Via Codrea, this perspective from Sweden.

Of course, there are various types of feminism. Sweden’s preferred type is not about universal sisterhood and the spreading of sexual equality around the globe. No, it is “intersectional” feminism. What is “intersectional” feminism? It is a species of feminism that, in accordance with the relatively new academic concept of “intersectionality,” accepts a hierarchy whereby other “victim groups” — such as “people of color” and Muslims — are higher up on the grievance ladder than women, and whereby women who belong to those other groups enjoy an even more exalted status as victims than white female Christians or Jews.

This means that “intersectional” feminists must be culturally sensitive and culturally relative, recognizing and privileging culturally predicated values other than sexual equality. They must be feminists who understand that while no expression of contempt for the purported tyranny of Western males can be too loud, overstated or vulgar, they must, in their encounters with less feminist-minded cultures, temper their devotion to female equality out of respect for those cultures’ different priorities. In practice, this compulsion to respect the different priorities of other cultures is most urgent, and the respect itself most cringing when the culture in question is the one in which female inequality is most thoroughly enshrined and enforced.

This brand of feminism, needless to say, is not confined to Sweden …

I would say that it’s actually simpler than that.  The patriarchy isn’t what feminists hate.  It’s the weakened Western values that now believes in nothing at all, thus willing to believe in anything at all.  This brand of feminism actually believes that they can change Islam to make it more progressive, ignoring the very history of this cult of death and its manifestations through a millennium of history.

This brand of feminism will always be searching and never finding, unwilling to embrace God’s perfect design for the family and society.

David Codrea:

A recently promoted and parroted monopoly of violence cult talking point appears to be that women wouldn’t “need” guns if men were all good. And if wishes were fishes we’d all cast nets, or if “ifs” and “buts” were candy and nuts, we’d all have a Merry Christmas.

Ain’t that something? It seems like James Madison, someone who had more than a passing interest in the Second Amendment, expressed related thoughts in The Federalist #51: “If men were angels, no government would be necessary.”

David also discusses Alinsky Rule 5 ridicule centered around penises.  No joke.  Stop by and see what he’s talking about.  And many thanks to David for the attention at Examiner.

I’m reminded of a visit I took with my second son, Joseph, to King’s Mountain military park a while back.  While public school kids today are learning (through common core) about how cool Islamist jihadists are, the only other ones I saw at King’s Mountain that day were home schoolers (Joseph is grown, but we both learned a lot at the park).

One of the British commanders remarked in his letters that he had never seen men such as he was fighting at King’s Mountain.  They would ride on horseback by moonlight for weeks, he said, without food or provisions, just to kill a single man, and then turn around and go home – if they lived.  As word went out across the mountains about the British intentions, men would prepare to ride to the battle, with women in the trails and streets of their townships urging them on and singing hymns of blessing upon them and beseeching God’s grace on them.

Where are these sturdy women of today?  Men need you.