This is the first in a series of five articles by Stella Morabito this week on the way that political correctness is bullying conservative women into silence and how they can reclaim their rights to free expression.

Leslie Loftis touched on a delicate subject when she recently asked in this forum: “Where are all the conservative women?”  Too many seem to be in hiding. Too many seem to have taken a vow of silence in the wider world, choosing to express their views only in like-minded company.

Leslie very recently produced an insightful piece at The Federalist that follows up on this general theme of disengagement.  She and I have both been alarmed at what clearly looks to be a pattern of conservatives ghettoising themselves, especially through the act of self-silencing. The tendency to avoid expressing one’s beliefs goes beyond the fear of offending people in mixed company. Conservatives continue to do it even when they haven’t a clue if the acquaintance would agree or disagree with us.  Have you ever noticed how folks on the other side seem to have no problem blurting out the politically correct line in similar circumstances?

We need to understand that there is more behind the practice of self-censorship than we realise.

First, it’s contagious. And that makes it a dangerous trap for everyone.  Your silence helps to create a snowball effect, encouraging the silence of anyone else who may share your views. That silence also serves to reinforce caricatures of conservatives. And especially of conservative women.

So when we retreat into our comfort zones this way, we are really just painting ourselves – and our families – into a corner.  We are aiding in the separation of ourselves from our allies or even knowing who our friends are.

Secondly, it’s a trap.  The regime of political correctness has baited us into this trap of self-censorship.  We fear losing influence by speaking up, but we’ve already ceded our influence when we refused to speak up.

This vicious cycle ends up doing something very big and bad:  it fuels the erosion of all freedom of expression.  And that loss ultimately puts us at the State’s mercy when it comes to freedom of association, with the endgame being the loss of our own family’s autonomy and privacy.  Stay with me, please, and I’ll explain.

This is a five-part series. In this first part I’d like to give you the lay of the land as I see it: How and why the agents of political correctness target any independent thinker, but particularly conservative women.  And what happens when we give in to self-censorship.  In the second part, I’ll talk about something called “the spiral of silence.”  In Part three, I’ll dig a bit more into the mechanics of political correctness and how it works and why I believe the only way out is through the “Hidden Sphere.”  In Part Four, I explore a bit about the inextricable link between freedom and friendship.  Finally, in the final installment, I offer a few prescriptions on how conservative women can resist getting sucked into the PC machine – and make friends (and, sure, some frenemies) along the way.

Baiting you into silence

The title of Loftis’s insightful post on this website explains who would bait you into this trap and why: “Conservative women are a deadly threat to liberal elites.” Yes, that’s right.  By valuing and perpetuating families of independent thinkers, conservative women’s influence has the potential to extend vastly beyond our families. That’s because people with those values – such as loyalty, hard work, thrift, good cheer, kindness, goodwill to all — have a tendency to build communities that value civil discourse and inquiry.

You have far more power than you realise.  It’s no secret that the family has always been in the crosshairs of die-hard Marxists. Familial bonding, and maternal bonding in particular, gets in the way of re-making the human mind in the Marxist image. We nurture the development of unique and free personalities. This gets in the way of collectivising society to produce a mass mind in a state of mass conformity obedient to the mass State.

And that is precisely why leftist power elites are intent on making sure conservative women are caricatured and marginalised, and, above all, silenced.  They aren’t after us because we’re sniveling little powerless mice tending to the kiddies, as they are wont to portray us. Quite the opposite.

Statists are forever trying to coax us into giving up being the hand that rocks the cradle so that they can take control of the cradle for themselves. If there was so little power in what we do and what we believe, why ever would they seek to do such a thing?  Why would they even care?

They care not only because we have the power to express our views and values to the next generation, but that we are actually inclined do so.  Not only that, but if we are stay at home mothers with a steady source of income independent of the State, they see us as dangerously free agents in our private lives. Vaclav Havel referred to this as the hidden sphere.  I see the attack on the family as an attempt to destroy this hidden sphere. Stay at home mothers in particular have a lot of power to impart knowledge and understanding of our views – throughout our communities – without the threat of losing a job or career status.

So our silence expedites the consolidation of the centralised authoritarian state with its designs to abolish family autonomy. And you can bet that state licensing of parents is on that agenda.

