'No fear of being cut off for life'

So says Gabriel Malor, in response to my mocking of feminist bloggers, and you know something? He's right. I've been married for 20 years, I've got six kids, and what do I have to fear from the opposite sex at this point?

Really, it would be unseemly for me to act "enlightened" and "sensitive" in order to impress women in general. The married man who makes a big show of his sensitivity and enlightenment . . . does the name John Edwards ring a bell, hmmm?

"Feminism" is a catch-all term that means many things, and the reason the term has such an unpopular stigma is that it is associated with whining victimhood. Nobody likes a whiner, and no matter how much intellectuals try to turn victimhood into virtue -- "Admire me because I'm oppressed!" -- the ordinary American rightly rejects such humbug.

Whining is incompatible with the can-do spirit of America. The Pilgrims and pioneers weren't whiners. George Washington didn't sit around Valley Forge whining. And so whenever some activist intellectual type starts whining about "equality" and "rights," the ordinary American is instinctively suspicious: "What kind of scam are they running?" Lee Reynolds captured this in a comment:

Whiny leftists love to look for situations that they can point to as proof of bigotry and discrimination. They don't care if that bigotry and discrimination is real. Their purpose is not to improve things or promote understanding. Their purpose is to promote and maintain the myth that the US is a nation plagued by racism, sexism, and any other inter-group discrimination they can invent or promote as being real.

It's a racket, a hustle. Activist intellectual types invent or exaggerate grievances in order to justify their own existence, and to keep the money rolling in. If you've got a 501(c) operation dedicated to advancing the cause of "equality," you have a vested interest in seeing inequality and discrimination everywhere. Why else should deep-pocket donors and foundations give you money?

William F. Buckley Jr. was once asked by Oxford University to debate the feminist Germaine Greer, but after much back-and-forth via trans-Atlantic telegram, he and Greer were unable to agree on the proposition to be debated. Finally, in frustration, Buckley offered, "Resolved: Give 'em an inch, and they'll take a mile."

In that witticism is much wisdom. Like other "progressive" ideologies, feminism is implacable. There is no fixed objective, no ultimate goal. Rather, feminist is rooted in a culture of complaint. It seeks out grievances to protest and, because there will never be a world without grievances, the protesting never ends. As soon as one concession is granted, another will be immediately demanded, and the specifics of the grievance are essentially irrelevant to this process.

You might as well try to negotiate with a hungry shark as to seek to pacify a feminist. They are permanently indignant and perpetually aggrieved. It's who they are and what they do, their raison d'etre.

Now, Gabriel Malor suggested I "crossed the line" when I viciously mocked the HuffPo feminist who helped organize the "BlogHer" conference. But why was I mocking her? Because she couldn't be satisfied with getting her conference written up in the New York Times. No, she had to complain that the write-up appeared in the "Style and Fashion" section.

Talk about whining! You get a 1,200-word write-up in the New York Freaking Times and then have the effrontery to complain about the placement? Screw you.

Feminism, however, is more than whining. It's also a form of extortion. One reason middle-class men are afraid to denounce feminism as a dishonest scam (which it most certainly is) is for fear that it will harm their careers. Look at what those monsters did to Larry Summers at Harvard. To denounce feminism is to risk being branded an employment liability. What corporation would take the risk of hiring or promoting a man who openly scoffed at feminism? If they were ever sued for discrimination, that guy would become Exhibit A in a "hostile environment" case.

So I've got zero sympathy for whiny feminists who moan endlessly about how bad they've got it, while simultaneously using legal intimidation against any man who dares say them nay. They're the Victimhood Mafia.

Feminists enjoy playing a little game of equating hostility to their bogus ideology with hostility toward women per se. Any man who questions feminist ideology is therefore a "misogynist," a woman-hater. But I don't hate women. I don't discriminate against women. If anything, I tend to discriminate in favor of women, to cut them some slack and give them a break in a way I wouldn't do with men. I've got a wife and two daughters whom I would never want to be treated unfairly or discourteously, so the last thing I would ever do is to encourage or tolerate hatred toward women.

Do feminists even care about stuff like that? No. They are intellectual totalitarians. Disagree with their ideology and you are a sexist. OK, fine: I'm a sexist.

Feminists are like Hitler at Munich, demanding the Sudetenland, and I refuse to be Neville Chamberlain. I'd rather be the Winston Churchill of patriarchal oppressors: We shall fight them on the beaches, we shall fight them on the landing fields -- we shall never surrender!

Now, run along and get me a cup of coffee, hon.

UPDATE: Katie seems to have been offended because a Democrat called her "darlin." Well, you don't have to call me darlin', darlin' . . .