In defense of the sanctimonious women's studies set || First feminist blog on the internet

Tag: Radical Right-Wingers

The Morality of Rape

I really didn’t want to post anything about V-x D-y ever again. I stopped reading his blog. I agreed with commenters who said that linking to him only gives him more attention. I won’t write out his whole name — that way, when he googles himself for masturbatory material, hopefully he’ll come up short. I vowed never to link to him again.

Except now he has a column on WorldNet Daily about the same issue, where he spells out his “Christian Libertarian” beliefs even more clearly (and, naturally, they’re even more offensive than you thought):

The Judeo-Christian moral ethic is clear – rape is a sin, a willful pollution of a temple that rightly belongs to God. Neither the Jew nor the Christian need hesitate before asserting the act of rape to be evil and justly holding the rapist accountable. But this ethic does not offer a blanket excuse to victims, near victims and would-be victims either, since the element of consent – which today draws the dividing line between sex and rape – can also provide a contrarian condemnation of the woman’s own actions.

Rape isn’t bad because it’s harmful to people — it’s bad because it pollutes God’s house.

To put it more clearly, if a woman consents to extramarital sex, she is committing a moral offense which is equal to that committed by the man who engages in consensual sex with her, or by the man who, in the absence of such consent, rapes her. Christianity knows no hierarchy of sins. Since only the woman who is not entertaining the possibility of sex with a man and is subsequently raped can truly be considered a wholly innocent victim under this ethic, it is no wonder that women who insist that internal consent is the sole determining factor of a woman’s victimization find traditional Western morality to be inherently distasteful.

And there you have it: Rape is no worse than consensual, but extra-marital, sex. And unless you were hiding in your house, wrapped in clothing from head to toe, and not even thinking about sex, you aren’t wholly innocent if you’re raped.

Oh, plus he’s just flat-out wrong about Christianity. There are, in fact, different kinds of sins, and some are taken more seriously than others. All sins can be forgiven, sure, and we’re all sinners, but all sins are not created equal. Glad my twice-a-year church visits have taught me something that even a Christian Libertarian with a Satanist haircut doesn’t seem to understand.

His basic point is this: Only Christian morality makes rape “bad,” and even then it’s only as bad as any other sin (or, though he doesn’t say this explicitly, perhaps he means it’s only as bad as any other sexual sin). Without Jesus, we have no basis to make moral judgments.

For someone who claims to be a member of Mensa, this seems like a pretty shallow wade into understanding morality — and one has to wonder about a person who truly believes that the only reason something is wrong is because a certain book tells him so.

Hey, Retarded Homo AIDS Spreaders: Quit Making Me Be PC!

I wish I could have made up that insult all on my own, but I didn’t. It comes from a massive boo-hoo from a poor oppressed white guy who really doesn’t like it when you ask him not to call you the n-word — you’re limiting his right to free speech! Or something. He’s not quite sure.

The best part of the article is when he actually argues that “PC chokes off normal human expression by strangling natural speech, dividing humanity into imaginary classes, pitting races against each other, and polarizing politics.” So… the ideology that racial slurs and sexually harassing comments probably aren’t appropriate in the workplace or classroom pits the races against eachother and divides humanity into classes? Ok, I see his point. It was a whole lot easier when white guys were unquestionably at the top, and all the bitches and the coloreds knew their place.

He also goes the mature route of being politically incorrect in the column itself — because see, political incorrectness is great! And it’s funny!

So don’t go calling me racist, sexist, ageist, lookist, ableist, or heightist – especially if you’re some pipsqueak runt – because I’ll punch your lights out, you retarded hick.

(See, I thought that hicks voted Republican and hated political correctness too. I guess you learn something new every day).

In the good old USA, we celebrated diversity. That phrase is now just code for the idea that we should be happy to have millions of wrecked, fatherless families producing legions of very un-gay homosexuals spreading AIDS.

Yes, remember back in the day, when we had real diversity in places like public pools, water fountains, and lunch counters? You could just look at the signs — “Coloreds Only” — and see how unique and diverse the country really was. Now, because we aren’t allowed to call them negroes and coloreds without getting dirty looks, and because we can’t sexually harass women with impunity, they’ve gotten all out of hand and have started producing homosexuals by the bushel (and by the way, what is an un-gay homosexual? I really don’t get it. Does he mean “unhappy”?).

The whole “Being PC has ruined America!” argument is a little silly. Can I see how people would get tired of being super-sensitive to every little thing? Sure. But generally, I think most “PC” language just falls under the heading of basic manners and social skills. Using racial slurs, claiming that AIDS is a gay disease and sexually harassing people is generally considered rude — it’s not like liberals are going around slapping you on the wrist every time you call someone a retard, but it’s not considered acceptable in polite company. (And there are plenty of places where rude, un-PC language and actions thrive). It’s also not a violation of your free speech if I tell you that I’m offended by what you say — we’re both exercising our rights there. But when the rest of the argument is so backwards, I guess I can’t expect that this author would be able to grasp such a basic concept.

Posted in Uncategorized

Possibly the Most Disgusting Thing I’ve Ever Read

This came up in the comments section a few posts down, and I thought I’d put it up for everyone to see:

I have to confess that I don’t understand this ceaseless quest for victimhood. Being raped doesn’t confer some mystical moral superiority on a woman, it just makes her a victim. And unfortunately, in all too many cases, it just makes her a stupid one.

