There are lots of confused people in the world, and they sometimes become agitated enough to write letters to the editor. As one of them, I should know.

To the editor:
There are lots of confused people in the world, and they sometimes become agitated enough to write letters to the editor. As one of them, I should know. On the 25th of April, a letter appeared in the Times which I judged more confused than anything I could come up with.

You had to read this letter to believe it. This had to do with "ultra conservatives" and their vicious attack on gender equality. Since there is no such thing as an ultra conservative, my conclusion is that no one is attacking gender equality.

Ms. Heflin blamed it all on ultra conservatives. There is no such categorization in political science. A person is either conservative, or is not. Once you are conservative, once you accept all the tenets of say, the Conservative Party of the United States, you're as conservative as you can become, until or unless they come up with more principles you have to sign up for. You can become less than conservative, but not more.

Critical thinking is rarely used and always dangerous when attempted by liberals. Ms. Heflin began with a lesson on anthropology and womenkind's early history. She talked about how women began as a sort of female collective, much like a herd of cows, finding safety in numbers, raising their offspring, and dispensing their favors on their terms to men, who were obviously not organized. Then, men learned they had an actual role in procreation. Of course, they were slow learners, but once they found out, they created a 'father figure god' to replace the loving and comforting Great Mother – I kid you not – and they began to limit women's sexuality.

Ruth, that ain't the way it happened. Actually, men went out and slew animals, or tried to, and dragged them home. This was a dangerous occupation, and the men had to do it since women wouldn't. Being naturally generous, men shared the meat with their less powerful female cave occupiers (on the condition that the women would skin, gut, and cook the carcass, strip off the hide and chew it until it was soft, etc.) When the females came in heat, men grudgingly obliged them, thus creating babies. Then someone carved a stone into an image of a man, set it up on a pedestal, thus creating a Father God. What could the women do? They had to give up control of their bodies. The rest is history, which went on that way until beer was discovered.

Ruth goes on to say the pesky ultra conservatives are even now trying to control women's sexuality. I must be doing something wrong, since I haven't figured out how to do that. So now, the women need to create "supporting communal groups" to relegate men to "the periphery of family units." Ruth, women already did that: the National Organization of Women (whom some disparagingly call the 'Femi-Nazis') is there for you.

Her entire letter is an attempt to justify abortion, and she describes the anti-abortion attitude as ultra conservative. It's not confined to conservatives, however, real or imaginary. It's a single issue that crosses party lines.

Religious people of all faiths are usually against abortion. The pro-life vs. pro-choice battle has been raging for many years and won't go away. She implies pro-choiceness is a necessary part of gender equality.

Her conclusion: If men (and ultra conservatives, the straw men and women who are obsessively trying to keep men on top – so to speak) would only allow women to be equal, more heterosexual couples (a vanishing thing) would be happier in their relationships.
Ms. Heflin, it would be much simpler if you would just utilize the contraceptives the ultra government wants to give you – in your health care – free with Obamacare. Or, if you haven't already done so, you could join the "Women's Anti-Sex League" of George Orwell's novel, 1984.