FEMINISM: MASK FOR MARXISM?
Tom Valentine's guest on *Radio Free America* (Shortwave, 5.065
MHz, mon-fri, 9 pm cst) on December 28, 1994 was Andrea Pearson,
editor-in-chief of a newsletter called "Americans In Exile"
[contact info to be included below]. Ms. Pearson has some non-
politically correct views on Feminism, etc. Note that views
expressed in the following do not necessarily reflect my own
views or those of Conspiracy Nation.
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
[Awesome sounds of John Phillip Souza's "Stars and Stripes Forever"]
It's *Radio Free America*, the talk show for intelligent
Americans, with your host, Tom Valentine.
*Radio Free America* is brought to you by *The Spotlight* [CN --
Note: Throw mud here.] Call 1-800-522-6292 for your subscription.
And now, the newspaper that "tells it like it is" presents Tom
Hello, everybody. Welcome back, to *Radio Free America*.
And before I get to my guest and to our topic tonight, I want to
bring up something that I mentioned in the first hour.
The *New York Times* lead editorial today [12/28/94] should be
framed and hung on the mantle like the antlers of a trophy animal
by a big hunter, down at *The Spotlight*. "The Miscalculation in
Chechnya," it says.
"President Boris Yeltsin was justified," (get that), "...was
justified in using force against the breakaway Russian republic
So, right off the bat, the opinion of the owners of the *New York
Times* organization is, that Yeltsin was "justified" in this that
we're watching on the media right now.
And it was *The Spotlight* that pointed out yesterday, or this
week's *Spotlight* points out that the bankers are behind the
move on it, and that Russia got the nod from the united States.
In fact, on December the 11th, Boris Yeltsin was given the green
light to go ahead and attack, according to *The Spotlight*, by
none other than Strobe Talbot of the Clinton administration!
The very last paragraph of this long, rambling [*New York Times*]
editorial chastising Boris Yeltsin for being clumsy as he carries
out the orders from the boardroom... The very last paragraph
says, "Washington has an interest in keeping Russia and 'reform'
intact." It does. And this is the wonderful paragraph here, that
belongs on the mantle: "After initially giving Mr. Yeltsin a
green light for military intervention [in Chechnya]..."
They just got through chewing him out for being clumsy and his
application of the military and his not finding a political
solution. But they're admitting that Mr. Yeltsin was given a
green light by the Clinton administration. Well how is it the
Clinton administration can give the Russian bear a green light to
kill people if it isn't somebody higher up? And I don't mean God,
but people playing God with all the money -- the bankers.
This editorial, folks, you should get it and frame it. Today's
*New York Times* editorial on Chechnya. It's an excellent piece
to prove our point.
Now. We gotta change gears, change subject, totally. On *Radio
Free America*, whenever I have open phones in the last few years,
one of my, I would call 'em regular callers, is a lovely lady.
She calls in from Pittsfield, Massachusetts. And she always has
something intelligent to contribute. And so last week when she
called and we were talking, I asked her if she'd be a guest. And
she has agreed to be a guest. So I want to introduce Andrea, from
Pittsfield, Massachusetts. Of course, we always use only first
names of callers. However, Andrea, you have stepped out of the
anonymity of caller-ship and you have... Your last name is
"Pearson". Andrea Pearson, you are no longer anonymous.
Welcome to *Radio Free America*.
Good evening, Tom.
First of all, tell me a little about yourself. Why is it that you
have this consuming interest in the, the movement of the
feminists and their influence on our society?
Well it's my observation that, under the banner of Feminism,
Marxism and Socialism are being imposed on the American people.
And not only that, but Feminism and the culture that has replaced
the American culture that we once had, is a paradigm. And because
men are so socialized to protect women from things that are
offensive, and to give them good things -- that no one speaks
Wow... Wait a minute, wait a minute. What you just said is very
Because we men... And if you're brought from a traditional
family, you are taught by your parents that uh, the "ladies
first" and to have courtesy and that the distaff side of things
is to get all of your attention. And we *do* for our women.
That's the purpose of a man being alive. We're taught that.
And you're saying that, because of that, these feminists have an
edge in pushing their agenda.