I’m just curious what basis the moral relativists have for condemning rape in the first place. If I deem the slaking of my desire for lust – or violence, if you prefer that theory of rape – to be an intrinsic good, who are you to condemn it? Certainly, one could argue that it is a violation of private property rights, but then, what of those moral relativists who reject the notion of private property. If all property is held in common, then how can a woman object if I decide to make use of that which belongs to me?

Read More…Read More…

“Conservative Values” at Princeton

By now, most people have read about Samuel Alito’s membership in the racist, sexist Concerned Alumni of Princeton group. While his membership is notable — what kind of decent person remains in such a heinous organization, even if they weren’t particularly active? — what I think is more interesting is the conservative reaction to his membership.

In an interview, [Laura] Ingraham said liberal groups were making too much of Judge Alito’s membership. “Stop the presses!” she said. “Sam Alito, a conservative, was once a member of a conservative Princeton alumni group.”

Mr. D’Souza said supporters of Concerned Alumni were motivated by a fear that “traditional values” at Princeton had come under attack, but their specific concerns varied from academic standards to the athletic program. Judge Alito’s support for the group “might tell you something,” he said, “but it is hard to know what.”

So what are the “conservative” and “traditional” values that Concerned Alumni sought to uphold?

The group had been founded in 1972, the year that Judge Alito graduated, by alumni upset that Princeton had recently begun admitting women. It published a magazine, Prospect, which persistently accused the administration of taking a permissive approach to student life, of promoting birth control and paying for abortions, and of diluting the explicitly Christian character of the school.

As Princeton admitted a growing number of minority students, Concerned Alumni charged repeatedly that the administration was lowering admission standards, undermining the university’s distinctive traditions and admitting too few children of alumni. “Currently alumni children comprise 14 percent of each entering class, compared with an 11 percent quota for blacks and Hispanics,” the group wrote in a 1985 fund-raising letter sent to all Princeton graduates.

and

A pamphlet for parents suggested that “racial tensions” and loose oversight of campus social life were contributing to a spike in campus crime. A brochure for Princeton alumni warned, “The unannounced goal of the administration, now achieved, of a student population of approximately 40 percent women and minorities will largely vitiate the alumni body of the future.”

and

When the administration proposed a new system of residential colleges with their own dining halls, Prospect denounced the idea as a potential threat to the system of eating clubs. The magazine charged that, like affirmative action, the plan was “intended to create racial harmony.”

Prospect portrayed the proposal as an effort to end the de facto segregation of the campus in which black students were concentrated in one dormitory and mostly did not belong to the clubs. “Doubtless, there will be many who regard this as mere stalling, and prejudice by another name,” an unsigned 1982 editorial argued in defense of the magazine’s position. “If realistic approaches to problems must be called dirty names because we do not like them, well, there is no remedy for it.”

Glad to see that at least some conservatives will look at racism, sexism and bigotry and call them out for what they are: “traditional conservative values.”

Saturday Stupid Shit

Did partisan politics deny The Boss rightful recognition? Sure sounds like it when American Idol Carrie Underwood gets a Congressional resolution in her honor, and Bruce’s proposed resolution gets voted down.

Using your celebrity status to promote condom use to prevent the spread of HIV in Africa is a good thing, right? The Catholic Church doesn’t think so.

A schoolteacher is fired for being pregnant and unwed. Big surprise here: she worked at a Catholic school. And this is what I love about the “pro-life” view embodied by this school and the Catholic church: They’ll talk about how women who face unintended or unwanted pregnancies should be brave, good religious followers and carry the pregnancy to term, and then they punish them for choosing to do so.

“I don’t understand how a religion that prides itself on being forgiving and on valuing life could terminate me because I’m pregnant and am choosing to have this baby,” said McCusker, who was fired last month. “I held the Catholic religion to a higher standard.”

But it’s all about morals:

The key issue in McCusker’s case, McCaffrey said, is that Catholic-school teachers don’t simply teach subjects like math and history. They are also expected to teach morals and must lead by example.

“It’s not like we’re saying that she is a sinner and can’t be a role model,” McCaffrey said. “But there’s a visible sign. She’s pregnant. To have children looking at that, and say it’s OK, is not the example the church wants to set.”

McCusker’s supporters, however, assert that the church is being hypocritical.

“Had she been a student in a Catholic institution, and a pregnant single woman, church authorities would have counseled her — indeed, may have even pressured her — to continue her pregnancy,” Eileen Moran, a member of Catholics for a Free Choice, said at the news conference. “Yet, as her employer, in spite of all the official pronouncements of being pro-child, pro-parent and pro-family, St. Rose fired her.”

Anti-Christian Bias?

Do UC schools discriminate when they refuse to give credit for classes based on textbooks by Bob Jones University? According to the perpetual-victim Evangelical set, yes.

Now, it’s obviously problematic if religious discrimination is actually going on. But refusing to accept a science credit for a creationist “biology” class doesn’t seem all that unreasonable to me. A student simply won’t be able to compete in an upper-level bio class if all he learned is “God created the earth in seven days, and Darwin was wrong.” Similarly, he’s gonna have a hell of a time in an upper-level lit class if he’s been reading nothing but the Bible and C.S. Lewis for four years, and all he’s been taught to do is extract Christian messages from the books he reads.

Religious education is fine. But when the religious part of it trumps everything else, to the point where students aren’t really learning the things that will prepare them for academic life in college, it seems that the problem is with religious schools not doing their job, not with colleges discriminating.