I fear there’s far more at stake than we realise.  Avoidance and retreat to our nests may be a comforting habit, but it, in effect, ends up shrinking the opportunity for others to build nests, especially as central planners consolidate more power into a centralised state and erode the hidden sphere.  So self-censorship is a trap that contributes to less free and less happy world for all children to inhabit, not just our own.



      • You are not debunking or refuting anything but just affirming the article by your bullying and censorious behaviour. You are simply a serial heckler and wannabe Blockwart like your “partner” (ha!), harassing this site and tagging every comment that does not conform to your view of how things should be.

        You are the gynocentric problem not the solution.

      • Refuting is proving something to be true. You are offering leftie opinions on a conservative website which is like me arguing with the Guardian Corbinistas. Fun but futile.

      • Will you be doing any actual debunking, rather than just making reference to a mythical “patriarchy” and casting aspersions about other reader’s sexuality?

  1. A fine and well-presented piece. Thank you, ma’am, I look forward to reading the other articles in the series.

  2. Hi

    I’m a man but the same applies. I’ve had discussions with three friends over the last year, where I refused to toe the PC line and the results can be literally life changing. In two cases we just don’t talk about ‘dangerous’ subjects any more, in the other we are no longer the friends we were, just cordial – and this after 38 years! Beware then. Doing this may change your entire social landscape.

    What amazes me is how little I’m bothered by it though! It’s up to them as far as I’m concerned.

    • Oh its amazing just how successful he social conditioning has been.

      I still can’t believe how many people support the “mass immigration is suicide” policy.

      And how the “moral high ground” model makes their faith unshakable.

  3. The only pressure I feel is avoiding inflicting the discomfort suffered by well-meaning women who have put their kids into care. After all, to explore this subject inevitably means touching on criticism of their parenting. That’s not PC, it’s just potentially very rude.

      • For some people day care ‘is’ an improvement; good quality day care is 1 person supporting ‘learning through play’, with kids who play with each other. It isn’t rocket science and doesn’t require a parent present 100% of the time doing their lovey nurturing thing. A few hours per day, or a few days per week at nursery school makes no difference at all. The issue really is about bonding, whether parents still find quality time for their kids, part of the week, or after nursery, or focus on the TV instead. Providing the care is good quality with a low child:adult ratio, and the child is encouraged to think about it in a positive way, (rather than mum kicking up), it can be good for children, especially those from a poor background, kids without siblings and poor social skills.

        What is important I think is choice, and the freedom to choose; not being pushed into anything people just don’t want. We need to be provided with the best and latest independent research to base our own decision, and then left alone to make it.

        • As a conservative mum who’s open to modern ideas, I believe the ideal is mummy at home while children are young (mine are 5 and 3) with a bit of ‘socialisation’ such as a few hrs a week with a childminder or a decent nursery, especially if it’s the first child (the second bonds with first at home if age gap close enough and plays with first’s older friends before school as usually hasn’t so many young friends). As the mother you are the one they really really want. A nanny or childminder never cares as much, how could they? If the child has terrible parents then the more social care and support the better obviously, but we are talking here about educated mothers who choose to stay at home while their friends are all working. Now, the reason I don’t bring my views up with all my friends, like the poster above, is that I know many can’t afford to live without their salaries whereas I can. Their husbands don’t earn enough. So from my privileged position I can’t really be seen to ‘pass judgement’ as will lose friends. Even though I also have friends who appear to spend as little time as possible with their children because of their ‘careers’ when they don’t NEED to work. This seems to be a misguided idea that women should put their needs before their children to feel ‘fulfilled’ during these important years. But I’m not sure they’d appreciate me telling them that – I just always try to keep the child in the frame when discussing their ‘work is consuming me’ issues. Aren’t the real problems here the idea that women shouldn’t be self-sacrificing any more to be ‘equal’ with men and that most people seem to struggle as parents on a single income, making educated SAH mums a rare privileged breed?

          • If you want to stay at home with the kitchen sink, washing machine and vacuum cleaner that’s your choice. Personally I feel more fulfilled contributing to the economy, making the most of my university education.

            When you’re spending all day reading children’s books and playing hide and seek with your children, do you feel empowered? Fulfilled? Do you feel you’re putting your education to good use?

            Do you feel empowered and independent, living with your husband as the breadwinner? Does he expect you to have food on the table when he gets home? Does he expect you to do the housework while he puts his feet up and reads the papers in the evening?

