In an era when frozen embryos, conceived on processed sperm, are consid­ered legal inheritors to financial assets, and former convicted felons seek redemp­tion by supervising police in Chicago Mayor Washington’s administration, nothing is particularly surprising any­more. In the Chicago Tribune, someone identified as cochairman of the Illinois Gay and Lesbian Task Force bitterly complains that homosexual highschool students are forced to exist in a social and cultural environment in which:

There are no guidelines for normal growth. There are no positive role models.

No one, neither the reporter, nor the Trib editors, seems to bother any longer with the fundamental rules of reality and sense. The simple truth that something that is abnormal by nature and definition cannot manifest itself as normal growth becomes the casualty of the merciless liberal din. 

The New York Times Magazine, one of the best camouflaged incubators of obscurantism, promotes the opinions of Barbara Ehrenreich, a feminist-socialist (a combination of demonic force) whose in­telligence, concern, and responsibility for her propounded views are breathtaking:

After all, the traditional female contribu­tions to marriage have been menial, like housework, or intangible, like emotional support.

Menial? Is providing man, nation, humankind, and the world with continua­tion of life a “menial contribution”? Is “emotional support” an “intangible” element of marriage? And what about love? Does The New York Times inform us (which amounts to a verdict, of course) that love is out as a permissible female contribution to marriage? Even a miscon­ceived, or a short-lasting love? Ah, the feminist jabberwocky–as Sir John Gielgud would say in his Paul Masson commercials.

Finally, Time, not to be outdone by anybody, praises a new book (are they really new, all those books?) by a female “Manhattan Psychiatrist.” Here is her complaint:

The conditioning that helps to produce [masochism] is almost in the air we breathe: first, most parents want boys rather than girls, and second, our culture places emphasis on a woman’s beauty rather than her achievement.

Did the “Manhattan Psychiatrist” ever give a thought to what would happen to our culture, indeed to any culture, if woman’s beauty had not become the arch-catalyst of philosophy, aesthetics, poetry, art, etc. Ah, the feminist reduction of values, the militant dwarfism of human desires, the quest after androgyny that, sooner or later, will suffocate the smell of roses under the pretext of eradicating sexism.