Connect with us

Culture and Religion

#Metoo, Or #TooFar?

Published

on

Metoo Or TooFar

Feminism is running off a cliff. Now that’s not news. They’ve been doing it for decades. With their increasingly misandrist ideology and their moral hypocrisy, feminists have made themselves an intellectual laughingstock across the world. Their latest cliff is #Metoo feminism.

#Metoo began as the outgrowth of accusations against Harvey Weinstein. Weinstein, who almost makes me ashamed to be a man, took rapacious advantage of his position of power and wealth in Hollywood, to sleep with (and rape) a considerable number of young women. The shock surrounding this has been public outrage that is… not to be entirely trusted.

It is easy for Hollywood actresses, who have wealth and status, to denounce Weinstein and other piggish men for their misdeeds, because it costs them nothing. Since the outing of Weinstein accusing him of sexual misdeeds is like accusing Al Qaeda of killing people. Neither is newsworthy. It would have been courage for a young woman to denounce Weinstein last year, or in the 20 plus years he’s been doing this. But then the cost would have been terrifying. The loss of a career before it started. I don’t blame these women for not coming out. I’ve known survivors of sexual abuse and rape, and they are not to blame if they cannot speak out. But to praise as heroines women who jump on a bandwagon, is an unfit use of the word ‘hero.’

But what’s worse is the demand that we ‘believe all women,’ who claim to have been victimized. Many men have been accused of misconduct by a woman, but never have the women been so universally believed. Not believed by police or courts of law, which have rules to determine their behavior towards the accused. But by courts of public opinion. By a media class which wants to propagate a narrative of bestial men abusing women.

I’m not saying we shouldn’t listen to these women, or take them seriously. But we can’t just believe them and treat the men they accuse like criminals. Some of these men, Weinstein, Cosby, Louis and perhaps Moore, are likely guilty of something. But let’s judge carefully before we throw them under the bus.

The writer Claire Berlinski has penned an interesting piece on this topic in American Interest. She recounts how, as a young undergrad at Oxford, her behind was pinched by a rather drunk Oxford don at a Christmas party. The don said, I’ve been dying to do this to Berlinski all term!” Alright, the man might have done something piggish while tipsy, this happens on college campuses continually. But what’s interest was Berlinski’s response, “I knew full well he’d been dying to do that. Our tutorials—which took place one-on-one, with no chaperones—were livelier intellectually for that sublimated undercurrent. He was an Oxford don and so had power over me, sensu stricto. I was a 20-year-old undergraduate. But I also had power over him—power sufficient to cause a venerable don to make a perfect fool of himself at a Christmas party.”

A 20-year old woman brought a don to make a fool of himself in the presence of others. And feminists complain of not having power? The power a pretty woman can exert over a man is tremendous. There’s a reason why Helen of Troy launched a thousand ships, she was the most desirable woman in Hellas. Berlinkski’s don was acting on the same motive that Paris was. They found a woman attractive, and did something foolish to show it.

She goes on to say, “Courtship is not a phenomenon so minor to our behavioral repertoire that we can readily expunge it from the workplace. It is central to human life. Men and women are attracted to each other; the human race could not perpetuate itself otherwise; and anyone who imagines they will cease to be attracted to each other—or act as if they were not—in the workplace, or any other place, is delusional.”

Absolutely correct. I’ve been in blue-collar work for years, and no one ever follows the rules laid down by feminists. I’ve heard lewd jokes cracked in mixed company, discussions of celebrities sexual attractiveness and open flirting on the job site. None of this should be shocking, because it’s nature taking its course. Men and women are still, no matter what, men and women. Attractions occur, sometimes they’re acted upon, with a variety of consequences.

We’re heading towards a world where a man can’t express interest in a woman under any circumstances, at all. London’s police are considering whether to count wolf whistling at a woman as a crime.

As a man, I say this stuff is terrifying. We’re starting to treat the remotest expression of male sexuality as being a crime. Is this really the road we want to take? We’re going to find people we’re attracted to, sometimes at work, and whether we do anything about it is in our hands.

Are we going to end in a place where a man can’t act on his sexual attraction to a woman? Because that’s how babies are made, folks.

Being male is no crime. Being interested in women around us is no crime either. How we, as men, act upon those attractions are regulated by social convention, laws and our own moral codes as individuals. If we occasionally make fools of ourselves, or even go too far, please don’t hold that against us. We’re not necessarily criminals or creeps. Inside of us sits a Tom Sawyer, who’ll make a total fool of himself for the sake of impressing a pretty girl.

Advertisement
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Conservatism

What Steven Crowder’s latest pro-life Change My Mind reveals

Published

on

What Steven Crowders latest pro-life Change My Mind reveals

Steven Crowder in his most recent edition of “Change My Mind” experienced more aggressive pro-abortion arguments than he had in the previous installments. The episode featured people arguing that moral personhood began at birth or even “experience.” Often times, Change My Mind demonstrates that under scrutiny, arguments have flaws. Such is the method that got Socrates killed. With all of these discussions, the failure to prove the lack of humanity for a fetus proved unconvincing and logically undefended by its proponents. But I want to address the intrinsic instinct, the universal morality, that could not stay buried under layers of denial. These pro-abortion advocates, deep down, know they are wrong.