            I’m not having a go at you, but asking you to have a think – remember the struggles and sacrifices made by Feminists down the years, and ask yourself why they suffered and fought against patriarchy.

          • I’ve done the career stuff for 25 years. That’s not the be all and end of life. Raising my kids isn’t just silly games and menial work, it’s also about being a teacher, it is fulfilling in another way from working in a creative industry and a lot more magical. What job can literally move you to tears in a good way? Not that many I would have thought. Anyway, that’s the way I want to play it and I don’t have a patriarchal husband at all. I’m the one who always wanted to do it this way and he’s up for helping out, does the children’s bath and gets them to bed if I’m doing a scratch-cook supper etc. Your tone sounds very negative towards motherhood (or should I say parenthood now to account for the house husbands) – is that really what the original feminists intended I wonder? Why’s everything in bold?

        • Not sure what day-care has one to one adult/kid ratios. Most people who work in day care make minimum wage. Is this an improvement on parents?

          • “Most people who work in day care make minimum wage”

            Thank you for making this point. Yes, we need to significantly raise the wages of people who work in day care.

          • Nutjob_Kate wrote:

            ‘ … we need to significantly raise the wages of people who work in day care.

            Another brilliant idea from Nutjob_Kate. Not only are better paid low skill workers much more likely to love the children of others but millions will have to be employed to plant the money trees needed to produce the means to pay for the significant increases in government expenditure.

          • You raise the wages you increase the ratios.

            The kids get even more disfunctional.

            Never mind you can always find something in this situation to whinge about.

            Win win perhaps?

        • They don’t love your kids. Contracting out this critical time to a person who doesn’t love your kids is an abdication.
          Of course a few hours a day is fine. Is that what you’re intending to work? A few hours a day?…. cue gender pay gap complainant……

          • What’s wrong with childcare professionals? Are you saying they aren’t capable of looking after children?

          • Well most child care ‘professionals’ are low skill, minimum wage workers without any emotional investment in the children and ratios of many to one.

            So will the kids come out alive? Probably, but are you well-meaning if you put your kids in care? Maybe if you aren’t paying attention.

          • Sweden has tried your social experiment the longest. Read about their well adjusted youth……..

            Or not.

            perhaps you prefer the Rotherham example of how children thrive when looked after outside the traditional family

  4. Great article.

    True Conservatives need to be more vocal and be prepared to take the red-faced screaming and shouting of abuse that will undoubtedly come their way from the lefty harridans and bully boys and just shrug it off. If your views and what you say are sufficiently objective and factual then that is all you need in the face of the non-sensical, emotive rage that gets thrown your way. The shouty left – like all bullies – only have power because people let them.

    I am more than happy to let people know my very non-pc views online or face to face (read some of my posts on here!).

    Luckily I am old enough, wise enough and robust enough that I really don’t care if I offend someone and I am of the opinion that if someone I know is “offended” enough by my views to never want to talk to me again then so be it.

    • I find that most conservative men are deeply insecure, possibly because they have latent homosexual feelings, possibly for other reasons.

      That’s why you feel threatened by female equality and assertive, confident, strong women like myself.

      Of course, there are plenty of decent men who are supportive of feminism, my partner for example, but they tend to be on the Left.

      • Nutjob_Kate wrote:

        ‘ … you feel threatened by female equality and assertive, confident, strong women like myself.

        You don’t seem to be ‘assertive, confident [and] strong’; you actually appear to be mentally disturbed Toots.

      • Insults wrapped up in random, unsubstantiated claims. As always. Designed, one can only assume, to attempt to rile people.

        Well if you would care to produce links to peer reviewed and properly published research detailing the facts of your claims, to whit, that:

        A) Most conservative males are latent gays.
        B) They are threatened by female equality
        C) Most men that aren’t A and B are leftys

        then maybe we can have a discussion. Until then I shall merely have to assume that you are infact a juvenile trolling adults on the internet and can no longer converse with you in any way. Bye.

      • Where do you get this third hand cheap Freudianism from? Your feminism is so strident as to be worthy of pity. How about trying to be a human being instead of a rampaging clone?

      • The thing is you don’t come across confident or strong.

        Just a predictable whinger with an outdated gripe.

        Does your left wing partner spend a lot of time in the pub?

