, however sexually normal, are among the ugliest females that ever strode the earth.

Remember Bella Abzug? I wondered why she was never seen without a hat, until I sat in the House gallery and saw her on the floor. The House has a rule that forbids members to wear hats, so there was Bella without one and her head came to a point. I’m not talking about hat hair. It actually came to a point. Was that why many people thought her name was “Azbug?” And have you ever seen Senator Barbara Mikulski? You have if you have ever seen a toad.

Republicrud women may be zombies, genuflecting before graven images of President Smirk, chanting about how much they love the war, but at least they know how to wear panty hose, makeup and skirts. At least they look good. I think it says something that Laura looks as good as she does after living so long with a nasty drunk.

The occasion for all this profundity is the fact that Betty Friedan has died. She founded NOW, the National Organization of Womenoids. She wrote a best seller called The Feminine Mystique, which Gary North, Ph.D., noted Christian theologian, Free Enterprise economist and notorious heterosexual, correctly recharacterized as “The Feminine Mistake.”

The argument of Mystique was that women were utterly ensnared by husbands and families and housework, which stultified, degraded, even dehumanized them. “The feminine mystique has succeeded in burying millions of American women alive,” she said. Of course, the mystique she was talking about was the traditional femininity that is one of the crown jewels of Christianity.

A woman had to “find herself,” she said. Only if a woman “liberated” herself from these oppressions, remade herself, could she have bam-bam orgasms and independence like a man. Ever since, husbands have come home from work to find the house empty except for a note that says the frau has hit the road to “find herself.”

A couple of times, at Democrud national conventions, I spotted Betty Friedan in the stands and sat beside her to talk, hoping she would say something about all this I could print. She did talk, volubly – I took the precaution of concealing my credentials – but on both occasions she was so drunk I couldn’t make out what she said.

The second and last time we were together she stood up after a while. I had always been taught that if a lady is too drunk to stand up, noblesse oblige requires a gentleman to intervene physically, which I did, so Miss Betty did not fall on her face, which she would have done had I not for that moment abandoned my staunch isolationism. Was I wrong?

The lasting impression she created in print and in public was that she was writing about herself; that she was one of the harried, stultified, dehumanized women who had been victimized by the housework mystique. Of course that impression was a fraudulent concoction. She lived in a gorgeous mansion on the Hudson. She did no housework, never touched the stuff. Her loving husband employed a maid.

So if she wasn’t a bull dyke and wasn’t stultified – even was a mother – what was the feminine “mystique” all about? Yes, she did get a divorce and accused her husband of physical abuse including a couple of black eyes, which he denied, but she was the only one who wrote the book. Why?

Betty Friedan was a Stalinist. She was literally in bed with J. Robert Oppenheimer, the scientist who belonged to many Communist groups and financed the Communist Party. She wrote the periodical for a Communist union. She would have been perfectly at ease in Moscow, writing for Izvestia. And the so-called “women’s liberation movement” is a long-range Communist program.

Dictatorship is difficult to install in the face of strong families. A dictator needs to destroy them. And women make the families. For one obvious reason, they have the children. The family is the vehicle that maintains the institution of private property. So the Communists have always conspired to destroy the family. If you were an aspiring dictator, how would you do that?

In the Communist Manifesto, Marx wrote that it was crucial for Communists to get the women out of the house: “Abolition of the family! Even the most radical flare up at this infamous proposal of the Communists.” Marx explains, “The bourgeois family will vanish as a matter of course.”

Marx says his Communists will “replace home education by social.” In other words, home schooling, common in 1848, even in Germany, would be outlawed. He says the “bourgeois claptrap about the family and education, about the hallowed co-relation of parent and child,” is “disgusting.” Communism will replace the family with “an openly legalized, community of women.”

No more waste of precious time and money courting. Women will be “liberated,” owned by the government in a “community.” If you do as you are told, the Department of Womanoid Affairs will issue you a woman. If you belong to the Party, work for homeland security or are a Hero of the Soviet Union, you may even be allowed to request, say, a redhead, if you like excitement. Hey, maybe they would give you a spare for those bad times when your head wife goes P.M.S.

That is why Betty Friedan wrote as follows: “. . . The so-called freedom of the American woman is a myth. Either she is a gilded butterfly bourgeois parasite or she is an oppressed slave.” Man, you can say what you like about Betty, you can call her a drunk, but that woman could write! A “gilded butterfly bourgeois parasite.” Yee Haa!

Want more? In a favorite passage, Miss Betty also says this: “The life of the working class woman and poor farmer’s wife is one of drudgery and exploitation. . . . The boasted American home, enslaving the woman through her economic inferiority and her children, makes her dependent upon her husband. On all sides she confronts medieval sex taboos . . . . When she goes into industry she has to toil for from a third to a half less than the male worker . . . .” You go, girl!

Whoa! Hold on! Did I say Betty Friedan said all that? No, that’s wrong. She had nothing to do with it. I can’t imagine how I made such a mistake. The author of the “gilded butterfly bourgeois parasite,” etc., was in fact William Z. Foster, a founder of the anti-American Communist Liars Union (ACLU) who later became General Secretary of the Communist Party. Foster wrote a book called Toward Soviet America (New York, International Publishers, 1932), in which he explained how his Communists would impose their system on the United States.

But you believed Betty said it because she said the same thing!

Foster wrote: “. . . The American Soviet government will immediately set about liquidating the elaborate network of slavery in which woman is enmeshed. She will be freed economically, politically and socially. The U.S.S.R. shows the general lines along which the emancipation of woman will also proceed in a Soviet America.”

This is the origin of “women’s liberation.” This is the reason it is so hostile to women. Remember that Miss Betty complained about two things in particular: sex and housework. Foster said this: “The Russian woman is also free in her sex life. When married life becomes unwelcome for a couple they are not barbarously compelled to live together. Divorce is to be had for the asking . . . .” More divorce means less family. Today divorce is tame enough for church ladies because more and more mothers don’t bother to get married.

Now what about the drudgery of housework? “So important do Communists consider this question that the Communist International deals with it in its world program. In the Soviet Union the attack upon housework slavery is delivered from every possible angle. Great factory kitchens are being set up to prepare hot, well-balanced meals for home consumption by the millions . . . .” Wow, communal kitchens! What every little girl dreams about. What every woman wants. Those Commies sure know everything about women. Mel Gibson don’t know nothin’.

“To free the woman from the enslavement of the perpetual care of her children is also a major object of Socialism.” No problem. Foster quotes Soviet author Anna Razamova, who says: “While she is at work she can be sure that her child is being well taken care of,” presumably in the world’s biggest network of day-care centers. Notice that Communist Foster’s goal is Socialism.

Does any of this sound familiar? Again, it’s the Communist program, popularized by Stalinist fraud Betty Friedan. So long, Betty. Here’s hoping you can stay sober. Satan will want you to keep the commodes clean.

Published originally at EtherZone.com : republication allowed with this notice and hyperlink intact.”

39 recommended
comments icon 0 comments
0 notes
1289 views
bookmark icon

Write a comment...

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