by Gabriella Hoffman

Haven’t you heard, ladies? Chivalry has its roots in sexism! 

Thought that cute guy was holding the door open for you because he wanted to impress you? Wrong–he was exploiting you because he thinks you’re inferior and incapable of opening the door for yourself. Thought that guy friend you like bought you dinner because he cares about you? Wrong–he wants to keep you poor and discourage you from ever becoming financially independent. Do you feel oppressed whenever a guy does a nice thing for you? Well, you shouldn’t.

How can a gentleman's behavior be sexist? Why do these women—excuse me, “womyn”—denounce chivalry? What leads them to conclude this and disparage a custom that’s in great need of remedying?

Several days ago, one radical feminist on Twitter-@IsabelBeatty–responded to a tweet of mine by denouncing chivalry as “chauvinistic” and “oppressive.” I was deeply troubled by her thoughts. Below is the conversation I had with Beatty. (Unfortunately, she deleted her tweets so I’ve kindly provided screen shots of them for you to enjoy.)

She then continued on her anti-chivalry tirade: 

I then responded to her: 

Many other women share this negative view of chivalry. 

In a recent New York Times column, novelist Lynn Messina echoed Isabel’s sentiments that chivalry is sexist in nature: 

It’s sad to see chivalry demonized by individuals like Beatty and Messina. Rather, chivalry should be met with praise and further encouraged in society. Young men should be held to a higher standard and taught to be respectful. The same should also be expected of young women.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                               

Even in the case of platonic relationships or friendships, being chivalrous is a sign of upstanding moral character. Going out of your way to make someone smile, give them a helping hand, or being nice goes a long way. It shows you are compassionate and thoughtful. What’s wrong with that?

I don’t know about you but I don’t ever recall feeling belittled, discouraged, or oppressed by a man if he opened a door for me or complimented me. Truthfully, I feel humbled by these acts of kindness and will always be grateful for chivalry. Women shouldn’t be offended by chivalrous guys; they should be flattered by them!

Women have many rights and luxuries afforded to them in this country, yet they’re inclined to denounce chivalry as “oppressive” and “sexist”? Look at the Arab World as a model for oppression and sexism. Women have limited to nonexistent rights there, are stoned to death, or face genital mutilation, for example. Where’s the outrage from radical feminists? (Crickets…)

In an age dominated by rudeness, lack of self-respect, and relativism, members of our generation should value any semblance of chivalry that comes their way.

Stop trampling on chivalry; start encouraging it.

by Liz Thatcher

I normally ignore al Jazeera because they’re so crazy … but while working on something for my job, I came across an ironic feminist gem. I couldn’t ignore this one.

“This film is not to be made seemingly progressive or feminist because it presents a female CIA agent as central to the demise of Osama. Nor should any of us think that it is ‘good’ that Maya is female, or that several females had an important hand in the murder of Osama. There is nothing feminist in revenge,” wrote Zillah Eisenstein in her Jan. 21 op-ed.

Hold on a second, did she just say feminism isn’t about revenge?!?! LOLCATZ

If feminism isn’t about revenge, why are they constantly whining about patriarchy and how women need to take back the culture and lock up all men and blah, blah, blah.

But it gets better. Eisenstein continued to bemoan the feminist injustices of this movie. “Maya is not believable to me. She is an awful stereotype: a driven, obsessive woman, alone with no friends.” I didn’t realize that there is a stereo-type of the driven, obsessive women with no friends, but what would I know? I’m just a mindless conservative.

But the real question is … shouldn’t feminists LOVE Zero Dark Thirty? As one of my co-workers stated about the movie, “She’s the only person with a brain.” This woman was the central and key figure to an imperative CIA operation that will be a major part in American history. On top of this, women are CEOs, writers, journalists, government officials, and soldiers, something women wouldn’t have been able to do fifty years ago.

Oh wait, this is al Jazeera I’m talking about. Of course they hate Zero Dark Thirty.

This feminist can’t see past her racial-centric lenses. According to her, this is just another imperialistic (white) ploy for evil America to take over the world.

In reality, Eisenstein continues to prove the feminist stereo-type of -- if you don’t agree with me, you’re not a feminist -- just like Naomi Wolfe does consistently, and just like Jezebel did a few weeks ago.

One last question … when exactly did al Jazeera start caring about women’s rights?

by Gabriella Hoffman

In the weeks following the Sandy Hook massacre, President Obama and his supporters have come together to push for more restrictions on the Second Amendment. 