        I would if I were him

  5. I’m not sure which politically-correct consensus the author is attacking in this article.

    Insofar as she defends the rights of families to make their own choices and not be bulled by social conventions of whatever sort, I agree. However, I’m not happy with this focus on motherhood.

    The personal and social benefits of close and loving contact with a parent are clear, but at the moment the debate is dominated on the one hand by reformers who want to give women greater flexibility at work, and on the other by conservatives who want to preserve traditional family structures with women at home and the husband as primary earner. Both of these allow men to shirk their proper degree of responsibility (in my view, equal responsibility) in the family, which is something I see amongst my peers; and neither does anything to help families where the woman wants to advance her career while the man takes on the majority of caring. The social stigmas against THIS course are strong (I speak as a married Londoner in his thirties).

    Women will continue to lack proper equality in their careers and more broadly in society, so long as employers and policy-makers assume that the burden of childcare, full or part-time, is likely to fall predominantly on the woman.

    • i agree with all of that. Neither extreme point of view caters for the majority who just want to live their lives without interference, including stereotype role reversal for whatever reason. Traditionalists will argue how confusing it is for men when, women ‘say they want to reverse roles’ and then change their minds – ok my!, that anyone should change their mind!. Traditionalists it seems, basically don’t like any form of change and always hark back to yester-year, although yester-year had a lot of problems for a lot people, mostly women as it happens.
      Lefties are described by traditionalists as ‘progressives’ rather than just lefties or even socialists, which seems to be a freudian slip in itself. How can all progression be negatative?, only when you’re a traditionalist who won’t accept change, and that change revolves around ‘control’ of their environment.
      Somebody famous once said, that the working class man takes control at home, because he’s lost control in the rest of his life, which perhaps says a lot more about politics than how women are ‘allowed’ to live our lives.

      • Think lefties call themselves progressives. Think a lot of righties just have a problem with NEITHER parent being around that much for their young children and leaving them all day in care, not whether Dad chooses to be a house husband.

        • I think it’s overstated. Working parents can set an excellent example to their children. It depends on the manner in which the work is approached. Isn’t the spirit of the article that people should be free to make their own choices? (I am a ‘rightie’, for what that’s worth – just not a social conservative.)

          • But I still believe that the ideal is one parent being around more that just after 6pm in the evening Mon-Fri when they are young. Working parents can set a great example when the child is older, when they are young they just want their parents, they don’t care.

      • Thanks. I’m not sure that more flexible maternity/paternity arrangements are an extreme idea, though. It just riles me that, for all the talk of equality, this is in practice generally treated as a way for women to do more childcare, rather than for men to pull their weight.

        Anyway, enough virtue signalling from me. I’ve dinner to cook …

    • That’s why we need Scandinavian-style free childcare, fully-funded by the State, from as early an age as possible.

      This would have added benefits of young children being able to enjoy the benefits of education and interacting with other children at play, all under the care of fully-trained and qualified staff.

      Investment in childminders and daycare centres that are either fully subsidised by the State or run by the State would allow women to pursue our careers to the same extent that men can, and finally break the glass ceiling that still exists at upper management level.

      This would also finally end the gender pay gap that still shockingly exists despite girls outperforming boys at all levels of education.

      The Scandinavian countries have socialised childcare and they have the most progressive, gender-equal societies in the world, as well as being more prosperous economically than us.

      If they can do it, why can’t we?

      • Actually they don’t , apparently it’s Rwanda . Italy and Poland lower pay gaps and greater occupational diversity . Many developing nations score much higher than Scandinavia . Mez’s beloved Netherlands does better.

      • The “gender pay gap” is a myth. Total bollocks. So is your notion of equality. How could any of us claim to be your equal?

      • Well the gender pay gap is in fact in favour of females prior to their mid thirties. Possibly reflecting the educational gap in favour of girls. Scandinavia in fact doesn’t score highly in various international evaluations of gender equality. In the EU for instance Italy and Poland are top of the pay gap equity league (and occupational diversity). In fact Mez’s beloved Netherlands does better.
        In the somewhat notorious UN study in which Rwanda came just below the Scandinavians in political equlity partly due to the absence of men (due to the fact that the genocide there was in fact gendercide in that it was males who were slaughtered meaning the population is 70% female ) .
        All suggesting that Sweden’s status as poster pin up of equality is not so robust. Being fair the Swedes themselves have done research into: the cause of their economy being highly gender segregated occupationally and low numbers of women in prestigious management roles outside the political process. The results were interesting in that the conclusion was that despite the high level of subsidised child care and high take up; women used family friendly policies to work less and be less full time than it at first appears. Thus the effect of their policies is not dissimilar to countries such as the Netherlands and Germany with a “one and a half” salary model.
        What is always disappointing is that people do not look more closely at those countries in the EU that have much better outcomes for women in terms of pay, seniority and occupational diversity through different policy mixes. For instance it is unlikely that the Italian and Polish models achieve so well on the same policy mix.

