Feminism's Contribution Women-Hating

At one level, the Terri Schiavo case is a case about the degraded value of women in today's society. It's not the most prominent theme, but seeing the power to kill given to a husband, and seeing that power unchallenged by the feminists and pro-feminist Democrats underscores a simple fact:

Nearly four decades after the birth of the feminist movement, we live in a society that holds women in less esteem than ever.

Last night on Hannity and Combs, two young women protesting for Terri Schiavo's death had been so twisted by the culture of death that they stood by Michael Schiavo in this highly questionable "he said/she said" life-and-death drama. Why? Why weren't they ardently for the woman, not the man who abandoned the woman? (h/t Laura Ingraham)

Here in OC, we just lived through the second trial of three young men accused of drugging and gang-raping a 16-year-old girl. In today's OC Register, the victim is quoted for the first time (because she's filing a civil lawsuit, natch) about viewing the videotape the boys shot of the event. Caution: This contains a brief graphic description of the acts they perpetrated:

She said that the biggest difference for her between the first trial and the second was that she saw the videotape of the episode for the first time before the second trial.

But as the second trial approached, "I felt strong enough to see it," she said. "I wanted to know exactly what they did to me."

What she saw disgusted her, Jane Doe said: Two of the young men having sex with her, and then inserting objects - a bottle, a can, a cigarette and a pool cue - inside her.

She was particularly appalled at what the boys said as she slipped into unconsciousness on the videotape.

"I heard [defendant] Nachreiner say, "OK, she's good now. Let's go,'" Jane Doe said.

Nachreiner grew up in the feminist years, the tolerance years, and all that sensitivity training simply led to "OK, she's good now. Let's go." That is about as strong an "objectification" statement one will ever read.

Meanwhile, on television the buffoon husband of a few years ago has been eclipsed by images of violence and easy sexual exploitation of women. And no, it's not just on MTV. Here's a portion of an e-mail I received this morning urging the boycotting of hamburger chain Carl's Jr.:

Have you seen this ad on TV?

A young man, who is clearly white although he speaks and gestures with ethnic/street slang, kicks and punches a pregnant woman. He yells at her for eating something spicy and threatens her with escalated violence, even miscarriage and bleeding to death if she doesn't stop. He smiles!

This is the ad for Carl's Jr. Spicy Jalapeno burger. the 'young man' is the CGI baby we are 'viewing' as through an ultrasound. He yanks violently on the umbilical cord, kicks and punches repeatedly and threatens to "bust out of here early and take a little something with him" as he grabs a handful of the uterus. In the radio spot he threatens to come out 'butt first' and "make her walk funny for a week".

I have verified that the email represents an accurate description of the commercials. The e-mail concludes:

Let them know how you feel by calling them toll-free at: (877) 799-7827 or by filling out this form: http://www.carlsjr.com/contact/index.pl (select advertising/marketing from the menu and say anything you like in the comments section)

Carl's Jr. runs ads that are designed to appeal strongly to the brand's target market: 18- to 24-year-old men. Ad executives armed with bushels of market research apparently determined that this message would be effective in getting these young men to buy more spicy jalapeno burgers.

What does that say about the market they're researching? That young American men have sensitively taken the feminist message as their own? Or that the feminists' abandonment of core moral values and their shreeking push for a twisted agenda has left young men twisted and without morals?