...the Marxists in our government and in the U.N. are
manipulating the male nature in order to impose Marxist policies
and programs and [to] influence our belief systems and change our
culture. I think it's one of the most destructive forces that has
ever happened in the history of the world. And...
This is gonna be very interesting, Andrea. We have a break coming
up. But already, I'm interested.
My guest is Andrea Pearson, from Pittsfield, Massachusetts. And
the gender war, being used on us. I'm Tom Valentine, this is
*Radio Free America*.
All right, we are back, live. And my guest is Andrea Pearson. And
she's out of Pittsfield, Massachusetts.
And before we go anywhere further with your thesis and so forth,
Andrea... When you say "Marxist"... Now that has a different
connotation to a lot of different people. My idea of a Marxist is
one thing, yours may be another. How are you using "Marxism",
Well in the writings of Karl Marx and other Communists, they
write about their belief systems in many different ways. For
instance, in terms of borders, who owns property, who can own
land, who owns the operation of the industry, [who] controls
that, and so forth.
But they also have very strong beliefs about marriage. They
believe that marriage is a system imposed by a patriarchal,
capitalistic system, by men, onto women. And that it's something
that is *used* by men, against women, by force.
So you're using "Marxist" as "those who have taken the ideas of
Karl Marx and others, and put them together to centralize things
and to break down standard traditions, such as the basic, nuclear
family, for the purposes of the State or the people in charge at
that central headquarters running everything."
Well not only do these people want to have power over us. They
want to destroy the American economy. They want to destroy our
borders. They want to make restrictions about who can own
property and about how industry is regulated.
Well that's what our government's doing now. And we don't have
any Marxists in the American government -- ha, ha, ha.
We certainly do. And they are also doing very severe damage,
through legislation, to the American family. And to, also, our
belief systems, our culture. When you think about America, you
think about its culture and its rituals [CN -- also its colorful
colloquialisms, so *verboten* now in our major universities]. And
in terms of gender politics, what you might think of is, in the
1950s, the way a man would tip his hat to a lady or open a door
for her. Or the way daddy felt about his little girl. And how
boys, or children, inter-related with each other in terms of sex
Well the U.N. has an interest in that. And they have an interest
and it's very strong. There's a Convention on the Elimination of
all Forms of Discrimination Against Women. And we, as a nation,
have had a Congress and President who have decided that they want
to impose that, as the force of law, upon the American people.
And what *my* contention is, is that the basic premise of
Feminism is faulty. And that women were never discriminated
against in America. And that they actually *chose* a different
role: That they preferred to live in marriages. And they
preferred to raise their own children. And they preferred this in
an equal relationship before God -- although their role was
All right. That's a very fair beginning.
Now you say legislation had something to do with this. How about
giving me an example.
Well, let me just read you a short list of some of the more
severe ones: Affirmative Action for Women (which is preference
for employment for women), Campus Security Act, the Gender Equity
in Education Act, the Violence Against Women Act, the Fair Pay
Act (which is now pending, before Congress), and the U.N.
Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Discrimination
Against Women. *That*, uh U.N. Convention, is something that all
of these previous laws that I mentioned, are... those things are
mentioned in the [U.N.] Convention. And what our Congress is
doing is bringing us into accordance with global law concerning
men and women.
Do you think that this movement is the reason that the man can't
make enough money to support a family anymore; that both the man
and the wife have to work to make ends meet today?
I think that the destruction of the economy was deliberate, in
order to create a crisis whereby they could lure first the man,
and then the woman, away from the children. Because a basic part
of Communism and people who believe in Communism is that the
children belong in the care of the State.
All right. Let's take this: The Gender Equity Act. You mentioned
Well this is a *monstrous* piece of legislation. And just to
begin with, with that: If you look at the studies which preceded
the Gender Equity in Education Act and you find out what kind of
research was done to justify this massive piece of intrusive
legislation, what you find is that the statistics were grossly
distorted in order to achieve the answers that the radical
Marxist-Feminists wanted. And so, what we ended up with was a
study that said, "Girls suffer greatly in our school system and
in our culture. They have terrible blows to their self-esteem."
And that, in areas like math and science, "they're greatly
damaged and hindered by the American system" -- when, in fact,
that's really not true.
[...to be continued...]