Blaming the victim
October 19, 2017 § 130 Comments
There were once two Greek tribes living in very close proximity, under a High King who ruled from a distant city.
The γυναίκα tribe had plenty of tempting, delicious ambrosia; but small warriors and very few weapons. The άνδρας tribe had strong warriors and powerful weapons; but they had insufficient food of their own, and what food they did have was disgusting, unappetizing, and mildly poisonous. Under the High King’s law the άνδρας defended both their own territory and the territory of the weaker γυναίκα.
The γυναίκα were very proud of their ambrosiac and abundant feasts, which made them feel powerful and important. It became their custom to parade around in the territory of the άνδρας with their delicious and aromatic dishes, to eat in front of the άνδρας, to wink at them and tease them with food that the άνδρας did not have.
Any territory set aside for άνδρας alone was considered an oppression of the physically smaller and weaker γυναίκα; so the High King made it law that the άνδρας could not set aside spaces of their own where the γυναίκα could not go. The γυναίκα were permitted to take their ambrosia with them wherever they went. The High King permitted no limits on the public and brazen display of ambrosia. The suggestion that lawful limits on the public display of ambrosia might be prudent — and that these limits should be set by άνδρας not by γυναίκα — met with outrage, scoffing and accusations of oppression.
It was permitted under the High King’s law that a άνδρας could approach, smell, sample, and participate in a γυναίκα’s meal only when the γυναίκα was explicitly asked and gave explicit permission for each smell and bite; a permission which could be revoked at any time. The γυναίκα would often get drunk and allow a άνδρας to share a meal, and later regret the action; in such a case the άνδρας was considered a criminal because the γυναίκα had chosen to get drunk, thus impairing consent. Sometimes the less morally upright among the stronger and more physically powerful άνδρας would become aggressive; even to the point of taking, without explicitly granted permission, a morsel from the plate of a γυναίκα who had shoved the plate under his nose.
And any suggestion (even from a γυναίκα) that there might be something wrong with the behavior of the γυναίκα was condemned as ‘blaming the victim’.
Zippy Catholic 
Me too!
Good parable.
And they all lived happily ever after.
I will include the following recent email exchange – titled “Attack!” – here, addressed to Patrick Coffin (a Catholic blogger) and others, reordered earlier first, as it is extremely relevant to this topic.
On Tuesday, October 17, 2017 9:27 AM, wrote:
Hello Patrick and all,
When in heck are we going to GO ON THE ATTACK now that the nasty underbelly of the sexual revolution has been exposed?
http://abcnews.go.com/Entertainment/reese-witherspoon-director-assaulted-age-16/story?id=50530335
And we are letting the feminists get away with being “good guys” on this issue . . . “Me Too campaign” indeed.
FEMINISM IS THE ENABLER OF WEINSTEIN AND ALL THOSE HOLLYWOOD RAPISTS –
Feminism takes responsibility for the dirty work of killing the baby –
Feminism betrayed its Susan B. Anthony roots and went corporate almost 100 years ago
http://www.culturewars.com/CultureWars/1999/torches.html
and crawled in bed with the evil racist, eugenicist Margaret Sanger – and now feminism is defined by NOTHING AT ALL EXCEPT KILLING BABIES.
Real women love their babies and go through all sorts of difficulties trying to make a good outcome happen for them. Therefore, real women are supported by OUR KIND OF MEN and not by “one night standers” and money-bloated sexual assaulters of the kind who DOMINATE THE CULTURE.
Down with feminism! I haven’t forgotten that Roe v Wade was written by a serial womanizer, William O. Douglas (see The Brethren by Woodward and Armstrong), and that by offering women the “choice” to abort secretly, they dumped the entire responsibility on the woman! What a great break for womanizing men. And the feminists just lapped it up like stupid lapdogs.
I also haven’t forgotten that feminists are in favor of the rape of pro-life women.
Pass this around to anyone you like. If any feminist wants to debate me in public, I will tear her to pieces.
Larry Dickson, PhD (Mathematics)
Author of The Book of Honor
On Oct 18, 2017, at 12:08 PM, wrote:
It is absurd to blame women alone for what has occurred in our society.
Divorced Unilaterally by Husband
October 18, 2017 1:37 PM
You did not even read what I [wrote, sister]. As soon as you saw the word “feminists” you immediately spun into brain-dead, defensive mode. If you had read two lines farther you would have detected the word “ENABLER” and realized that I am saying both the enabler and the enabled are to blame.
Your “women are always guilt-free” attitude is one of the reasons we can never seem to make progress against these evils. The feminists exploit that attitude, and the creeps like Weinstein exploit the feminists, and evil wins all around. Please impose some mental self-discipline on yourself and break this vicious cycle.
Your current attitude amounts to poisoning the well for our younger generation.
Larry
An interesting dynamic of this is that people who have some standards (even small ones, as long as they at least have baby teeth) about limiting the display of ambrosia can see themselves as doing their part in fighting back, and are able to see their own standards as the reasonable ones, beyond which is demanding too much.
All limitations are relative, so we don’t set limits based on what is reasonable, it is based on what is better than what most everyone else is doing, and thus it becomes impossible to have reasonable societal standards about the display of ambrosia.
TimFinnegan:
“Slightly less vicious than those awful people” is a very popular standard. Power-of-immodesty plus virtue signal beats power-of-immodesty on its own.
Yes, if only we could have kept the good kind of feminism, the kind that good Susan B. envisioned.
The good kind of feminism would have allowed Reese Witherspoon, Ashley Judd, and other starlets to receive untold mammon and limitless worldly adulation without having to walk a filthy path to get there.
My sister plus buckyinky join from left and right in a so-far successful alliance to make the good side ineffectual. Stop our daughters being raped and abandoned first, then worry about assigning blame to how they make their living. We have a teaching moment here, and so far all I get is whimpers from left and right about why we should stay in our comfortable cocoon of defeat.
Belief in a “good feminism” is like belief in unicorns. Nothing which actually exists is the actual creature, but there is no arguing against it with true believers.
Feminism just is liberalism applied to a sexual template which casts men as oppressors and women as oppressed.
Relevant:
I plan to stop my daughters from being treated this way by telling them to keep the hell away from Hollywood, both literally and interiorly.
And what if how they make their living is what encourages and enables the rape and abandonment?
Traditionally societies as varied as Classical Greece, pre-Ming China, Feudal Japan, and Europe all agreed that actors are about on par with prostitutes, mainly because they used sexual titillation to earn money but also because they lie for a living.
The elevation of theater as art combined with the desire of some to use theater to undermine traditional values accompanied by the patronage of the wealthy attracting social climbers, etc. all led to titillation being accepted as part and parcel of “gaining patronage”.
Or, shorter – Plato was correct when he argued that love of theater would slowly reduce all culture to no higher than theater.
