Corrupting Virtue & Normalizing Pedophilia… The Politics Of Ruth Bader Ginsburg
It’s likely that RBG had a rather large role in crafting this document, being that it seems to be part and parcel of her own philosophy. Her stance on sexual issues transcends the standard doctrinaire feminist viewpoint and borders on the perverse.
Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s writings show her to be a radical, doctrinaire feminist, far out of the mainstream. She shares the chip-on-the-shoulder, radical feminist view that American women have endured centuries of oppression and mistreatment from men. That’s why, in her legal writings, she self-identifies with feminist Sarah Grimke’s statement, “All I ask of our brethren is that they take their feet off our necks,” and with feminist Simone de Beauvoir’s put-down of women as “the second sex.” (De Beauvoir’s most famous quote is, “Marriage is an obscene bourgeois institution.”)
Like most radical feminists, Justice Ginsburg’s brand of feminism is closely aligned to that of NOW (National Organization of Women). Their feminism doesn’t extend to married women, stay at home moms, or those not blessed with a college degree from a prestigious institution. Her’s is an elitist feminism that only includes career women at the uppermost levels of the political and business worlds. For them, Ginsburg demands affirmative action and all of the benefits that go along with it. She wants all of the benefits but none of the responsibility.
In a speech published by the Phi Beta Kappa Key Reporter in 1974, Ginsburg called for affirmative action hiring quotas for career women, using the police as an example in point. She said, “Affirmative action is called for in this situation.” On the other hand, she considered it a setback for “women’s rights” when the Supreme Court, in Kahn v. Shevin (1974), upheld a Florida property tax exemption for widows. Ginsburg disdains what she calls “traditional sex roles” and demands strict gender neutrality (except, of course, for quota hiring of career women).
In Frontiero v. Richardson, a 1973 Supreme Court case, Ginsburg, a lawyer at the time, applauded Justice William Brennan’s decision and his observation that; “in practical effect, put women, not on a pedestal, but in a cage,” and that “throughout much of the 19th century the position of women in our society was, in many respects, comparable to that of blacks under the pre-Civil War slave codes.” This argument might sway someone that wasn’t alive before 1973, but to any reasonable person (feminists excepted of course) it is absolute rubbish.
The attack on moral standards by Ginsburg and her compatriots include lowering the age of consent to 12 years of age… The age of consent for sexual acts must be lowered to 12 years old. “Eliminate the phrase ‘carnal knowledge of any female, not his wife, who has not attained the age of 16 years’ and substitute a federal, sex-neutral definition of the offense. . . A person is guilty of an offense if he engages in a sexual act with another person, . . . [and] the other person is, in fact, less than 12 years old.” In other words this includes homosexual sex with minors. But it doesn’t stop there, Ginsburg wants laws on bigamy and prostitution scrapped as well.
Bigamists must have special privileges that other felons don’t have. “This section restricts certain rights, including the right to vote or hold office, of bigamists, persons *cohabiting with more than one woman,’ and women cohabiting with a bigamist. Apart from the male/female differentials, the provision is of questionable constitutionality since it appears to encroach impermissibly upon private relationships.” Not only is bigamy permissible, she’s calling for special considerations to be given them. This is a direct frontal assault on marriage and the family, as was the lowering of the age of consent in that it precludes a parent from protecting his/her child from sexual predators.
Prostitution must be legalized: it is not sufficient to change the law to sex-neutral language. “Prostitution proscriptions are subject to several constitutional and policy objections. Prostitution, as a consensual act between adults, is arguably within the zone of privacy protected by recent constitutional decisions.” Retaining prostitution business as a crime in a criminal code is open to debate. Reliable studies indicate that prostitution is not a major factor in the spread of venereal disease, and that prostitution plays a small and declining role in organized crime operations.” In her treatment of prostitution there is not one argument either way about morality. Her only concerns are “privacy, venereal disease and organized crime.”
The Mann Act has been in place for decades and prohibits older men taking young women across state lines “for immoral purposes.” Ginsburg wants it repealed…
The Mann Act must be repealed; women should not be protected from “bad” men. “The Mann Act . . . prohibits the transportation of women and girls for prostitution, debauchery, or any other immoral purpose. The act poses the invasion of privacy issue in an acute form. The Mann Act also is offensive because of the image of women it perpetuates. .. . It was meant to protect from the villainous interstate and international traffic in women and girls,’ *those women and girls who, if given a fair chance, would, in all human probability, have been good wives and mothers and useful citizens. . . . The act was meant to protect weak -women from bad men.” Contrary to Justice Ginsburg’s observations, the Mann Act was meant to protect all women. What she is calling for is almost complete license for human traffickers. She wants to prevent women and girls from becoming “good wives and mothers and useful citizens,” unless you are a part of the feminist elite.
Want to know where the push to allow girls into the Boy Scouts came from…
The Boy Scouts, the Girl Scouts, and other Congressionally chartered youth organizations, must change their names and their purposes and become sex-integrated. “Six organizations, which restrict membership to one sex, furnish educational, financial, social and other assistance to their young members. These include the Boy Scouts, the Girl Scouts, Future Farmers of America . . . , Boys’ Clubs of America . . ., Big Brothers of America . . . , and the Naval Sea Cadets Corps. . . . The Boy Scouts and Girl Scouts, while ostensibly providing *separate but equal’ benefits to both sexes, perpetuate stereotyped sex roles to the extent that they carry out congressionally-mandated purposes. 36 U.S.C. §23 defines the purpose of the Boy Scouts as the promotion of ‘. . . the ability of boys to do things for themselves and others, to train them in scoutcraft, and to teach them patriotism, courage, self-reliance, and kindred virtues. . . .’ The purpose of the Girl Scouts, on the other hand, is x. . .to promote the qualities of truth, loyalty, helpfulness, friendliness, courtesy, purity, kindness, obedience, cheerfulness, thriftiness, and kindred virtues among girls, as a preparation for their responsibilities in the home and for service to the community.
Ginsburg goes on to attack the nuclear family, completely diminishing the important role of the mother in the home. To Ginsburg and her kind, the only women with any qualities worth mentioning are professional women. She speaks about women’s “hopes and aspirations” while completely ignoring that many women hope and aspire to be wives and mothers…
The traditional family concept of husband as breadwinner and wife as homemaker must be eliminated. “Congress and the President should direct their attention to the concept that pervades the Code: that the adult world is (and should be) divided into two classes — independent men, whose primary responsibility is to win bread for a family, and dependent women, whose primary responsibility is to care for children and household. This concept must be eliminated from the code if it is to reflect the equality principle. It is a prime recommendation of this report that all legislation based on the breadwinning, husband-dependent, homemaking-wife pattern be recast using precise functional description in lieu of gross gender classification. A scheme built upon the breadwinning husband [and] dependent homemaking wife concept inevitably treats the woman’s efforts or aspirations in the economic sector as less important than the man’s.”
Ginsburg’s writings show that she has no regard for equality, only in destroying the institution that made America what it is- the nuclear family. It’s no wonder that her eyes show no empathy, or humanity- there isn’t any there. I’ll leave you with this final observation by the Eagle Forum…
Finally, who but an embittered feminist could have said what Ruth Bader Ginsburg said when she stood beside President Clinton in the Rose Garden the day of her nomination for the Supreme Court: She wished that her mother had “lived in an age when daughters are. cherished as much as sons.” Where in the world has Ginsburg been living? In China? In India? Her statement was an insult to all American parents who do, indeed, cherish their daughters as much as their sons.