Eric Schneiderman: This is What Third Wave Feminism Looks Like

By John Zmirak Published on May 9, 2018

Let’s start with a quiz. When is a woman at her most powerful?

A) When she is having her baby ripped out of her by an abortionist? Or:

B) When her boyfriend is slapping her face and calling her “a brown slave”?

Sorry, those are all the choices you get. That is, if you listen to the man who was till yesterday the Attorney General of our country’s second most populous state (New York). Eric Schneiderman was forced to resign that post. Why? Multiple charges of sexual abuse made by several former girlfriends. The most sensational came from Harvard grad and political activist Tanya Selvaratnam, who is Sri Lankan. (Hence the “brown” in the “slave.”) As Fox News reports:

“Sometimes, he’d tell me to call him Master, and he’d slap me until I did,” Selvaratnam said.

“He started calling me his ‘brown slave’ and demanding that I repeat that I was ‘his property.’”

Selvaratnam said, “The slaps started after we’d gotten to know each other.

“It was at first as if he were testing me. Then it got stronger and harder. It wasn’t consensual. This wasn’t sexual playacting. This was abusive, demeaning, threatening behavior.”

She said that as the violence grew, so did his sexual demands.

“He was obsessed with having a threesome and said it was my job to find a woman,” Selvaratnam said. “He said he’d have nothing to look forward to if I didn’t and would hit me until I agreed.”

Ain’t Perversity Fun?

It’s so confusing these days, untangling what’s “kinky” and perfectly acceptable. You know, from what’s legally actionable, career-ending abuse. Almost as if our society had lost its moral compass inside some bodily orifice.

I’m thinking of an infamous speech about a secreted watch delivered by Christopher Walken in Pulp Fiction [profane language]. Remember how that film was so “brave” and “daring”? Except now its biggest star, Uma Thurman, has come out as a victim of gross sexual harassment by the film’s producer, Harvey Weinstein. Suddenly, the film’s not so fun anymore. (Not even its lengthy, lurid subplot that makes a big fat joke out of gay male rape and sexual slavery.) Who would have thought that people who make such movies would engage in such behavior? I’m shocked, shocked, I tell you.

The Abortionist as Toymaker

I’ve explained choice B) above. Choice A) comes from a lawsuit that Schneiderman filed, on behalf of the State of New York. Its goal? To stop pro-life citizens from exercising their First Amendment rights on public sidewalks near abortion clinics. He co-filed the suit with abortionist Merle Hoffman. We reported on it here at The Stream. From that story:

[Hoffman] admits that abortion is “taking a life.” And she embraces that. She writes in her memoir: “Does the fetus not impede a woman’s tendency to maintain her own existence? Is it not an unjust aggressor, threatening the survival of the mother? Is not a woman’s choice of abortion an act of self-defense? … [T]hose who deliver abortion services have not only the power to give women control over their bodies and lives, but also the power — and the responsibility — of taking life in order to do that. Indeed, acknowledgment of that truth is the foundation for all the political and personal work necessary to maintain women’s reproductive freedom.”

And here’s the clincher. Again, Hoffman’s words:

The act of abortion positions women at their most powerful, and that is why it is so strongly opposed by many in society.

A Pro-Choice Hero

So that’s the view which Schneiderman endorsed, on behalf of New York citizens. He’s been a gung-ho abortion advocate since graduating from college. Now we know why. To a man like Schneiderman, women are toys. A pregnant woman is a broken toy. The abortionist is the toymaker who can fix it.

And Schneiderman became a feminist hero:

Hating Creation, Hating God

Since the Marquis de Sade (1740-1819) was literally the first prominent thinker since ancient Rome to endorse abortion, should Schneiderman surprise us? Here’s a small, small snippet from de Sade’s pro-choice advocacy.

MADAME DE SAINT­ANGE — Propagation is no wise the objective of Nature; she merely tolerates it; from her viewpoint, the less we propagate, the better; and when we avoid it altogether, that’s best of all. Eugenie, be the implacable enemy of this wearisome child-getting, and even in marriage incessantly deflect that perfidious liquor whose vegetation serves only to spoil our figures, which deadens our voluptuous sensations, withers us, ages and makes us fade and disturbs our health….Tell [your hus­band] you detest children, point out the advantages of having none. Keep a close watch over yourself in this article, my dear, for, I declare to you, I hold generation in such horror I should cease to be your friend the instant you were to become pregnant, If, however, the misfortune does occur, without yourself having been at fault, notify me within the first seven or eight weeks, and have it very neatly remedied. Dread not infanticide; the crime is imaginary; we are always mistress of what we carry in our womb, and we do no more harm in destroying this kind of matter than in evacuating another, by medicines, when we feel the need.