What is wrong,what doesn’t sit right with me in Zippy’s delightful analogy is a moral issue. You are totally victim blaming and you are rationalizing immorality, much like Adam once did before God, “this woman you gave me,” as if that explains everything. While I empathize, such excuses did not impress God nor do they impress me.
I can try to equate it with working in a bank, all that delicious money dangled in front of me,and they give me some on payday, so obviously I am entitled,and should anyone get drunk at the company picnic, surely it is a sign that they actually want me to rob them. After all, I’m the victim here, by nature and design possessing very little self control and completely lacking the ability to take personal responsibility when it comes to money anyway. It is not my fault, I have been totally led astray by their many mixed messages.
I mean what did they expect,me to show some moral leadership or something? I am not the one in charge,don’t look at me.
insanitybytes22:
Because women – unlike men – are not moral agents responsible for the easily foreseen consequences of their own choices.
Not at all. Not every situation involves a dichotomy of pure wicked perpetrators (who happen to have a Y chromosome) and pristinely innocent victims (XX, of course). Many situations involve wicked people doing wicked things to other wicked people. In particular, professional Hollywood whores lining up to cry about sexual abuse in between fundraisers for Planned Parenthood is absolutely precious.
In other news, Auschwitz guards are going on strike because of low pay.
[…] Source: Zippy Catholic […]
It can be the fault of both the men and the women (nice Greek, Zippy, though I might have replaced the gamma with a kappa) when men (or women) misbehave.
It definitely is also the fault of the high king for making such stupid, stupid laws.
Fault can spread just fine to cover multiple people for the same action (You might say, fancifully, fault has high divergence.)
However, ZIppy’s definitely right in framing this parable in this way, given that it’s specifically an inversion of the way the parable is framed (and shoved down our throats) by the culture at large. An antidote to poison is a specific drug, not a well-balanced diet.
At the heart of it is consequentialism – actress X needs to get a part, and therefore must do dirty act Y because that’s what’s needed. Nobody questions the “needs” part; they just assume someone else would “need” to do it if she refused; so the ones who acquiesce have “no sin”.
You see this in other consequentialist arguments – the Japanese are to blame for the nuclear bombing; they “forced” us to do it; terrorists are to blame for torture; they “forced” us to use it, etc.
Excellent. It’s clear enough the readership here could stand to have this hammered in again a few times. I look forward to any returns to this topic.
The benefit to discussing specifically feminism instead of political liberalism is there is one clear right answer you can point people to – pre-Victorian sexual mores. Or rather – because we are so far away from sanity, the pleasant variety of right answers all collapse in our vision into a monolithic “patriarchy”, akin to “fascism” in the political order.
I recently read in a moral theology book, written as late as 1963 and by Jesuits (Ford & Kelly), that it was still an acknowledged minority opinion among theologians “that the ius in corpus is a right of direct dominion”, i.e. that the husband is the owner and proprietor of his wife. It cites Ferdinandus Rebellus, De Obligationibus Justitiae (Venice, 1610), De Just. et Jure, pars 2, lib. 2, q. 13, sect. 5, n. 51 — and also — Martin Perez, De Sancto Matrimonii Sacramento (Lugduni: 1646), disp. 13, sect. 6, n. 10. But I have no access to those sources unfortunately.
It hardly even matters if the opinion is correct. It suffices for now, that it is WITHIN THE PALE. In this, it is like the judgments of the law of Moses, especially those for sexual crimes (like the seduction of a virgin – the “marry your rapist” one atheists love to point out) and the punishments of death.
“In particular, professional Hollywood whores lining up to cry about sexual abuse in between fundraisers for Planned Parenthood is absolutely precious.”
While I can certainly see that too, I think you underestimate the system,the culture,the dynamic women are often forced to work under. Very few men understand what it is like for women trying to make their way in a world run by men,men who often perceive us as nothing more than “Hollywood whores.”
Now you can try to blame women for that, alleging that we all act like whores therefore the fact that we are treated like whores should come as no surprise, but that is the precise kind of thinking that has led to the creation of feminism in the first place and a culture that is now rejecting faith, seeing only the hypocrisy and double standard that has stacked the deck against them.
And so women, being perceived as nothing more than a meaningless clump of cells existing only for someone else’s pleasure or inconvenience, soon begin to perceive their own offspring in the precise same way.
Found your problem. Women aren’t forced to work. Women choose to work. And women choose to work in these fields, knowing full well (if not at the beginning, then at some point before the sticky end) that wickedness abounds therein.
If you expand it to say something along the lines that ‘women in any workplace are subject to sexual harrassment,’ my response is that women should get out of their workplaces and back into their homes.
>we all act like whores therefore the fact that we are treated like whores should come as no surprise, but that is the precise kind of thinking that has led to the creation of feminism in the first place
No, it was precisely the *abandonment* of that thinking which led to the creation of feminism. Traditional societies do not trust women, any woman, to be alone with a man, because of the knowledge they will likely act like whores. When men started to say that women were all innocent creatures who would never do such a thing, who are mere victims of the untamable appetites of men – that was the first stage of feminism, and all later stages followed inevitably.
Rhetocraces:
Took the words right out of my mouth.
insanitybytes22:
Exactly who is rationalizing the deliberate choice of immoral behaviors, again?
Where did I say that all women act like whores?
Many (not all) women dress and act like whores and then are shocked – shocked! – when immoral men treat them like the whores they deliberately project themselves to be. Not only are they shocked – shocked! – to be treated like whores, they are deeply offended at the suggestion that being treated like a whore was a perfectly predictable consequence of their own deliberate choices.
IB,
While I can certainly see that too, I think you underestimate the system,the culture,the dynamic women are often forced to work under.
Call us when you have read a non-feminist take on the problems in Hollywood. The sexual assaults and exploitation of men in the industry, particularly teenage minors, is equally epidemic there. In fact the rumors and accusations of just how bad the homosexual exploitation of straight men who want a job in Hollywood are pound for pound as bad as what you’re talking about.
And nope, not going to shed many tears for most of the men. If getting screwed up the backside by a bunch of executives is what it takes to make millions, my pride is going to have me working at Starbucks.
Rhetocrates:
It’s all Greek to me.
“Found your problem. Women aren’t forced to work. Women choose to work.”
You’re so right. If we’d all just shut up and stop worrying about what we’re going to eat, how we’re going to take care of disabled men who CAN’T work, the world would be a much better place.
“….they are deeply offended at the suggestion that being treated like a whore was a perfectly predictable consequence of their own deliberate choices.”
Ironically,it is quite rare to be sexually abused when one is dressed like a whore. Crazy world, but even immoral men can often see the worth and value in an attractive woman. It’s the children, the disabled in institutions, the elderly and the ugly who tend to get raped the most.
insanitybytes22:
Stipulating the irrelevant point, what does that have to do with Hollywood whores, the Democratic Party ‘abusers’ that they sexually tease and sleep with to further their careers[1], and the millions of viewers of all ages for whom they whore it up?
