My body, my choice
"feh-muh-nist" and "Professor Kurgman's Beautiful Mind". Two leftist blogs, one is parody, the other is not. How long will it take you to tell which one is which?
Nah,
I'm just joshing. Let's get back to serious stuff for a moment. During
the past few days, feminists have been very helpful in revealing the
true nature of their ideology. First, we have this lovely and widely
quoted explanation by Della Sentilles, in which she explains her
nonjudgmental views about Yale accepting a prominent member of Taleban
as a special student:
As a white American feminist, I do not feel comfortable making statements or judgments about other cultures, especially statements that suggest one culture is more sexist and repressive than another.
I have often wondered why
American feminists, who are normally so eager to criticize and judge
other groups for their smallest slights and infractions, always find it
so very difficult to say anything bad about Muslims, when we remember
that the mainstream Muslims tend to make even Vox Day
look like a moderate. (Come on, I bet that you can't name even one
Muslim country where any of Vox Day's views about proper sex roles
would be in any way controversial or outside the mainstream, assuming
that you make the suitable substitutions of the holy book and deity.)
But fortunately we now have the answer for this puzzling question,
courtesy of pomo leftism. Kay Hymowitz already pointed this out in her essay "Why Feminism is AWOL on Islam", but it's nice to hear it from the horse's mouth.
More quotes, even more revealing than this one, have recently emerged from the news article "Men's Rights Group Eyes Child Support Stay".
In short, a man argues that he should have the legal right to give up
paternity and child support for a child that he doesn't want. In other
words, he wants to see the policy commonly known as "Choice for Men" to
become reality, the same way that Roe vs. Wade decades earlier
established the women's right to unilaterally terminate the pregnancy.
Myself,
I am actually a bit ambivalent about this. In one hand, such a decision
would increase the number of children and single mothers on welfare and
reward cads and bad boys that women so love, while dipping into the
wallets of decent men. On the other hand, this would increase the
equality between sexes, and at least it can't be all
bad since feminists are so hysterically against this. Amusingly, in
their opposition, once again the hunter is blind to mountains while
chasing the rabbit: to score this particular point, feminists use
arguments that basically throw away all their grand principles that
they normally advocate. Their arguments can be simply summed in
sentences "Don't have sex if you don't want a child" (I guess they just
copied this one from the pro-life camp) and "Nature just happens to be
unequal, men and women are inherently different, just accept it" and
"Ha ha, I guess it just sometimes sucks to be a man". At least the last
one is honest and straightforward, but all are very revealing. All that
is missing is feminists saying that "real men" don't shirk their
responsibilities but work hard take care of women and children, and the
circle would be complete.
The general principle seems to be that
if nature has made the sexes inherently unequal (although I don't see
how feminists could claim this, since they tend to deny human evolution
and sexual differences in the first place), law should not try to
equalize the situation by siding with the sex that is in a weaker
position and taking away rights from the sex that is in the stronger
position. I admit that there is a good case to be made for this general
principle, but it's just that feminists and other leftists have not
traditionally considered this principle valid in other areas,
especially when it puts women in a worse position compared to men. For
example, as much as feminists love to complain about "male
entitlement", they sure themselves do feel entitled to the wealth that
males produce, which they confiscate by taxation and then distribute as
welfare. So a cynic might think that the whole thing is just a
rationalization and a smokescreen to maintain the traditional female
entitlements and advantages.
Is there any way that we could find
out if this principle of law not compensating the sex that is in a
weaker position due to the inherent sex differences is merely a ruse or
a genuine ideal? Well yes Virginia, there is a simple way to do this.
We simply find a situation where an inherent inequality between sexes
tends to favour the males and put women in a weaker position, and see
whether the feminists still support the same general principle. And
fortunately, I can think of just the situation.
Despite their
usual leftist adoration of violent criminals who they consider to be
helpless and oppressed victims of capitalist society, feminists seem to
vehemently dislike the general principle that it's better for ten
guilty men to go free than one innocent man put to jail... assuming that crime is rape!
Unfortunately for them, when the burden of proof and standard of
evidence and presumption of innocence are the same in rape trials as
they are for all other violent crimes, many rapists (and especially
date rapists) tend to avoid the guilty verdict due to insufficient
evidence, since "he said it was consensual, she said it was rape" is
not enough to put anybody in jail.
So we end up with an
extremely strange situation where leftists on one hand demand a lower
burden of proof and harsher sentences for rape, but on the other hand,
demand a higher burden of proof and more lenient sentences for other
crimes. This is especially true in death penalty cases where the
perpetrator is black: how do you think that feminists would react if
some serial rapist was found not guilty while the evidence against him
was as strong as, say, the evidence against Tookie Williams? (As a side
note related to the first half of this post, I'm going to take a wild
guess that Tookie and his gang were not exactly very friendly towards
gay liberation, environmental issues, minority rights and women's
rights, if we examined their everyday lives. This makes the leftist
adoration of these people even more puzzling to me.)
Of course,
lowering the burden of proof and the standard of evidence and reversing
the presumption of innocence in rape cases would cause a larger number
of men to end up innocently convicted. Of course, feminists are willing
to make this sacrifice and have these men pay this price, since all men
benefit from the rape culture. No man is really innocent when it comes
to rape, they reason. But if we follow the same general principle that
feminists use to argue that law should not side with the sex that is
inherently in a weaker position by taking away rights from the sex that
is in the stronger position, it follows from this principle that the
burden of proof and presumption of innocence in rape cases should be
the same as they are for all other crimes, even if lowering them would
help women and hurt men.
Law must treat both sexes equally and
grant them both the exact same presumption of innocence. I am sure that
this is bad for women, but I guess that it just sometimes sucks to be a
woman. You should just learn to take it quietly and not complain. As
they say, life isn't always fair. Boo hoo hoo. If this sounds
heartless, tough luck: as long as feminists don't feel that men's
concerns are worth very much, and openly mock men who dare express
their concerns, I don't see why I have a moral duty to give their
concerns reciprocally very much consideration either.
Comments