In all four conversations, late term abortion was supported. However the caveat of threat to the mother was brought up, despite the rarity of such occurrence. Steven Crowder called them out, citing the fact that they said they would support third trimester abortion even if it were not a threat to the mother by their own previous admission. The proponents then hesitantly agreed. So Crowder then asked “why bring it up?” That is the question. Why would abortion advocates rely on such extreme examples?

I believe that deep down, those who have not finished their leftist training have not intrinsically forsaken the convicting power of conscious, because of what I observed in this video. The latter two proponents came off as not even believing what they were saying. The first was a hardcore stoner. The second was a perhaps shy of being a feminist. The stoner gentleman said “breath” was the transfer of moral personhood and if a baby came out and had yet to breath, it would not yet be human, therefore justified in killing it. The last one suggested the ultra vague notion of “experience” rendered moral personhood. Yet she agreed that the experiences of the unborn were valid human experiences and then whimsically concluded that it was still okay to kill them.

She, in particular, sounded really unconvinced in her own stance. I thought she was going to make a utilitarian argument that would have led to an interesting discussion about quantifying human suffering. This would have been a better argument than “experience” which is even less defensible than sentience. The gentleman in the beginning argued that a fetus was a parasite but then insisted it was not autonomous. Biologically speaking a parasite is autonomous from its host.

These two claims are mutually exclusive. Three of these students presented arguments that I was unconvinced they themselves even believed. I am shocked that this was my takeaway, for on every other Change My Mind, even the other three installments on abortion, I believed that the guests genuinely believed their own arguments.

If a fetus is not human, there would be no need to rely on extreme examples to defend abortion. It’s becoming increasingly obvious that abortion is an affront to natural law, as science increasingly supports the notion of human life at creation. The Founding Fathers so cleverly wrote that our rights were self evident. The affront to these self evident rights will naturally be difficult to defend logically. This is why the abortion advocates had such poor arguments with premises that could not withstand charitable scrutiny. In this case, the pro-abortion advocates all believed a conclusion of abortion permissibility, without internally accepting the premises necessary to support the conclusion and the implications they would ensue from said premises.

There is a difference between a person being reputably evil and plainly gullible. That difference would be seen as someone who simply accept that a fetus is not human and simply doesn’t care. These college students weren’t there yet. Nor is the rest of the country as a whole. So there is reason for hope.

Will you help revive the American Conservative Movement?

 


NOQ Report Needs Your Help

Continue Reading

Culture and Religion

Intellectual discourse versus Biblical snippets to spread the Gospel

Published

on

Intellectual discourse versus Biblical snippets to spread the Gospel

In a world with a shortening attention span, is it better to drop “Bible bombs” on people in the short time they give us? With a topic as complex as a Biblical worldview, is it better to deliver long-form dissertations and engage in extended debate?

The answer to both questions is, “Yes.”

Those of us who are trying to spread the Gospel and bring more people to the light are tasked with a difficult challenge to overcome. Much of the world is shifting towards a secular worldview and abandoning the truth of the Bible. Even though people abroad are coming into the faith in astounding numbers, people in western culture are often pulling away.

We are faced with the two big challenges: time and effort. Sometimes, people simply won’t allow enough time to learn about the Bible, our Creator, our Savior, or any of the other portions of faith that are required to penetrate the evil haze that is sweeping across western culture. On the other hand, there is a need to be prepared for those instances when someone is open to discussion, when they have questions and are willing to look deeper to find the answers.

The former often requires us to be ready with a Biblical “elevator pitch” in order to establish the latter. This is one of the reasons why we’re so focused on social media. It’s a venue that we believe can bring people into the state of mind of asking questions. While it’s likely not possible for a Tweet to make people change their worldview, we see it as a prompt to act on the nagging feelings that have been hitting them but that they’ve never pursued in the past.

Once you have people asking questions, it’s important to have the right answers readily available. If they come to you for guidance and you’re not ready to deliver it, you can actually do more harm than good. It’s a fear that has enveloped us at times. It has driven us to a state of constant study; not a day goes by when we’re not doing something to expand our understanding and sharpen our abilities to deliver the right message at the right time.

Prayer is the most important thing you can do. It’s even more important than studying. If you can tap into the message through prayer and Bible study, the Lord will provide you with the words you need when the time to deliver them comes.

One does not have to go to seminary to be able to answer questions when they are asked. Between the internet and, of course, the Bible, the answers will present themselves if you’re are simply willing to look.

Will you help revive the American Conservative Movement?

 


NOQ Report Needs Your Help

Continue Reading

Culture and Religion

Lila Rose reveals the heinous statistics about Down Syndrome abortions

Published

on

Lila Rose reveals the heinous statistics about Down Syndrome abortions

Yesterday was World Down Syndrome Day, and while many celebrated the wonderful successes and challenges overcome by those with Down Syndrome as well as their families, many in the pro-life movement highlighted a disturbing trend. With our ability to identify Down Syndrome from the womb, aborting babies with the condition has become so commonplace, the Down Syndrome population is non-existent in some countries.

Live Action founder Lila Rose took to Twitter to share some of these depressing statistics, including the horrible increased frequency in which it now happens in the United States. Anyone who knows someone with Down Syndrome must acknowledge their value and the fact that their lives should not be snuffed out because the scientific community says it’s a good thing.

Every life is a gift. Every single one of them. The “humane” murder of preborn babies because of their condition is one of the most mystifying stances of the “progressive” left.

Will you help revive the American Conservative Movement?

 


NOQ Report Needs Your Help

Continue Reading

Facebook

Trending

Copyright © 2019 NOQ Report