—-
[1] From the Ronan Farrow article which broke the big story:
“Call us when you have read a non-feminist take on the problems in Hollywood.”
I spent a great deal of time on the streets on Hollywood,trying desperately to get kids out of prostitution,many who were young boys. Here up North I’ve just spend the last decade trying to convince people that it is immoral for the Seattle Mayor to be cruising for young guys by night and working for the city by day.
“If getting screwed up the backside by a bunch of executives is what it takes to make millions, my pride is going to have me working at Starbucks.”
Pardon my dark humor,but the only “pride” you’re going to be allowed in this neck of the woods is at the end of someone’s leash in a pride parade.
I think it’s worth pre-emptively requesting that insanitybytes22 not make the misogyny charge against the host and commenters here, or link to something she wrote about how a woman can feel personally attacked, therefore she was personally attacked (e.g.)
Of course such shenanigans would only go to show that she “[underestimates] the system,the culture,the dynamic [men] are often forced to [blog and comment] under.”
“Stipulating the irrelevant point, what does that have to do with Hollywood whores, the Democratic Party ‘abusers’ that they sexually tease and sleep with to further their careers and the millions of viewers of all ages for whom they whore it up?”
All in good humor here Zippy, but I think your grammar really reveals the nature of the problem. “Hollywood whores” is cut and dry, an established fact, but even though they are Dems, liberals,you deliberately place the word “abusers” in quotation marks as if there is some doubt as to their guilt, as if you are hesitant to even name their evil for what it is.
So by the time you are finished,the “abusers” have become hapless victims of whores,powerless bystanders just trying to dodge all the women who want to tease them,in essence ruining these men’s lives in their quest to farther their own careers. I can almost spare a tear now for Harvey Weinstein, poor misguided, lonely man, who was just taking what was freely offered.
I spent a great deal of time on the streets on Hollywood,trying desperately to get kids out of prostitution,many who were young boys. Here up North I’ve just spend the last decade trying to convince people that it is immoral for the Seattle Mayor to be cruising for young guys by night and working for the city by day.
Sorry, I fail to see how this is relevant to this discussion, but good for you.
Let’s just get it out of the way now: Not All Women Are Like That.
There, now we can move on.
I’m starting to get why you don’t like Dalrock now, though.
http://www.nononsenseselfdefense.com/responsibility.htm
So by the time you are finished,the “abusers” have become hapless victims of whores,powerless bystanders just trying to dodge all the women who want to tease them,in essence ruining these men’s lives in their quest to farther their own careers. I can almost spare a tear now for Harvey Weinstein, poor misguided, lonely man, who was just taking what was freely offered.
I can do nothing but shake my head in wonder if that’s seriously what you’re getting out of this discussion.
It’s because of liberalism, yo – everyone must be oppressed or oppressor when speaking of a single act; there is no middle ground.
And so if the women have sinned, Harvey must be the oppressed.
“And so if the women have sinned, Harvey must be the oppressed.”
And so if anyone believes in lines of authority, in male headship,one must also believe in lines of responsibility.
The problem is as old as dirt, men often want all of the power, all of the authority and yet none of the responsibility. Weinstein, the one with the wealth, the power, the gatekeeper of who works in Hollywood or not, suddenly becomes one of the many poor, oppressed men of the world. Well, you cannot have it both ways because that is irrational.
Sexual abuse is not a mutual sport or something and men and women are not on equal footing. We talk about authority, responsibility, male headship,but everything always goes out the window and the hypocrisy is revealed when the poo hits the fan and once again we simply hear, “this woman you gave me.”
We talk about authority, responsibility, male headship,but everything always goes out the window and the hypocrisy is revealed when the poo hits the fan and once again we simply hear, “this woman you gave me.”
And apparently you talk about those things without understanding where and when they apply.
insanitybytes22,
It seems that you are trapped in a false dichotomy. As if in acknowledging the fact Eve sinned means we are somehow esculpating Adam.
Nothing could be further from the truth.
This article is very topical. I can’t really do it justice in a sentence or two. If it doesn’t give you a clear cut example of what is so terribly wrong with so many women who aspire to be (**highly sarcastic**) “strong and independent women,” I don’t know what would.
The problem is as old as dirt, men often want all of the power, all of the authority and yet none of the responsibility.
That you wrote this with no irony intended is stunning.
I’m not even sure how to respond to you; you’re basically canned stereotypes at this point.
Look, I doubt there is a single person here who has anything but withering contempt and disgust for Harvey Weinstein.
But apparently we are also required to say “And also, women are WAAAAAAAAAAAY less culpable here” every single time we talk about mistakes they’re making and sins they’re committing.
Surprise surprise, people are tired of that.
Zippy especially is notorious for his lack of a sense of personal responsibility and letting others off the hook when they behave wickedly. An anti-authoritarian defender of licentious individual liberty he is I tell you.
“That you wrote this with no irony intended is stunning. I’m not even sure how to respond to you; you’re basically canned stereotypes at this point.”
AWALT, remember? Dalrock,remember? I mean, I couldn’t possibly be a woman who has any idea WTH I am talking about. I am just a canned stereotype,a meaningless clump of cells. It’s not like I’ve been married for decades or I have grandchildren. And as Zippy has already said, even my faith is just superficial “shacking up.”
So, in red pill world, women can never be anything but clueless Hollywood whores, can we? That is the very essence of misogyny, the injustice of the world and the fruit of male arrogance. No wonder feminism is such a thing in the world.
So, in red pill world, women can never be anything but clueless Hollywood whores, can we? That is the very essence of misogyny, the injustice of the world and the fruit of male arrogance. No wonder feminism is such a thing in the world.
That you keep saying this shows how far down the rabbit hole you’ve fallen.
Here’s a hint: You are the only one here saying this.
This is liberalism in a nutshell, I suppose. It’s all either victim or aggressor: ubermenschen or undermenschen’ superhuman or subhuman. We’re either part of the working class or the rich elites screwing them over.
You are a living and breathing example of the exact sort of attitude Zippy continually criticizes.
So, in red pill world, women can never be anything but clueless Hollywood whores, can we?
No, in a red pill world women are moral agents morally responsible for their actions. This has been a persistent theme here, and it’s this very theme that has always annoyed many women (and some men) commenters. The point has never been that all women are whores. But one persistent point is that women who dress and act immodestly are tempting men at one of their most vulnerable points and that they – the women – should stop acting like that. They – the women – are acting cruelly. They – the women – are morally responsible for their actions and should stop acting like a Victorian prude if some sick cad takes their immodesty seriously. Good grief, its been said here like a billion times but men and women should own their junk and repent their unchaste behaviors full stop. Its really not the Ovarian Apocalypse you’re turning it into.