      • I wouldn’t WANT to leave my children at daycare all damn day long so that I could achieve the goals you say are a priority… children are a priority. Early childhood is about bonding and attachment. They don’t want to be dumped at some “well-trained” State facility as much as mothers don’t want to leave them there. You know so little about children and motherhood. I almost want to gag at what you write.

      • Funny that there was an article on here on that exact subject: universal day care, and why it is no good. You don’t seem to have read it.

      • All sorts of reasons. They have far more homogeneous society which is very exclusive of outsiders and so high taxes and high spending is far more socially acceptable because the money is spent on people like themselves. they don’t have our class system because they went from peasant society to modernization without going through our sort of industrial revolution – that too makes for greater homogeneity. This homogeneity means that the people working in the nurseries are all far more similar to each other.. They have a great deal of what you would call everyday sexism – way more than would ever be tolerated than over here. They also have a very gender segregated labour market

        They have very short working hours which is fine but we need to take into consideration the economic impact on the UK of doing that. They have short travelling hours because it is a small country so don’t spend so long away from home even if they work. The childcare systems makes for very high levels of social conformism plus the erosion of the Danish language has been attributed to it. Also I think you will find there are Danes who want to look after their kids just like we do. Family and extended family both play a really big role in Denmark more than they do over here. You can’t take a system from one country and transplant it to another. You have to work with what you have got. I am half Danish so I know a bit about it.

      • Read about the data on the mental health of Swedish kids

        Then think again

        BTW, each child in daycare costs the state/taxpayer €15000 each per year

        stay at home mums (or dads) get nothing.

        Such a fair society……..

  6. The key point here is that Traditional mothers are the bedrock of handing conservative values onto the next generation, in the strongest possible way. Also, because they do not “need” a career, and the focus is on their children, they can do things and organise groups that run counter to the social Marxists/Frankfurt school’s objective without fear of being “labelled” or “smeared”.

    Traditional mothers can make the most positive contribution to keeping hold of and strengthening conservative values in our society both today and in the future.

    • “Also, because they do not “need” a career, and the focus is on their children, they can do things and organise groups that run counter to the social Marxists/Frankfurt school’s objective without fear of being “labelled” or “smeared”

      You seem to be making a case for conservatives being only the top echellons of society who can afford to have a wife at home, unfortunately the majority can’t, quite a lot of women choose to work to maintain some financial independence, and the majority sway votes.

      • My point can easily apply to also women who work part time and claim tax credits from the state. These are the vast majority of mothers with all children aged 5 and over who are of British/European origin in the UK.

        Obviously if you are a full time mum with all children aged 5 and over, this puts you in a unique position, to dedicate all of your time to being a community leader and ensuring conservative values run like a stick of rock through your community.

        Note- Muslim women do not work. Only about 10% of them go to work in the UK. Are you saying they are all in the upper class of society? Of course you are not. They prioritise the importance of a mother being at home to bring up the children, and culturally do not expect them to work either.

    • Hence your opposition to them, and demands for more working women, right. As you fight those invisible marxists, and try for anything negative.

  7. Go Stella.
    We men will of course be castigated for any attempt to support your stand. We will be seen as opportunist, mysogenistic, bigots, mansplaining to the downtrodden oppressed women. However, sod the screaming feminista harpies I’m with you.

      • Get married and have some children. Then come back to this forum with your catchy memes. You’re so irrelevant in the world of motherhood.

      • You often post here about other people being afraid of women – but it’s comments like this that make me believe you are genuinely afraid of women who might actually have found things to prefer in the 1950s. Of all the visions one can have of society, it is yours which is the most totalizing, the most inflexible, and the most incapable of coping with opposite views.