Last Wednesday, Obama-surrounded by children so as to not let a “crisis go to waste”-called for more gun control in the form of universal background checks, limits to high capacity magazines, and a renewal of the 1993 Federal Assault Weapons Ban. His directive includes 23 executive orders. 

The rabidly anti-gun hysteria emanating from the Left should concern you. 

Fox News Insider recently reported on a story about a 5 year-old girl suspended from school for threatening to shoot her classmate with a Hello Kitty toy gun that shoots bubbles.  It reads, “The Mount Carmel Area Elementary School originally suspended the child for 10 days for making what they called a "terroristic threat." The punishment was later reduced to two days. The girl’s family has hired a lawyer and is fighting the suspension.” 

Talk about outrageous. Since when do bubbles assault people?

The Left’s crusade against “assault weapons” has to be exposed. Our side must clarify what an “assault weapon” is, and challenge their smear campaign against our right-to-bear arms. 

Much to the dismay of the media and this administration, Americans are fighting back and defending their Second Amendment rights. 

The term “assault weapon” is a pejorative phrase used by the anti-gun lobby to undermine the Second Amendment. 

In Stanford Law and Policy Review, Bruce H. Koboyashi and Joseph E. Olson wrote, “Prior to 1989, the term "assault weapon" did not exist in the lexicon of firearms. It is a political term, developed by anti-gun publicists to expand the category of "assault rifles."” (Read more about “assault weapons” at The Truth About Assault Weapons.)

It’s imperative to distinguish the difference between so-called “assault weapons” and military-style rifles. Semiautomatic weapons, think AR-15's, fire one round whenever the trigger is pulled. In contrast, fully automatic machine guns fire multiple rounds whenever the trigger is pulled. The Left gets up in arms about semiautomatic weapons with cosmetic features bearing similarities to fully automatic rifles, so we must articulate why these guns don’t pose a threat to our livelihood.

Additionally, studies show that gun control policies are ineffective. 

One study conducted by the Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy concluded that gun control doesn’t prevent gun-related crime. It also concludes that there’s a negative correlation between guns and crimes committed: the more guns available, the less crime there is. 

The Daily Telegraph reported that gun-control haven Great Britain is the violent crime capital of the European Union with 2,034 crimes recorded per 100,000 people, while gun-toting America has 466 crimes recorded per 100,000 people. 

An American University study recently found that 60 percent of high schoolers and college students plan to own firearms in the future, as reported by Campus Reform. 

It’s also recorded that women use guns 200,000 times a year to defend themselves against sexual abuse.

The Second Amendment reads, “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

The facts favor the Second Amendment and responsible gun ownership. It’s morally imperative to tell the truth about “assault weapons” by putting an end to this nonsense. 

Remember–tyranny begins when citizens become disarmed. Learn from history and fight for the preservation of our Second Amendment rights here in this great nation.   

by Liz Thatcher

I recently came across an antagonistic article on Jezebel that made my skin crawl … but also reminded me why exactly I refuse to refer to myself as a “feminist.” The article, titled “There is No Such Thing as a Pro-Life Feminist” did nothing but bash on conservative women like Sarah Palin and organizations like Feminists for Life that provide a pro-life, feminist alternative to the far left feminism of today’s society.

While I found the entire article to be ironic, my favorite line was a rhetorical question, in which the author asked “Who the f*** are you to actively work at taking away other women's right to make their own personal decisions about their uteruses?”

Ahhh yes…the ridiculous, age-old question of “legislating morality.” But is that what the pro-life movement is actually doing?

Let’s just look at this from a “feministic” point of view. Who are you, liberal feminists, to push for the murdering unborn girls who will turn into women someday? Gendercide is an epidemic, and not just in third world countries that have dowry or China where a strict one-child policy is enforced. This happens in America, too, where people choose to abort their babies because they are girls. I’ve written about this before.

Oh, the irony. As a commenter on this article so eloquently asked, “Isn't the entire idea of third-wave feminism based on the premise that a woman can be WHATEVER she wants, be it a business woman, a homemaker, a Democrat, a Republican, a construction worker, a sex worker -and someone who identifies as pro-choice OR pro-life? Who gets to define feminism?”

A great question indeed.

What feminists fail to realize is that through their emphasis on being pro-choice, anti-man, and pro-lesbian (which aren’t touched on in the Jezebel article, but are other common feminist themes) they are destroying their movement. Without reproduction, liberal feminism as it is being pushed today is self-defeating. It can’t perpetuate itself since feminists are killing and preventing the births of new ones. It demands the coercion of new feminists through the culture.