“No, in a red pill world women are moral agents morally responsible for their actions.”
You mean like the way Heartiste posts today about exploiting faith, pretending to be a Christian so you can con,manipulate,and exploit stupid women who seem to have this thing for men of faith? Or did you mean Tomassi’s red pill were you just bang hot Asian chicks? Or Roosh the pua, who laments about how he can’t find a virtuous woman and surely he is entitled to one?
The Ovarian Apocoplyse stems from the hypocrisy,from the deception,from the awareness of what liars people associated with the red pill really are.
You mean like the way Heartiste posts today about exploiting faith, pretending to be a Christian so you can con,manipulate,and exploit stupid women who seem to have this thing for men of faith? Or did you mean Tomassi’s red pill were you just bang hot Asian chicks? Or Roosh the pua, who laments about how he can’t find a virtuous woman and surely he is entitled to one?
Yes, clearly we here at Zippy Catholic support all of those things.
I have this vague memory of taking no end of flak from all sorts of people for my criticisms of Roissy/Heartise, Roosh, Rollo Tomassi, and “game” in general. It must have been a dream.
So, in red pill world, women can never be anything but clueless Hollywood whores, can we? That is the very essence of misogyny, the injustice of the world and the fruit of male arrogance. No wonder feminism is such a thing in the world
Here’s an anecdote for you. On Facebook, I was subjected to about two pages of frothing at the mouth vitriol from “CONservative women” like you for commenting that the sexual revolution, contraception and abortion in particular, destroyed the natural law-based understanding of sex completely and lead to a significant amount of men coming to see women either subtly or complete as simply means to their sexual gratification.
“YOU ARE BLAMING MEDICINE FOR MEN BEING JERKS?”
“HOW DARE YOU SUGGEST BLAH BLAH”
“INSERT OTHER HYPERVENTILATING EXAMPLE”
Note that I fundamentally agreed with said women that there is a serious problem of sexual abuse of women and such. I didn’t agree that a lot of harassment is more than “gamma gonna gamma,” but whatever. Fundamental disagreement right? Nope! My sin was not fully agreeing with their every premise, which is all anyone here is guilty of with you.
That is all you have done in this thread. And let’s go back to this:
Pardon my dark humor,but the only “pride” you’re going to be allowed in this neck of the woods is at the end of someone’s leash in a pride parade.
When it’s all said and done, I will not be the one wearing the leash in your little scenario.
Right, because that has anything to do with the argument.
I’m sure that most of the women in Hollywood are only there because they are forced – forced against their wills by the cruel whims of circumstance – to sell their bodies as a selfless sacrifice for the poor, helpless, disabled men in their lives. Why, they’re practically saints!
Not only is this an extremely dishonest reframe, it’s also the sort of consequentialist bull you’ll find taken to the woodshed all over this blog.
insanitybytes22,
Since everyone is jumping on your for your comments in this thread I realize there’s no chance of you responding to everyone. But you have always been an insightful commenter (at least in my opinion) so I’d like to know what it is exactly you are trying to say.
My initial interpretation of your comments in this thread is that you believe it is inappropriate to acknowledge the objectively wicked behavior of the women in the Hollywood abuse / Harvey Weinstein scandal because this amounts to simultaneously absolving the wicked Harvey Weinstein’s of the world of their much deserved guilt.
This seems to me to be a ridiculous false dichotomy. And furthermore it is clear that neither Zippy nor anyone here agreeing with the substance of Zippy’s point has any modicum of sympathy for Harvey Weinstein’s actions.
But if this is not the point you intended to make I am genuinely interested in knowing your actual point.
And furthermore it is clear that neither Zippy nor anyone here agreeing with the substance of Zippy’s point has any modicum of sympathy for Harvey Weinstein’s actions.
It is my observation that most women who are passionate about this issue generally want to fix the blame exclusively on the Weinstein figure and bristle at any suggestion that a lot of the women involved in such situations are knee deep in their immoral behavior. I think most of us here recognize that there are nuances that arise from considering each accusation separately and judging each woman’s statements and behaviors individually. For example, a 15 year old Jennifer Lawrence who is sexually pressured is obviously quite different in many ways from a 25 year old wanna be starlet who considers Weinstein and says to herself “he’s ugly, but if I give him what he wants I can flip him into an ally.” Even then, a Lawrence is more morally culpable in some respects than a Drew Barrymore who was set upon when she was elementary school age.
This is much like how in discussions of pornography and prostitution, they make a beeline for the trafficked, the drugged and the other cases where the women may have reduced moral culpability and ignore the legions of women who are simply coldly calculating the bucks they can make by “not respectin dey selves…”
For me, and probably a lot of other right wing men, this is the reason we are cynical. We were not born in a cabbage patch last night. We know damn well that there exist a multitude of reasons why women find themselves polishing the knob of a bridge troll like Weinstein and they range from the tragic, to the morally vile.
They insist we call a club a spade and a crass, vulgar woman a lady. Sorry, ain’t going to happen anymore than we’re going to believe you when you piss on our legs and tell us it’s just raining.
donnie,
Since everyone is jumping on your for your comments in this thread I realize there’s no chance of you responding to everyone. But you have always been an insightful commenter (at least in my opinion) so I’d like to know what it is exactly you are trying to say.
If you click on insanitybytes22 name link it takes you to her blog. I think you can get more than your fill of her insights (sic) there. Oftentimes she posts further thoughts on conversations she participates in on other blogs.
If you click on insanitybytes22 name link it takes you to her blog.
Cool, thanks for the tip. FWIW my experience with her insights is here in the threads of Zippy’s posts where I’ve developed the impression, based solely on comments, that she demonstrates a solid grasp of the incoherence of liberalism and the necessity of authority better than a lot of folks, myself included. Which is why I find her comments in this thread… confusing. One would think that a person who understood why liberalism is false would also see why attempting to fight the evils of sexual assault while simultaneously conserving the evils of unchastity and immodesty is self-defeating.
I haven’t followed the Weinstein imbroglio closely (I barely knew who he was before the scandal broke), but is what was going on a basic quid pro quo: “You give me sex, I give you this part in the movie”?
Or are there actual credible allegations of something like rape or molestation?
It’s “all of the above.” Meaning there is reason to believe it ranges from women voluntarily trading in a quid pro quo (with a certain amount of disgust because he’s not exactly roguishly handsome), to accusations of forcible rape.
In the minds of a lot of people, the fact that the casting couch exists means every woman who sits on it is equally a victim and devoid of culpability. In a society that doesn’t try to “manage evil,” but that tries to actually “do good,” women who accept sexual advances from men would be held to the same standard as men who make them; the woman who chooses to perform for the troll to start a career would be treated like a prostitute and him like a John. The woman who says “eat sh#$ and die, @$$hole and walks out” to go work anywhere else would be held up as a woman of character.
