A Feminist Flare-Up

Is the "Year of Conservative Women" bad for women?

Perhaps all the talk of the "Year of the Conservative Woman," sparked by the crop of fairly conservative Republican women running for office, has slightly unhinged some feminists on the left. Or maybe it's a flare-up of the Palin Derangement Syndrome caused by Sarah Palin's galling insistence on calling herself a feminist. For whatever reason, the Feminist Dogma Police is out in force, handing down edicts on where the party lines must be drawn—and, for whatever reason, they have been getting a platform for these edicts not in specialty publications but in the mainstream media. The loser, ultimately, is feminism itself.

First, The Washington Post ran blogger Jessica Valenti's diatribe against Palin and other women who, in her view, were trying to usurp the feminist mantle. Sure, Valenti allowed, diversity of opinions is good—but goddess forbid there should be feminists who dissent from the sisterhood's orthodoxy on abortion or pay equity, or who believe that women in America today are not oppressed by "the patriarchy." Then, Slate published a piece by another big gun of the left-wing feminist blogosphere, Amanda Marcotte, titled "A short history of 'feminist' anti-feminists" and painting Palin as the latest in a line of "women who call themselves feminist" while opposing the feminist movement.

Marcotte's account, which identifies three generations of "feminist anti-feminists," is pretty shoddy history. For one, her first generation—the Eagle Forum's Phyllis Schlafly or Concerned Women for America founder Beverly LaHaye—consists of women who never called themselves feminists and explicitly opposed gender equality as counter to the God-given roles of the sexes. (Bizarrely, Marcotte even calls this first wave "plain ol' anti-feminism.") And her third generation, which includes Palin and is clumsily labeled "co-opting feminism anti-feminism," is a random list of women and organizations whose only common feature seems to be that they either oppose abortion or believe that women are ill-served by a sexually permissive culture.

Then there's Marcotte's attack on what she classes as the second wave of feminism's critics: "'Independent Feminism' Anti-Feminism," of which I myself have been a part. Arising in the early 1990s, "independent feminism" embraced the feminist challenge to women's traditional place but also asserted that the major battles for women's rights had been won—and not only celebrated feminist achievements but questioned exaggerated claims of female oppression and male evil. Among other things, this dissident feminism criticized the tendency to redefine rape (particularly "date rape") so broadly as to include miscommunication due to mixed signals or sex under the influence of alcohol.

Marcotte sarcastically asserts that one of the major "victories" of "independent feminism" was "maintaining a cultural and legal framework that made it difficult to prosecute rape." What does this mean? Her previous writings on the subject provide some context. In 2006-2007, Marcotte emerged as a leader of the cyber-lynch mob in the Duke University rape hoax. On her blog, anyone questioning the guilt of the three lacrosse players charged with sexually assaulting an exotic dancer at a team party was branded a "rape apologist." In a particularly vicious broadside, she sneered at syndicated columnist Kathleen Parker for arguing that "unless the victim is 9 years old and a virgin and white and blonde ... rape isn't so much a crime as a feminist plot to put all men in jail." This wasn't so much hyperbole as outright distortion: while Parker had deplored the "rush to judgment" in the Duke case, she had explicitly condemned the notion that the alleged victim was less deserving of sympathy because she was a stripper. (Parker is one of the "independent feminists" on Marcotte's Slate blacklist.)

The true extent of Marcotte's hate-filled zealotry is evident in a profanity-laced rant she posted about a CNN special report on the Duke case aired after the rape charges were dismissed. (She later deleted the post when it became an issue in the controversy over her short-lived appointment as blog coordinator for the John Edwards’ presidential campaign.) Slamming CNN as "pure evil," Marcotte vented her outrage at having to "listen to how the poor dear lacrosse players at Duke are being persecuted just because they held someone down and f***ed her against her will," and concluded sarcastically, "Can't a few white boys sexually assault a black woman anymore without people getting all wound up about it? So unfair."

It seems that, in Marcotte's eyes, the real crime of the "independent feminists'" is helping preserve the idea that the presumption of innocence applies even in cases of rape and sexual assault. If so, that is indeed a victory. Depriving men of their civil rights is no victory for women—both as a matter of principle and because most women have men in their lives whom they would not want to see face a false charge of rape under Marcotte-style standards of justice.

The real mystery is why a publication of Slate's stature, and its "women's section," Double XX, would run an article whose main purpose is to exclude dissent from feminist discourse and smear the dissenters. (Whether any respectable media outlet would extend such courtesy to a blogger who wrote about women, gays, or black men with the kind of vitriol Marcotte shows toward white males is another question.) What happened to letting a hundred flowers bloom?

For the record, I strongly disagree with some of the women on Marcotte's enemies list, right-to-life feminists in particular. Aside from the issue of government control over people's bodies, I am troubled by their tendency to portray women who have abortions as victims of predatory males—rhetoric that echoes the "victim feminists" of the left. But that doesn't mean there should be no place at the feminist table for women who genuinely believe that abortion is the taking of a human life, no dialogue or search for compromise. Yes, even the biggest tent must have some boundaries: to expand "feminism" to include advocacy of male superiority or female submission would strip the concept of all meaning. But, last time I checked, women who held such views were in no rush to appropriate the term. And if the question is how best to achieve gender equity and how much of it has been achieved already, why not try debate rather than excommunication?

