If you have been listening recently to Rush Limbaugh's radio show, you know that an approval poll conducted by the Public Policy Polling group, about the radio talk show host, exposed a "Gender Gap" of -31 percent among female participants.

So, Rush conducted a Female Summit, modeled after the ineffective Economic Summit that President Obama held a few weeks ago, to find out why women dislike him in greater numbers than men.  Unfortunately, similar to Obama's conference, the results of Rush's Summit were lackluster.  This was through no fault of Limbaugh's.

Devoting time on his radio show, and only taking female callers, Rush reached out to the "gentler sex" for answers.  Most of the callers who liked Rush, expressed annoyance and impatience with women who dislike him (Amen, sister!).  Most of the callers who dislike Rush, expressed annoyance and impatience with what they called his "pomposity" and "self-conceit".  These, of course, are red herrings.

Instead, here is the one word that correctly answers the question:  Why do women hate Rush Limbaugh in greater numbers than men? 

Mediocrity.

The question then becomes:  Why do women accept mediocrity as their standard, more so than men?

The answer is simple again:  Feminism.

Feminism, like most groupthink mentalities designed by the Left, has conditioned society to accept women at lower standards than men.  In the workplace, in academic institutions, within marriage, and in the home.

There are very blatant signs of lower standards, such as the severely diminished physical capabilities required of women when they join the military.  But in the daily life of the average American woman, the acceptance of mediocrity as our standard is much more subtle but still as pervasive.  From our diminished role as partners within our marriages, to the "Nurse Ratchet" depiction of women on TV sitcoms (Think: Everybody Loves Raymond) and in commercials, lowering our standards and expectations becomes written in our subconscious.

These lower standards allow women to achieve success within our society by doing less and reasoning less than our male counterparts.

This creates subtle, but effective, strains of mediocrity within our own minds.  We then condition ourselves to accept our own successes and achievements through sub-standard performance.  And so we maintain this level of performance, because we have bought into the idea that mediocrity is all it takes to be successful women.  Not successful individuals. 

We stunt our own minds and our own ambition, by asking no more of ourselves.  We become complacent with our own status quo.

And acceptance of the status quo, in this case within the female mind, breeds contempt and envy of all men and women who display brilliance, and who strive for more.  What better symbol of brilliance and  rationality is there within the public realm, than Rush Limbaugh, the man who single-handedly breathed life into a dying medium of communication and achieved monumental success?

The unwillingness to acknowledge and respect Limbaugh's achievements is a sign that contempt and envy can cloud our judgment and provide resistance to clear reason and rationality within our minds. 

Because while it is true that in the reality of public policies, feminism seeks to punish men for their success, the real victims of feminism are those women who cannot recognize brilliance in anyone, most importantly within themselves. 

Feminism does not empower women because it does not acknowledge a woman's ability to succeed on her own merit.  It makes women slaves to our sex, slaves to lower expectations and slaves to a life of mediocrity.

On the other hand, women who choose to use reason and free will to guide their lives do not hate Rush for one simple reason.  He is a mirror for us.  We see rational, intellectual thought and analysis when we look into that mirror. 

If women who dislike Rush would remove the yolk of feminism, no matter how subtle or subconscious the strains are, and allow their own rational minds to empower their lives they would not dislike Rush Limbaugh.

Instead, they would "rush" to sip from the same grail of success.  They would find that they can achieve that success.  And they would be truly free women.

Side note:  Incidentally, feminism gave rise to the phenomenon of metrosexuals in our society, by inviting men to be mediocres as well.  These are men who, like groundhogs, are scared of their own shadows.  They are the height of mediocrity because they cannot perform the role of either sex well.  They are scared to allow themselves to fail at being "men" and unable/unwilling to physically become women.  Instead they are lost in a mindless purgatory of feminine beautification and masculine anatomy.  (I am assuming there are few metrosexuals who will also claim to be Dittoheads.  Can you blame them for recognizing in Rush the man they wish they had the courage to be?) 

During President B. Hussein Obama's State of the Economy speech last week, I listened in wonder at the audacity of his words.  Words, to our President, don't have any value, weight or meaning.

He uses the words of his opponents to paint a pretty picture of American virtue that he does not believe in.  Obama ignites the optimism that is part of the American psyche, while directing it toward un-American goals.

It's akin to using honey to catch flies.

To have the audacity to say things such as "Not because I believe in bigger government -- I don't." And yet in the very same speech, announce trillions of dollars in new government spending.  Only a socialist would consider selling the virtue of small government through a monumental increase in big government.

So what would happen if we took some of the visionary lines from Obama's speech and replace euphemisms like "America", "USA", "nation" and "private sector" with the word "government"?  And what if we replaced the word "government" with "America"?

We would force the truth out into the light of day, proving that the honey he uses as bait is filled with a kind of poison, meant to destroy American capitalism and the freedom of men.

Would Americans support Obama if he had said this:  (Replacement words appear in [brackets].)

With the word "government" used, instead of "America", these statements become true and factual.  The bloated government budget Obama recently announced proves that it is government power, government jobs and an increase in the role of government within our economy that is his vision for our future.

Isn't it a shame that America's own President doesn't have the vision to see the real culprits in the crisis he is manipulating.  Government bureaucrats and government policies, used to coerce and control the private sector, have led us to the brink of an economic Depression.

Instead, Obama attacked the faceless "banker" -- those architects of evil that socialists and communists love to demonize.  It would be refreshing, during a speech that was marketed to the masses as "Reaganesque", to have placed blame at the foot of the government.

So let's replace the word "banks" with the word "government" during the blame-capitalism portion of Obama's speech, to find out what Reagan would have said, had he been speaking to the American people last week:

         "So I know how unpopular it is to be seen as helping [government] right now,
         especially when everyone is suffering in part from their bad decisions.
         I promise you –- I get it."

Reagan would have spoken to us about the true causes of this economic crisis.  He would not have promised to grow the government and place private industry under it's control.  Reagan would have declared that the federal government is the problem.  He would have pledged to roll back the government, which always strengthens the individual, the economy and the country.

But a socialist believes in spreading government, not opportunity.  In empowering government, not individuals.  Therefore, it would have been fitting for Obama to end his speech with this:

          "Thank you, God bless you, and may God bless the [government]."