“In a society that doesn’t try to “manage evil,” but that tries to actually “do good,” women who accept sexual advances from men would be held to the same standard as men who make them…”
That’s the essence of the problem right there,ironically a very liberal one. You cannot see the power differential,the inequality. Harvey Weinstein was in a position of authority. He had power which he obviously exploited. There is no “equal” between him and the women he exploited. His responsibility is far greater then the women he targeted.
I mentioned the red pills and game because they make a career out of psychologically abusing and manipulating women into having sex with them. That is a real thing in the world. Those the red pills target are victims. They are not equal partners operating under full moral agency,those pillians are predators going after prey.
You don’t get to than sit back and go, “well the deer just lead the hunter on with all that juicy venison,” as if the very dynamic itself is not inherently evil, immoral, tainted. So women,rather than being creatures created in the image of God, become prey you are entitled to exploit,since they aren’t really human anyway. And then if anyone has any qualms about that,you can just farther dehumanize women so we are now just self serving sinners who actually deserve to be prey.
insanitybytes22
I’d say that at least in the ‘quid pro quo’ scenarios, they are exactly equal in culpability.
For the women who were engaging in a straight-up quid pro quo and yet think that only Weinstein has done something worthy of censure, reminds me of this clip (though with the sexes reversed):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s-8GIEQjqW8
Re: Insanitybytes
Suppose we tweak the wording a bit: “women who accept [illicit] sexual advances from men would be held to [a] standard” and thus subject to some form of punishment, as the circumstances would determine. Would that be suitable?
And it is important to note that it is possible to be both a victim and a perpetrator. I could name any number of mitigating effects for the players as well. A boy who was spoiled by a “spared rod” and taught lies about all the most fundamental things during his formative years is certainly a victim.
Further, as alluded to above, to withhold appropriate discipline is not doing anyone any favors. “God chastises those he loves,” after all. While of course discipline and punishment should be tempered by reason and mercy, to withhold them altogether is to make them a victim all over again, and to endanger their souls.
That’s the essence of the problem right there,ironically a very liberal one. You cannot see the power differential,the inequality. Harvey Weinstein was in a position of authority. He had power which he obviously exploited. There is no “equal” between him and the women he exploited. His responsibility is far greater then the women he targeted.
Well, this is the important question:
What power?
His power was about breaking into the Hollywood acting field.
Not “I’ll kill your whole family”.
Not “I’ll ensure that you’ll be framed for crimes you didn’t commit and never be able to make any money ever again”.
No, his power was “I will make it harder for you to get into the fabulously wealthy and high status world of movies”.
If you decide to have sex with him because you really really want to be a movie star – well, you’re a whore who’s negotiated the price, right?
“I’d say that at least in the ‘quid pro quo’ scenarios, they are exactly equal in culpability.”
That’s precisely the problem. Why is it you cannot see power the imbalance there? What is the psychology behind that blindness?
Even Zippy doesn’t get it when he says, “Sometimes the less morally upright among the stronger and more physically powerful άνδρας would become aggressive; even to the point of taking, without explicitly granted permission, a morsel from the plate of a γυναίκα who had shoved the plate under his nose.”
That’s written by a defense attorney spinning excuses for his client. The guy isn’t really guilty, he’s just “less morally upright,” and being stronger and more powerful, has a completely understandable propensity for aggression when things are shoved under his nose.
There is no empathy for women at all, they are flat out Hollywood whores, fully culpable and guilty by virtue of their gender alone.
That’s the essence of the problem right there,ironically a very liberal one. You cannot see the power differential,the inequality. Harvey Weinstein was in a position of authority.
To paraphrase Homer Simpson, just because I don’t care doesn’t mean I don’t understand (or see).
o women,rather than being creatures created in the image of God, become prey you are entitled to exploit,since they aren’t really human anyway.
And the average woman considers the men around her to be nothing more than the mechanism by which she will get her dreams fulfilled and failing that, a source of cash and prizes. Welcome to the human race. Soon you’ll discover that in Capitalism, man exploits man and in Communism it’s the other way around. The world is filled with @$$holes of both genders. It’s why I sometimes question God’s decision to not call Noah and his family home, fill the Ark with a lot of uplifted dogs and start over.
So women,rather than being creatures created in the image of God, become prey you are entitled to exploit,since they aren’t really human anyway. And then if anyone has any qualms about that,you can just farther dehumanize women so we are now just self serving sinners who actually deserve to be prey.
I fail to see how treating women like they have moral agency dehumanizes them.
If the point you’re trying to make is that Weinstein’s sin is graver (perhaps even orders of magnitude graver) than the sins of those whom he assaulted, in an objective sense, then fine. But I didn’t read anyone here as attempting to draw any kind of false equivalency to the contrary.
Do you disagree that attempting to eradicate (predominantly male) sins of sexual assault while simultaneously conserving (predominantly female) sins of unchastity and immodesty is self-defeating?
There is no empathy for women at all, they are flat out Hollywood whores, fully culpable and guilty by virtue of their gender alone.
And folks, this is why IB was ruthlessly banned by Vox Day from his blogs. Such a comment is exceptionally dishonest.
1. Empathy has been shown to women in this very thread.
2. Statements about how the degree of culpability vary situationally, including reduced culpability due to the age of the female, have been presented.
3. No one has said that the women’s guilt has anything to do with gender.
So there you have it.
“Do you disagree that attempting to eradicate (predominantly male) sins of sexual assault while simultaneously conserving (predominantly female) sins of unchastity and immodesty is self-defeating?”
I do disagree. Women develop their sense of self worth from men. If the men in their lives have taught them women are nothing but whores,unchastity and immodesty follows. Sin tends to flow down stream. You will never see chastity and modesty in a woman who has been taught she has no worth and value. The Harvey Weinsteins of the world, the red pills, they set out to deliberately affirm the fact that women have no value or worth beyond our sexual convenience.
insanitybytes22 is one of the strongest arguments for me to just stay off the interwebz. Maybe she is a blessing in disguise that way.
Women, like men, sin outrageously and constantly if they are not formed better. These women were not corrupted. They started out corrupt. They daily worsen the corruption of billions of others. It’s not, as some said upthread, a matter of cruelty. It’s simply lust and vanity. Women dress and act provocatively because they want sex and no father or husband is there to stop them. This still makes conservatives uncomfortable to say right out. Sometimes these women are selling their bodies for career advancement but most of the time they are simply indulging their lust and rationalizing it afterwards as rape or abuse if they regret it. The Weinstein affair is a whole herd of women suddenly deciding they regret it. No one is a victim. 15 year olds and 25 year olds have equal moral agency here. They all intentionally put themselves in a place to be “abused” and baited men to abuse them, because they positively wanted it, and minutes, days, or years later, changed their feelings about it.
Either women have moral agency and therefore bear responsibility for their own decisions, or they don’t.
