The Daily Vos probably won't be every day, but check back here often. This will be the place where I comment on social matters, political issues, and current events. 






Blog Index
The journal that this archive was targeting has been deleted. Please update your configuration.
« The Mission Statement of Socialist Feminists | Main | Book Review: Manning Up »

Feminism Is Liberalism Is Socialism (Part 4)

“One institution to which some socialist feminists are seeking immediate alternatives is the stereotypical 20th-century nuclear family.” That is a quote from socialist feminist Alison Jaggar’s book, Feminist Politics and Human Nature. Page 336.


Feminists are trying to radically transform the institution of the family. One of their present plans to break the family is to literally separate parents and children.


Here is an excerpt from Jaggar’s book:


For example, both Onora O’Neill and D.A. Lloyd Thomas argue that genuine equality of opportunity would require that children be removed from their parents’ care and control to be reared in state nurseries. Only in this way, they argue, would it be possible to guarantee to each child the equal “distribution of health care, diet, socialization, consideration and respect, as well as of schooling, which would ensure the same distribution of competencies.” Page 195. [Emphasis added.]


How long will it be before socialist feminists require that your children be removed from your care? Their plan is to first force all of us taxpayers to fund a Government childcare program and hope parents voluntarily give up responsibility for their children.


It is what Jaggar meant when she used the word “prefigure” in the third paragraph in the Daily Vos article, “Post-Constitutional and Pre-Revolutionary”. “Prefigure” means prototype, so, for example, welfare is just the prototype for the socialist feminist’s complete redistribution of the wealth plan.   



“It [socialist feminism] calls for economic security for women, for paid maternity leaves and for the provision of publicly funded and community-controlled childcare.” Page 321. [Emphasis added.]


The Socialist Party USA Platform:

“We call for 16 months paid leave to be shared by new parents or in its entirety by a single parent, and the expansion and full-funding of high-quality child care facilities.”


“We support public child care starting from infancy, and public education starting at age three, with caregivers and teachers of young children receiving training, wages, and benefits comparable to that of teachers at every other level of the educational system.” [Emphasis added.]


That is what socialist feminists and the Socialist Party USA want to happen. It is no surprise Liberal Democratic Party politicians want the very same thing.


From The Washington Post, “Obama touts plan for universal preschool.” By Zachary A. Goldfarb. February 14, 2013:


Barnett said that it would be better to provide universal preschool education starting at age three or two, but it makes sense to start at 4 given the available resources. “It makes sense from a purely practical point of view to consolidate 4-year-olds before you move on to three,” he said. [Emphasis added.]


Here is what Liberal Democratic Party politician Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) had to say in an article in “Pelosi: We can win” By Mike Lillis. 10/28/13: 


Atop her priority list as Speaker [should the Democrats win back the majority in the House of Representatives], she said, would be “comprehensive affordable, quality childcare” for working mothers, which she sees as a natural extension of ObamaCare.


Of a federal childcare law, she said: “This is the missing link in so many things that we’ve talked about. It is not exhaustive of all the things we want to do or have done with regard to women, but I do think it would unleash the power of women.”


Pelosi, for one, can barely disguise her delight at the thought of a Hillary Clinton White House. It would align the first female president with the Democrats’ women’s empowerment agenda.


The more feminists try to “unleash the power of women”, the deeper in debt we, all, get.


Please, don’t think that the symbiosis among FLSUGbDpp is just an eerie coincidence. There is nothing coincidental about it. And, don’t think that this is just a crazy conspiracy theory. There is nothing conspiratorial about it. It is exactly what the Feminists, Liberals, and Socialists have had planned for the past several decades and the Democratic Party politicians and Government bureaucrats are carrying it out. The status of the Underclass is the result of all of the above. The Underclass is what happens when socialist feminism is applied to society.   


Socialist feminism’s goal is to make women independent of men, and men independent of women, and parents and children independent of each other. They want every individual completely independent of family but completely dependent on the Government, which is controlled by the FLSUGbDpp.


For women it means, if you get pregnant, you may “choose” whether your baby dies or lives. If you “choose” life for the child, then you get paid leave. Then, the Government takes your infant into childcare. Then, the Government takes your toddler into early preschool and then through high school and college. If the student is female, she will get a job because of affirmative action. If she doesn’t want to work, she will be taken care of on welfare. Farfetched? It is President Obama’s “Life of Julia” plan.


I include several quotes here from Jaggar’s book to show I’m not taking anything out of context.



“The socialist feminist conception of procreation as part of the economic foundation of society has carried forward the radical feminist challenge to the traditional distinction between public and private life.” Page 143.



“Socialist feminists argue for abolishing the public/private distinction entirely.” Page 145.


Abolishing everything is a big part of what socialist feminists do. They want to abolish the family, womanhood, manhood, childhood, the economy, Democracy, and the “public/private distinction”, among other things. There isn’t one aspect of human nature, or one institution in the United States, that feminists don’t want to abolish, transform, or destroy.



“It may be that such reflections will lead to the conclusion that it is necessary to abolish the entire status of childhood.” Page 343.



“Just as socialist feminists are committed to abolishing workerhood and womanhood as social categories, so their political values and their conception of human nature may require them also to abolish childhood.” Page 343-344.



“Socialist feminists charge that, by accepting even a modified version of the public/private distinction, traditional Marxists are accepting a basic feature of capitalist ideology.” Page 146.


Traditional Marxism isn’t radical enough for socialist feminists.



“On the socialist feminist view, therefore, the abolition of male dominance requires a transformation of the economic foundation of society as a whole. It is necessary to transform not just education, nor simply work, nor sexuality, nor parenting. We must transform everything.” Page 147. [Emphasis added.]


Radical enough for you?


“We must transform everything” gives away the answer to Challenge #2 in The Challenges page.


It is important for you to keep in mind that when socialist feminists talk about “democracy”, what they really mean is radical collectivism.



“Democracy in procreation will come to pass only when every member of society is able to participate fully in decisions over how many children are born, who bears them, who cares for them, and how they are reared.” Page 148.



“In developing new conceptions of freedom, equality and democracy, socialist feminism should not fail to question why young people are excluded from these in almost every society. If democracy in procreation requires that every member of society should participate fully in decisions over how many children are born, who rears them and how they are reared, socialist feminists should not forget that young people too are members of society.” Page 154.



“If this goal were achieved, and if the community as a whole came to assume responsibility for the welfare of children (and mothers), then the birth or non-birth of a child would affect the community in a much more direct and immediate way than it does at present. In this case, it would seem reasonable to allow the community as a whole to participate in decisions over whether children were born and how they should be reared. In these changed social circumstances, it would no longer be even plausible to interpret reproductive freedom as a “right” of individual women. Instead, reproductive freedom would be seen clearly to be a social achievement and something to be shared by the entire community, men as well as women.” Page 320. [Emphasis added.]


What if a woman has had two babies already? This is where the “community” would vote on whether she should be forced to abort any more pregnancies. If a woman has more than two children, her children will use more Government resources, so people might be more inclined to vote for abortion. Abhorrent, but that is exactly what feminists plan to make happen. They have already prefigured it. Feminists already have the prototype in place: low, or no, ethical standards for women, Planned Parenthood, and tens of millions of abortions over the past several decades.