        I’m neither frightened of nor offended by women in positions of power, or of women in the workplace – I have worked under and respect female superiors and peers. I don’t mind you going ahead and living how you want to live – but when I read your bile directed at your supposed “sisters” who take a different view, something really rises in me.

        Not because you’re a woman. Because you’re a bully.

  8. I agree. It’s a shame then, that CW is generally so heavily moderated for any view that doesn’t conform to the liberal-left on-message script.

    • REALLY? What evidence have you for this heavy moderation? CW has everything to gain by encouraging free comment, and in any case not to do so would contradict the general ethos of the blog.

  9. I’ve got it.

    The real reason why men don’t want equality for women is they are scared of us.

    They can’t handle competition from women in the workplace.

    That’s why men can’t handle the idea of a woman becoming President.

    They want to return to the 1950s where simply being a straight, cis white male gave you a massive advantage in the job market.

    Well it’s not happening, boys.

    Men are going to have to get used to competing against us in the job market.

    Men are going to have to get used to being out-earned by your wives and girlfriends.

    Deal with it.

    • Yes that’s great from a feminist standpoint. I would have agreed when I was 25. But are children are going to have get used to be farmed out to state-run nurseries and seeing both parents every evening after 6pm?

        • They can but in general women would rather stay at home with infant children. The reason women would rather stay at home is because motherhood is a different experience from fatherhood; men don’t get pregnant, give birth, breast feed or have the bonding experience (see oxytocin) with infants that mothers do.

          Nut job feminists talk about ‘equality’ because they want to avoid making the awkward distinction between equality of opportunity and equality of outcome. For feminists ‘equality’ means equality of outcome, for conservatives equality means equality of opportunity. Mothers will generally make different choices from fathers – it’s got nothing to do with going back to the 1950s. Deal with it.

        • Many do. However one significant barrier is the mother centric laws and rules surrounding much of the “family friendly” suite of policies. Another is the success of some feminists campaigning to create suspicion of men caring for children, if men are under scrutiny as likely abusers then that doesn’t help either. It is complicated. A start may be a legal statement of equity of responsibility and rights with regard to children as in Australia and some US states.

    • No-one is scared of you, we’re totally used to competition from women in the workplace, I really don’t care about the gender of political leaders. Thatcher and Merkel better than Major and Kohl? Who even cares about this? Blah,blah, blah, patriarchy

    • Nutjob_Kate wrote:

      >what appears to be a copy and paste of something she wrote about two weeks ago<

      I've noticed that you've done the same before, Kate. You obviously have a folder with pre-formatted documents in it. Do you have a spreadsheet to remind you when to repost your insane rubbish?

    • Unfortunately my lovely wife doesn’t earn anything as she is studying for a doctorate but if you can find me a girlfriend who will out-earn me I’d be most grateful

    • These wild assertions might have been true in the 50s, but nowadays they are absolute tosh. Are you sure you’re not talking from a time warp? Or possibly some other orifice stranded in the past? Just curious..

  10. I take the point. But I guess the real issue is that such radicals are by definition not stalking the corridors of power if they are at home! How about a coup in the WI to turn it round? Seriously why not?

  11. As someone old enough to have experienced life during the 1950’s let me point out that comments asserting women were prevented from working during and well before that time is simply nonsense. Even a superficial knowledge of social and industrial history reveals that women have been integral to the work force as far back as we can see. However it was the industrial revolution that changed the nature of work, making it more arduous and often downright dangerous. Early social reformers recognised this situation which led to reforms that removed women and children from places like mines where they were used as pack horses amongst other choice occupations. These changes were welcomed and strongly supported at the time. As these trends gained traction there was some segregation of working for good reasons, men are and remain, much better at enduring heavy toil, women offered other attributes that tended to see them used where those abilities were better suited. Since those times technological development has eased the burdens, machines of all sorts do much the hard toil, allowing a different working environment suitable for most physiques due to its intellectual bias. Constantly harping on, as ridiculous feminist bigots do, about some male conspiracy to keep women down is complete and utter tosh. I find this deliberate ignorance astounding given the opportunities to learn about our collective past. That someone can even assert that men have had it easy is preposterous, for most their lives were little more than a sacrificial offering for the next generation, the reality is that women have been favoured because they give life to the next generation. Feminist bitterness about this is contemptible.

Comments are closed.