The Myth of Liberal Feminism: No, New York Times. The Left do not own feminism. It is an attempt to confine women and use fear to keep them in place.

The New York Times is heavy on the propaganda these days to the point of see-through obnoxiousness.

Jessica Valenti's piece of pseudo-feminist propaganda is a brazen attempt to frighten feminists by ghettoizing them and confining them into a single category: Democrat. The headline is pure fear-mongering sophistry:

The Myth of Conservative Feminism

There is also a bigger myth of Liberal Feminism, and, as a radical feminist, I can tell you that Liberal feminism has become full of it.

The structure of North American thought is pure patriarchal. It is a structure of using chaos to manipulate people who feel vulnerable by invoking primal fear, and then "offering" a solution that is cult-like: run to the guardian protector who will save you from the bad guys.

Yeah, sure.

Women have been seriously lagging and it starts by placing all of their ovaries in one basket.

The political system works against women who always have work within a framework that is rigged to distract them with manipulative arguments they feel obligated to engage in all while having to remove rigs that drain resources and muddies their focus.

This deliberate deflection takes up all sorts of resources, financial to emotional to intellectual -- and is meant to provide enough of a buffer for those in power to retain it. It is a game, after all, and one where inferior people trick superior ones into "solving" endless fake puzzles and "winning" fake battles to feel happy and relieved to win tiny and hollow victories.

As a political atheist, you are not going to play those self-serving games with me. You can insult me, argue with me, try to pretend you are superior to me, whatever. I don't care. There isn't anything in it for me. It is none of my business what other people's narratives about me are. They are irrelevant and unimportant to me -- and the universe.

Really, people, get over yourselves.

But we have women who honestly believe they are "feminist" just because they believe in abortion and vote for liberal parties.

No, you're not. You're someone who has willingly gone on a hamster wheel and run on it like a gullible rube because someone told you to do it.

You believe in lines drawn in the sand. You believe in memorizing someone else's scripts without questioning who wrote them and what do they have to gain from having empty-heads parrot them, thinking they found the winning hack for life.

Because if you are feminist, you are not going to be fooled by fake titles such as liberal and conservative. Those are hypothetical constructs. The bottom line is to ensure that it doesn't matter who comes into power, they are not going to inconvenience you.

The rich are rich for a reason: when it is an election, they give equal campaign contributions to both major parties. This ensures that it doesn't matter who wins -- they will stay rich. People who win will pay back the favour by creating laws that favour their benefactors, while the losing party doesn't try to gain by going after those same benefactors.

Heads the rich win; tails the rich win.

Women who proclaim to be "feminist" are privy to this reality -- so why aren't they ensuring that it doesn't matter who will win -- their interests are never threatened?

So far from there being liberal feminists -- there should be conservative feminists as well. Why should women shake in their boots during every election? What does that accomplish?

And if you are confined to a single party -- then you are at that party's mercy -- not the other way around. This monomania ensures that the party can make threats and drag their feet because all they have to do is point at the other party to frighten the little ladies to go and vote for a party who cannot have any respect for them.

And in the US, the Democrats have no respect for feminists. None. It is a sham.

Who ran as the first female contender for the White House? The little woman of a philandering president who had "feminists" defend him when he was caught sexually exploiting a young female employee who he could crush with his legal team alone. Those pseudo-feminists defended him -- even in the same Op-Ed pages of the New York Times -- those women trounced on the young woman while defending the man who was old enough to be her father.

Those feminists were nothing more than Man Mommies who had to clean up the mess of the guy in power.

And that's who gets to run for president? That's the best American liberal feminism could muster? Shame on them. (Just as no woman on the top list of the wealthiest females created her own wealth without either inheriting or marrying that money -- it is obscene).

Why is abortion still a issue? Do we, for instance, forbid men from getting vasectomies or have the state force them to produce children against their will?

No? Really, why not?

Oh, that's right: because there is no party that puts that outrage on the table. That would be considered to be insane.

The only reason it is still on the table for women is simple: feminists never learned how to diversify their brand.

That's Liberal feminism's failure. That is their shame.

Liberal feminism has been reduced to a single issue: protecting abortion rights at all costs.

That tunnel vision is eroding women's rights, not expanding them.

If Western feminism ever hopes to achieve true equality -- something that we are nowhere near obtaining -- it has to change its mindset, and stop thinking in terms of the artificial binary.

Feminism isn't negotiable; therefore, it cannot be political. It is not about snobbery and petty linear divides: it is about human beings exercising their absolute right to think and not to follow anyone's unnatural beliefs.

That means understanding that feminism must break down walls: not just ceilings.

And that means understanding that conservative women can be feminists just like liberal ones.

And most of all, understanding radical centrists are also feminists.

Because some of us will not be confined by the misdirection of debate, narrative, and opinion.

The New York Times has never been a publication that understood reality, and that is the reason journalism collapsed: it allowed manipulative sophistry to go unchallenged, setting women back further and further in the bargain...