If they do, then see above. If they don’t, then they should be kept in private by those who do have moral agency, much like if a young child misbehaves, or appears to be unattached in public, people look for his parents.
You can’t claim women don’t have moral agency and claim they should be allowed to run about and make their own decisions.
If you claim that women do have moral agency, but it is in some way reduced (and with this, I’d agree), then precisely concomitant with that reduction is the restriction that should be placed upon women by those with full moral agency.
The combination idea that women aren’t moral agents, but that nevertheless restriction is itself immoral, is evil. And it’s precisely evil in the way of being rationally incoherent.
If you’re going to assign blame in the Weinstein case (purely as an example) to only men, and leave women free of all moral stain, then you need to assign it to more men than just Weinstein – you need to assign it to these women’s brothers, husbands, or other putatively-responsible male relatives for letting them go off into these situations alone, and you need to assign it to the men of our society at large for allowing, enforcing and encouraging this improper lack of restriction on women.
But if you do this, you have reduced women to the status of chattel, whole and entire. How very pagan.
Remember David Warren? He’s got some pretty solid thoughts also on the Weinstein matter.
I’ll grant the red pills one thing. At least they are honest about their hatred of women.
Re: Insanitybytes
If the problem is that these women think they have no value, then surely treating them as not worth punishing is just about the worst thing that could be done?
I’ve no fetish for equality, and neither the OP nor, with a couple exceptions (the only ones I’ve noticed are MikeT and KevinD), the commenters, has said anything about equality. If your only objection is that you think the men more culpable, consider it granted, at least for the sake of argument.
But less bad than the other guy doesn’t make you good.
Consider: with one side of your mouth you say “if the men in their lives have taught them women are nothing but whores,unchastity and immodesty follows,” and with the other side you object to the idea that they should be disciplined for inchastity. Do you understand why we might find this a bit ridiculous?
“….with the other side you object to the idea that they should be disciplined for inchastity.”
Discipline in this context apparently means corrective rape.
Where in the world did that come from?
I suppose the “every time a woman chooses to do something disgusting and immoral it is a man’s fault” meltdown is instructive in its own way.
“I suppose the “every time a woman chooses to do something disgusting and immoral it is a man’s fault” meltdown is instructive in its own way.”
When “disgusting and immoral” becomes something perceived as being inherent to your very gender, there’s not much one can do to escape it, is there?
Can you point to anywhere, anywhere at all in this thread, where someone has said anything like that?
The point of the OP amounts to the claim that a woman who goes out of her way to tempt men to sin bears some share of the blame if they succumb, and should not be surprised at the results. No one has said that the men who succumbed were not thereby sinning.
Now, if they have sinned, some form of punishment is appropriate. Perhaps the simple reputation of being a whore is sufficient under the circumstances, but then let them have that reputation. Do not seek to deprive them of such a potentially salutary lesson.
“That’s precisely the problem. Why is it you cannot see power the imbalance there?”
I mean, but what power?
Are you saying that Weinstein, in his position as a Hollywood executive had some unique power over Jane the aspiring actor? That would be like saying that John the thief has power over Bill, the guy who wants something stolen. And in a sense that could be true, but not in a way particular to men and women that you seem to be implying.
Or do you mean that John, by virtue of being a man, inherently has power over Jane the woman, by virtue of her being a woman? This to me seems to reduce the agency of women to less then that of men, something I’m not willing to do.
Or are you saying that the woman is less culpable because she has been molded by others into such a person who would accept such an immoral arrangement , and therefore these others share some of the blame? If that’s the case (which I would agree) then the same can be said about Weinstein. He has been molded by others into such a person who would offer such an immoral arrangement, and therefore these others share some of the blame.
Or is it something else? You say I’m blind, so I’m asking you to help me see.
It just always seems to me with such discussions that with a woman, she enjoys the reduced culpability of being a product of her environment, but with a man, the buck stops at him.
For an example of how a poor reputation might be a good thing for the woman in question, here is a brief account of St. Mary of Egypt from Alban Butler’s book of saints:
AT the tender age of twelve, Mary left her father’s house that she might sin without restraint, and for seventeen years she lived in shame at Alexandria. Then she accompanied a pilgrimage to Jerusalem, and entangled many in grievous sin. She was in that city on the Feast of the Exaltation of the Holy Cross, and went with the crowd to the church which contained the precious wood. The rest entered and adored; but Mary was invisibly held back. In that instant her misery and pollution burst upon her. Turning to the Immaculate Mother, whose picture faced her in the porch, she vowed thenceforth to do penance if she might enter and stand like Magdalen beside the Cross. Then she entered in. As she knelt before Our Lady on leaving the church, a voice came to her which said, “Pass over Jordan, and thou shalt find rest.” She went into the wilderness, and there, in 420, forty-seven years after, the Abbot Zosimus met her. She told him that for seventeen years the old songs and scenes had haunted her; ever since, she had had perfect peace. At her request he brought her on Holy Thursday the sacred body of Christ. She bade him return again after a year, and this time he found her corpse upon the sand, with an inscription sayings “Bury here the body of Mary the sinner.”
Note that it is the public cutting off from the rest of the people, setting her apart as someone unclean and unworthy even to enter a church building, that is the catalyst for the repentance without which she would have been lost.
“It just always seems to me with such discussions that with a woman, she enjoys the reduced culpability of being a product of her environment, but with a man, the buck stops at him.”
Kind of gets to the essence of masculinity and femininity, don’t you think? Can you tell me what I am supposed to do with all these men who suddenly seem to envy women so much,they actually want to become one?
At least in my little bubble, the very definition of manhood is that the buck stops with him. I don’t know what to make of all these men who perceive themselves as chronic victims and endlessly complain about how oppressed they are. It sounds a whole lot like feminism, just with the genders reversed.
“The definition of manhood is that the buck stops with him.”
Which is a a concept that logically necessitates that women inherently don’t have the same full moral agency that men do, and therefore require being kept in some way similar to how Rhetocrates describes. Now that would be logically consistent, as far as I can tell. Is this how you see the natures of men and women?
IB,
In your effort to reduce the culpability of the women who were not assaulted or raped, you have not made an argument for traditional. You have made an argument for Sharia. That is how morally inferior you have made women.
It is pretty clear that insanitybytes22 stopped even trying to grasp what other folks are actually saying some time ago. I suppose I am still mildly curious as to whether she would characterize Mayim Bialik’s article in the New York Times as “blaming the victim”.
It’s really discouraging to see such blindness, such foolishness, such unkindness towards women actually coming from men, and such things always begin to rot my soul, so I’ll just withdraw and leave you to it.
Literal sharia is a rounding error away from traditional Christian European sex roles. Disparaging sharia in these terms, with this moral frame, is unhelpful at best and cuckservatism at worst.
re: insanitybytes
As near as I can tell, your position on the responsibility women have for their sins, at least their sexual ones, amounts to “they were just following orders.”
