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?) 

I have been silent, thus far, on the issue of the multi-million dollar AIG bonuses that has upset the entire population, government and markets.

I have, from the beginning, felt that we should be upset.  We should be outraged.  Morally indignant.

But NOT because a few executives received retention bonuses.

We should be outraged that, in a society of free men who uphold the principles of liberty against tyranny, very few people have stood up to defend AIG employee's rights to have their bonuses.  It is a fundamental, constitutionally-protected right.

I am so uplifted and proud of Jake DeSantis, the Executive Vice-President at AIG's financial products unit.  He wrote a letter to his cowardice boss, Mr. Edward Liddy (CEO of AIG).  In this resignation letter, DeSantis excoriated Liddy's decision to throw his empoyees to the wolves in Congress by not defending the bonuses and fighting for his employees' rights to safety from government retribution. 

When the government and Leftists labeled successful men as "greedy bankers", the AIG CEO and others should have fought against that propaganda.  Aided by conservatives, and perhaps a few Republicans, AIG and the companies that have produced wealth for hundreds of millions of Americans should be arguing their case:  That it is precisely the Leftists and the government, who produce no wealth yet ALWAYS find ways to take it, who are greedy.

Who is greedy?  The man who works for his living, or steals for it?

But there are no effective protests or roadblocks to government tinkering in the lives of free men.  No outrage that the engines of our economy are under assault by the heavy hand of Leftists.  At the moment AIG accepted the government's "favors" through bailout funds, the ground below AIG's feet became quicksand.  It was only a matter of time before the government demanded more intervention in the company's affairs. 

And AIG happily stood in the quicksand.  And by association, AIG then pulled other companies into the same miserable existence.  Half free, watching their companies and their family's safety being swallowed by government intervention.  And AIG was half covered in slime, too dirty with the filth of political favoritism to be able to claw their way out.

In this new era of government dominance over every facet of our lives and every economic engine of our economy, the insurance, banking and mortgage industries, like AIG, are being asked to cannibalize themselves.  By accepting the government into your bed, you accept the cold hand of government bureaucrats like Barney Frank and Chuck Schumer.

And now, with the government closing behind it, AIG will soon become a lifeless government entity.  Like Medicare.  Like Social Security.  It will become a problem that you and I, and our children's children, will pay for.  It will become a tool that corrupt government officials will use to line their own pockets.

Apart from the frothing frenzy that includes threats of death to children, the worst outcome of this sad satire is that AIG has allowed itself to be used as a tool to destroy capitalism.  Leftists are eager to proclaim the death of the only system that protects our personal freedom, and that can protect families from physical reprecussions of mob rule. 

AIG's lack of moral courage to stand against government intervention will eventually be used against all free men.  President Obama has just announced that he wants the power to dictate to all companies how and why and where they can pay their top executives.  Understand:  These are not companies that have accepted bailout money.  This dictate will address all financial firms and possibly other private-sector companies. 

All this because AIG and others refused to understand simple reason:  That it had a moral obligation to it's own existence and survival.  That in order to exist and survive, it must not entangle itself with the government.  Survival and existence can only happen under freedom. 

AIG refused to acknowledge that governments only destroy things.  They steal wealth and ambition and achievements from men, for their own power.  That governments only TALK of social equality, justice and safety nets for it's citizens.

Tell me:  With the American government suggesting suicide and Congress promoting piano-wire-inspired death threats against the children of AIG employees...do you think this is what the government means when it offers us justice and safety nets?

Or can we, as Americans, face the reality of our government and it's zombie-like followers and say: My God, we are out of control.  But it is not the fault of bonuses.  We are out of control because we have traded control of our lives and our pursuit of happiness for ignorance and passivity.  We do not want the knowledge of the threat, we do not want to be conscious of the consequences of government control.  It's easier to cope with the chains of slavery than to struggle to be free.

I applaud Mr. DeSantis, and I respect the employees at AIG who will not give in to mob rule.  Please, AIG employees, know that there are Americans who understand what is happening to your freedoms and your families.  There are some Americans who know that after the government comes after you, they will be coming after us.  I, for one, will pray that the Grace of God will protect you and give you the strength to survive the onslaught of the federal government.

And I shudder to think of what the Founding Fathers would think of our country's cowardice.