Ruth Bader Ginsburg Loved Women More than Freedom

Media, academia, the corporate socialist sector and the tired parade of Hollywood actors/sports stars/newscasters are all presently cooing about (1) Ruth Bader Ginsburg, and (2) how cool they are for cooing about Ruth Bader Ginsburg.

Ginsburg was a feminist. It was all about women, for her. It was all about women having a chip on their shoulders — and feeling morally superior for it. She was Hillary Clinton in a Justice’s robe.

On most issues, she was on the wrong side of the 5-4 majority that kept America from morphing into a feminist socialist state. She was on the wrong side of Citizens United, which struck down government censorship of political speech. Thank goodness she was on the losing side as often as she was.

Here are some of the recently deceased Supreme Court Justice’s better-known quotes, pertaining to her attitudes about men and women:

“My mother told me to be a lady. And for her, that meant be your own person, be independent.”

OK. That’s a lovely statement. But then look how she contradicts herself in the following quote:

“I said on the equality side of it, that it is essential to a woman’s equality with man that she be the decision-maker, that her choice be controlling.”

Wow. How many things are wrong with this statement? “Women and men are equal partners. But women MUST be in control, and always have the final say.” How unjust to men; and how utterly patronizing of women. She’s basically implying, “Women are unequal. Since they can’t be expected to compete with men, they will have to RULE men. We will give them the power to do so, legally.” And that, of course, is exactly what feminism stands for. The ruling of one gender by another — politically, socially, psychologically.

“Women will only have true equality when men share with them the responsibility of bringing up the next generation.”

Wow again. How insulting. She assumes that men, in their traditional role as breadwinners, contributed NOTHING to the bringing up of children. She also assumes there are no good fathers. Are we to assume that only mothers have provided moral, intellectual and emotional guidance and nurturing to their children? Have all children had bad, psychologically worthless fathers — even if we concede her point that paying the bills, when fathers handled most of that, means nothing?

“The state controlling a woman would mean denying her full autonomy and full equality.”

Well, sure. Women must have equal individual rights under the law. But “equal individual rights” doesn’t mean punishing individual men today, under the law, for alleged and actual wrongdoing by certain men against certain women in the past. And Ginsburg, as a socialist Democrat, was a huge fan of the state. She was fine with the state (i.e., the federal government) restricting free speech (i.e., political donations); restricting the right to own a gun; restricting the right to keep all of your income; restricting the right to choose your own doctor; restricting the right to set wages without government interference; restricting the right to choose the education for your children, on and on. She seemed perfectly fine with the government running everyone’s lives — just so that government was run by feminist women.

Ginsburg is lauded today by our self-appointed moral and intellectual “leaders” for upholding women. But Ginsburg did so by denigrating men and, worse still, undermining individual liberty for everyone. I find no reason to applaud her.



Follow Dr. Hurd on Facebook. Search under “Michael Hurd” (Rehoboth Beach DE). Get up-to-the-minute postings, recommended articles and links, and engage in back-and-forth discussion with Dr. Hurd on topics of interest. Also follow Dr. Hurd on Twitter at @MichaelJHurd1, Drhurd on Parler, and see drmichaelhurd on Instagram.