Hrodgar,
As near as I can tell, your position on the responsibility women have for their sins, at least their sexual ones, amounts to “they were just following orders.”
And again, at the final judgment – “It was the man you made me to be with…”
Literal sharia is a rounding error away from traditional Christian European sex roles. Disparaging sharia in these terms, with this moral frame, is unhelpful at best and cuckservatism at worst.
The differences between traditional Christian gender roles and Sharia are much starker than you describe. For one, no Christian court would ever allow a woman to be stoned to death for being raped while sitting in her own home, minding her own business. Everyone who raised a stone would face the king’s justice for murder.
That is a rounding error compared to the perversions of the modern West. Also, we only hear about those stories through the filter of the media, so their accuracy (about the culpability of the woman) is suspect. These stories are moral agitprop. If the woman is culpable, then stoning is perfectly within natural and divine law.
And if she isn’t, well. Muslims are older than feminism and have been criticized for this sort of thing forever. Wicked. But still a rounding error.
The attitude modern Westerners have to pedophilia, racism, censorship, misogyny, injustice, Nazism, etc. is so far from a real moral conscience that it is changing the subject to repeat any of what they pass off as moral judgments. Even when they appear superficially correct, they are not really echoing the moral law.
InsanityBytes22,
I realize you probably won’t see this, but it just occurred to me that it might not be a terrible idea to have your husband read this thread and see what he thinks of it.
I’ll grant the red pills one thing. At least they are honest about their hatred of women.
Some of us are actually trying to understand the point you are attempting to get across, but spouting drivel like the above doesn’t help anyone.
You will never see chastity and modesty in a woman who has been taught she has no worth and value.
True, but I have also seen plenty of unchastity and immodesty from women who have been taught (by men, no less) that they have immense worth and value. Fathers who fail to instill a sense of inherent value and self worth in their daughters is not the deciding factor here.
To the extent your point is similar to what Rhetocrates already brought up, i.e. that women really have diminished moral culpability compared to men and that culpability for their sins in these situations actually lie with the husbands and fathers who fail to supervise them, I think this is a topic well worth exploring. Perhaps my belief that men and women share equal moral culpability in general is actually the result of some unexamined liberal assumption. That would be a discussion worth having.
But it is far from clear that this is your actual position.
How does everyone here put up with trying to take insanitybytes22 seriously? I feel like even to attempt it is akin to submitting once again to my mother’s advice to wear clothing she has picked out as appropriate for the season.
To the extent your point is similar to what Rhetocrates already brought up, i.e. that women really have diminished moral culpability compared to men and that culpability for their sins in these situations actually lie with the husbands and fathers who fail to supervise them, I think this is a topic well worth exploring. Perhaps my belief that men and women share equal moral culpability in general is actually the result of some unexamined liberal assumption. That would be a discussion worth having.
Agreed, donnie, except perhaps in holding out any hope that you are going to understand things any better by attempting to engage with ib22.
Part of the reason so many have patience is that many of us once needed patience shown to us, for us to see our liberalism through our panicked defence thereof.
buckyinky – I’ve only ever encountered insanitybytes22 here at Zippy’s blog; her comments to his many liberalism posts are generally pretty great IMO.
Successfully wrapping one’s head around Zippy’s understanding and repudiation of liberalism seems (at least to me) to be a much more challenging task than accepting that men and women have equal moral agency. But then again, maybe my belief that men and women are equal in this respect is itself an unexamined liberal assumption. Maybe ib22’s actual position is even more reactionary and traditional than ours in a “so far right it looks left” kind of way.
But if that’s the case than it would be nice if she could clarify so we could actually have a discussion around it.
TomD,
Part of the reason so many have patience is that many of us once needed patience shown to us, for us to see our liberalism through our panicked defence thereof.
Ditto.
Indeed TomD, yet there is some point where the pearls/swine analogy* becomes apt.
*see, it’s absolutely ridiculous that I should concern myself now with insanitybytes22’s likely conclusion that I have called her (and all women!!) swine.
I’ll grant the red pills one thing. At least they are honest about their hatred of women.
Just FYI, “The Red Pill” documentary is on Amazon Prime now. It centers around Dr. Warren Ferrel who could not be fairly characterized as a hater of women.
Scott W.,
It centers around Dr. Warren Ferrel who could not be fairly characterized as a hater of women.
Thanks Scott, and I (think I) realize you are probably being ironically understated, but still there’s a walking-on-eggshells undercurrent that it’s reasonable there are some among us who are haters of women. All it took was for ib22 to drop the ‘m’ word, I knew it was coming.
By the way Scott, do you still blog?
Zippy reminds us on every page of this site why to never take seriously or bother defending against accusations of hatred. It’s under the search bar or after the last comment on mobile.
Hatred means being the kind of jerk that every right-thinking person despises.
That is encouraging. No sarcasm intended.
Re: donnie
I would actually agree with her that (in general) women have less moral responsibility than men, for much the same reason children have less moral responsibility than adults. Though of course children do still have some moral responsibility and are still owed punishment, even before the age of reason. I’ll admit it’s not a topic I’ve given a whole lot of thought to, though.
If anyone is interested in ib22’s rhetoric slapped onto a Catholic website:
http://www.crisismagazine.com/2017/islam-hollywood-choice
I think this most troubling statement in that article:
Hrodgar:
Waaaay off topic now, but I’d argue that the purpose of punishment for pre-rational children is three-fold:
1) simple operant conditioning
2) children will grow up into culpability-capable moral agents, and this punishment will be part of the instruction for that agent
3) emotional relief for the parent (This one sounds nasty to modern ears because of the modern tendency to extremes, but it’s just as true for parents and children as that punishment of criminals is in part motivated by providing satisfaction to their victims.)
I’m just noodling around now, but it strikes me that we would expect one of two ‘distributions’ of moral agency among human beings:
– equality, perhaps modified by category (so women may have less moral agency than men, for example, but broadly speaking the moral agency of women is the same)
– a normal distribution centred around some ‘basic’ moral agency, with outliers to left and right.
I suppose which to expect really depends on what you mean by the word (meaning clarity, not nominalism). Is it an innate human binary trait? Or is it a feature which admits of gradation?
The existence of “should have known better” disproves equality pretty quickly, in my opinion.
Moral agency I usually think of as the simple ability to choose between good and evil, which applies to all rational beings with free will. Hence why I used the word responsibility. And I was mostly thinking of mitigating and exacerbating factors. A person in authority always has more responsibility (moral and otherwise) than subordinates, and those less ability for moral reasoning or understanding their obligations will naturally be less culpable than those that are. This whole discussion my mind keeps going back to that conversation between the regimental commander and Drill Sergeant Zim in Starship Troopers, where Zim is getting chewed out for letting a recruit do something that required them to kick him out.