EUGENIE — But if the child is near the hour of its birth?

MADAME DE SAINT­ANGE — Were it in the world, we should still have the right to destroy it. In all the world there is no prerogative more secure than that of mothers over their children. No race has failed to recognize this truth: `tis founded in reason, consecrated in principle. (From Philosophy in the Bedroom.)

Sade’s work is unreadable except by perverts. (Working on my dissertation, which mentions him, I tried. I got through less than a page.) Anyone who tells you otherwise is someone to stay far, far away from. It celebrates not just perverse sexual acts, but torture, murder, and the most revolting forms of blasphemy imaginable. Which is funny, since Sade claimed to be an atheist. So why would profaning a piece of Communion bread (in ways I won’t repeat) mean anything to him? Why stage orgies with bishops and nuns?

Because Sade knew that God exists. But he hated Him. He hated Him with all the gnostic passion of a frustrated would-be God. Since he couldn’t harm God, he railed against his creation. And of course, its most sacred form, which is procreation.

Please Support The Stream: Equipping Christians to Think Clearly About the Political, Economic, and Moral Issues of Our Day.

Feminism: De Sade’s Bastard Child

Likewise the feminism promoted by Schneiderman’s co-litigant, Merle Hoffman. It hates Creation. “Second Wave” feminism as launched by Simone de Beauvoir imbibed misogyny from her lover and master, Jean Paul Sartre. (Echoing Sade, Sartre wrote in Being and Nothingness that God could not exist because that would be intolerable to the Self, stifling its demand for God-like “freedom.”)

In “The Second Sex,” Beauvoir demands for women the same detached, irresponsible “freedom” that male dirtbags like Sartre enjoyed. Of course that is only possible via abortion — which is and remains the beating, black heart of political feminism.

When he wasn’t simply cheating on her, Sartre was using her as a pimp to recruit younger women for him. Of course they had no children.

In The Second Sex, Beauvoir demands for women the same detached, irresponsible “freedom” that male dirtbags like Sartre enjoyed. Of course that is only possible via abortion — which is and remains the beating, black heart of political feminism. In fact, her whole project seems to accept male superiority, then seek to remake women as ersatz, high-voiced men.

Third Wave Feminism: A Miserable Backlash

To even the score, and maintain the pretense that feminism serves women (you know, the way Marxism helps workers) what must “Third Wave” feminists do? Why attack manhood, of course. Denounce and try to destroy everything distinctively male in the world, from the military to the Boy Scouts. (For more on this, read Donna Steichen’s insightful essay in the college primer I edited, Disorientation.)

Again, the hatred of Creation emerges. Now it’s in full flush with the crackpot “transgender” denial of biological sex. Don’t think that’s a revolt against God? Read the “theologian” who’s the main professor of New Testament studies at the “Catholic” University of the Holy Cross. No, on second thought, don’t read him. His work could have been cribbed straight from Sade. It tries to make Jesus “transgender,” and it’s one of the most ludicrous blasphemies I’ve ever read. Much better to read The Flight from Woman, a beautiful book by a Christian convert and psychiatrist, Karl Stern. It shows how the hatred of Creation (and hence of life, and hence, of woman) lies at the root of our postmodern nightmare.

“Don’t knock it till you’ve tried it.”

Debarking Dogs and Leashing Cats

Imagine some crackpot decided that cats were better than dogs. (As Gnostics like Sade, Sartre and Beauvoir clearly considered men superior to women.) So he started cutting dogs’ vocal cords so they couldn’t bark. And refusing to take them for walks. And feeding them pure-protein diets that damaged their kidneys. The results would be awful for dogs, as the Sexual Revolution was catastrophic for women.

Then imagine that dog-lovers retaliated, by treating cats as dogs. Silencing their meows with shock collars. Walking them on leashes. Forcing them to learn tricks. Feeding them food meant for dogs. That’s what feminism today offers to men. The chance to be “Caitlyn” Jenner, and still date chicks. “Don’t knock it till you’ve tried it.”

Sorry, that joke doesn’t refer to penis removal, but to abortion. My apologies, White House Press Association!

It’s no surprise that women who hang around with the likes of Eric Schneiderman start hating men. But if they share his ideas, they become the enemy they despise.

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Like the article? Share it with your friends! And use our social media pages to join or start the conversation! Find us on Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, MeWe and Gab.

The Habit of Nearness
Robert J. Morgan
More from The Stream
Connect with Us