At any rate, all three of those will, in general and I’m sure along with any number of other factors, apply to women, which is why ancient writers tend to (in my experience) regard women possessed of typically masculine virtues as so remarkable, in much the same way that Daniel is remarkable as a child in the story of Susanna. Given this, it seems reasonable to suppose that they naturally bear less responsibility. Which leads naturally to the conclusions spelled out by Rhetocrates at 1:02pm today.
Hrodgar,
That’s all well and good, even quite reasonable. However, I don’t think anyone here got the impression that that was her position.
Re: MikeT
Which is why I didn’t say I agreed with her point blank. I was agreeing with a specific proposition.
To be clear on my own position, I do think women are moral agents, culpable for their own actions. I also think they are on-average less able to foresee the consequences of their actions, either through lack of intelligence or more violent emotion or some other reason. (There are lots of theories to explain the fact, but fact it remains.)
I also think, even if that weren’t true, it’s objectively dangerous and corruptive to have ‘unregulated’ (viz. un-attached) women bouncing around in a society, simply because what they represent to men, whether they like it or not, and regardless of all claims of fairness and equality. In this case, the common good isn’t fair.
Note, however, that I didn’t say ‘owned’. Western (Christian) society, when not under pressure, treats the woman as the helpmeet of the man, which is different both from the slave and from the equal. Women are neither chattel nor independent in the Western tradition. Instead, they are recognized as companion souls, innately meant and innately suited to completing the man-woman duality to create a greater spiritual whole, oriented in its differentiation as a unity toward God, reflecting in microcosm the relation between God and His creation.
So Hollywood is an organization that places a high premium on female looks while promising money, attractive and powerful men, and high status.
Given this, it’s no wonder women are willing to whore themselves out and this creates an entitlement mentality in the men.
This is not that hard, honestly.
As for folks like Roissy, considering how much effort he makes to be around, curry favor with, and have sex with women hatred would seem to be the least of his vices.
RE rape in general, it would be fascinating if we could tear into the rape stats and get down to how many women in 2016 and 2017 were subjected to forcible rape or intoxicated against their will. I would hazard a guess that if you put the stats up next to male-on-male and the pattern of adult women pursuing male minors, the stats would not be flattering to the folks who are obsessed with fighting our “rape culture” as it would implicate gay and bisexual men heavily and show women are hardly innocent.
Our society still has a high degree of tolerance for prison rape and ignores the male-on-male issue in the military (I think it’s estimated to be 60% of all sexual violence in the military). For all these folks are worried about women, they ignore the fact that women generally don’t face the risk of something like a prolapsed anus from the sort of rape they’re at risk of suffering.
Obviously, it’s all bad, but our society clearly has some rather terrible blind spots it has no interest in addressing.
Nice.
Not mentioned was the common practice of the γυναίκα to quietly share their ambrosia generously with the most poorly behaved members of the άνδρας tribe.
Stipulating that the cops very well may be held dead to rights in this case, it’s educational to see how reducing sexual morality to matters of consent has lead to people being literally incapable of believing that a woman in police custody could freely choose to have sex as a bribe to not continue with the charges against her.
Granted, she claims she never consented to any of it, but as usual it’s everyone else’s reaction that is far more interesting.
IB and people like her would probably castigate us for calling consenting to a bribe there a matter of prostitution because the poor, poor woman would feel like she just had to have sex against her will. Well, no #$%^, Sherlock. That’s what happens when you get caught committing a felony and the only way you’re going to slip out of it is if you happen to be “fortunate enough” to run into an unethical cop who is willing to look the other way in exchange for something he wants.
(A rational moral examination would be that she is “trading something she doesn’t want to give for freedom she desperately wants when what she deserves to have happen to her is a stay in state prison or Club Fed.”)
That argument, taken to extremes, prevents buying anything – whenever I purchase something for whatever amount, I’d rather have both the money and the thing – so am I not freely choosing to buy things?
Freedom is evolving such that no free choices whatsoever can be done.
It’s ironic that there are actually more ways to commit secular sexual sins under modern law than there were religious sexual sins under the Mosaic Law, and most of that has nothing to do with technology.
Mike T.:
I object to your calling the cop “unethical”! Best I can glean from the article the young woman in question is not only known to be “loose” sexually speaking, but a “looker” t’boot. She has all the power and apparently isn’t ashamed to use it.
No wonder anti-feminism and “game” is such a thing these days! 😉
Further explorations in the annals of muh precious victimhood…
https://www.catholicvote.org/metoo-my-harassment-came-at-the-hands-of-male-feminists/#prettyPhoto
Trying to figure out what is so dishonest about these sorts of articles. It is as if each one of them presents as a titillating expose that humans of the male sex are dishonest, rude, arrogant, and downright sinful; that heretofore the author (and presumably the reader) had no idea that such things could be; and finally, that a reflection upon faults common to one’s own sex is stuff of unreality. The traitorous liberal women spoken of in the article are inexplicably batting for the evil other team, the harassing males, and as such, are more like men than women.
If anyone cares to look at that Catholic Vote article I linked, I think it’s worth noting the photograph attached to it. Excellent study in sentimental propaganda, and craven dishonesty.
T Morris,
I am just splitting the difference since it is the NYPD after all. This is a department that is not exactly clean in its record on sexual violence.
buckyinky,
I chose not to respond, and the student continued to post angry and mocking Facebook statuses about me–in the comments, his friends (some of them women) threatened to find me and beat me up.
Dealing with bullies is never a pleasant thing, but one nice thing about being an adult is that you can cheerfully inform said bullies that this isn’t recess and no one with a badge is going to cry if you see their fists and raise them a 9mm should they come hunting for you. Because I can pretty much assure you that no prosecutor who values their career is going to waste time trying to charge you for shooting one of these people dead should they travel across town to find you and violently assault you.
Also, Asia Argento is not exactly looking good in her choice of associates as she tries to take down Weinstein. I could be mistaken, but I’m not aware of Weinstein pulling the same sort of stunt that Polanski did. But as the lady named after the act that made her reminds us, it wasn’t “rape-rape” then, now as it?
TomD:
Actually making choices reduces the number of potential choices, and therefore restricts freedom.
Just a little musing on what has come to pass in the secular year now gone…
It strikes me that the #metoo phenomenon does most of its damage not in the explicitly feminist hysteria that it has created, nor in those who have embraced the hysteria wholeheartedly. More damage has been done in and by those who have felt compelled to speak on the matter as an opposing voice, but also obligated to begin with “Of course holding men accountable for their sexual proclivities is a good thing, but…”
I think it’s another good example of why trying to play inside the liberal playground just makes the whole thing worse, even if you have “good intentions” and a AP1000D.
Yes, it happens more and more that even entering a conversation on a political topic is disparaging, made impossible by something more insurmountable than a language barrier.