Cathy Young writes a weekly column for RealClearPolitics and is also a contributing editor at Reason magazine. She blogs at http://cathyyoung.wordpress.com/. This article originally appeared at RealClearPolitics.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • Fiscal Meth||

    Dibs

  • ||

    Hmm, why would slate publish a hateful cunt like Marcotte? One suspects that controversy driven clicks might have something to do with it.

  • BakedPenguin||

    If they really wanted extra clicks, they should have a rebuttal by Wendy McElroy.

    Of course, they would never print anything by McElroy, so the point is moot.

  • Joey||

    The point is moo.

  • Chandler||

    Moo?

  • Joey||

    Yeah, moo. It's what a cow says. Moo. It doesn't mean anything. The point is moo.

  • The Art-P.O.G.||

    Heh heh heh

  • BakedPenguin||

    Laughing at a Friends bit, Art?

    Shame.

  • ||

    What an unfunny show.

  • BakedPenguin||

    Could you be any more correct, Pro Lib?

  • DADIODADDY||

    Coulld you be any more moo, BakedPenguin?

  • The Angry Optimist||

    "The One with the Lame Joke"

  • ||

    No. According to the OED, the word "unfunny" is defined as "that which is observed on the American television situation 'comedy' known as Friends."

  • Cyto||

    BakedPenguin

    Laughing at a Friends bit, Art?

    Shame.

    I note that you got the reference...

  • Nephilium||

    Don't you mean "mu"?

  • lunchstealer||

    Dunno Nephillium. You might want to unask that question.

  • Lrr||

    This is ancient Earth's most foolish program. Why does Ross, the largest friend, not simply eat the other five?

  • ||

    That's the smartest observation ever made about that show.

  • ||

    I'm pretty sure he ate Rachel.

  • Rabbi Mermelstein||

    Ah ah ah! She's not kosher Ross!

  • Ross||

    But her last name is Green! How is that so not Jewish?

  • Alvin Greene||

    Hell, I ain't no Jew. Whaaaaaat?!

  • The commitee||

    Thread winner!!! Alvin Greene!

  • The Art-P.O.G.||

    The shame of laughing at a "Friends" bit. Ick.

  • ||

    i'd rather slam my dick in a car door than watch friends...
    Alvin Greene huh? not a jew? you're surely black. Gawd please tell me you are the world's only black jew

  • Michael Ejercito||

    Hmm, why would slate publish a hateful cunt like Marcotte?


    Don't you mean a hateful cunt with a dusty, cobweb-filled cunt like Marcotte?

  • lunchstealer||

    I dunno. If she put on some makeup and wore a short skirt, she might be hot.

  • Michael Ejercito||

    If she put on some makeup and wore a short skirt, she might be hot.


    She would have to be someone other than Amanda Marcotte to do so.

  • The Art-P.O.G.||

    She looks like a Nurse Ratched to me.

  • christian louboutin||

    For my part,Dita von teese and Scarlett and Johansson are the suitable ones.Because they share the common characters:sexy and charming,and this suits the designing style of well."To those dancers,shoes are the most important.They must be comfortable,beautiful,sexy,and attract the people.My thinking was simple,just let these girls wore the shoes I made.They will be more comfortable,more beautiful than those on their feet.

  • ||

    the crop of fairly conservative Republican women running for office, has slightly unhinged some feminists on the left.

    I think being slightly unhinged dates back a little further than this year's primaries.

  • ||

    The ultimate loser, Young argues, is feminism itself

    "Feminism" has been irrelevant for decades. They've gotten everything they're entitled to under the Constitution, and more. This non-movement's advocates are always hopelessly behind the curve.

  • Michael Ejercito||

    "Feminism" has been irrelevant for decades. They've gotten everything they're entitled to under the Constitution, and more. This non-movement's advocates are always hopelessly behind the curve.


    They did not get the ERA, which would have required strict scrutiny to be applied to sexual discrimination claims.

  • ||

    ERA=Earned Run Average

    there's no crying in baseball

  • Miku||

    I usually agree with what you write, but not here. There is still the issue with pay difference, and maybe that is not something that should be solved by the government, but it is definitely a societal problem. Women still are raped at levels that are to high, they have gained legal rights, but have not finished the change in commonly heald belief to reduce that. Feminism may have won their most important legal battles, but society does not yet treat women as equal to men, and that is a problem.

  • Prophet||

    Pay differences between men and women are largely due to factors other than sexism. The major difference come from continuity of employment and the types of careers that women have typically chosen. Of course, with women waiting longer to have children and graduating from college at higher rates than men, I wouldn't be surprised if the "pay gap" continues to shrink. Trying to compare male pay to female pay is very difficult. For the most part, it's apples and oranges. If one wanted to see if women really made less than men, we would have to find comparable subjects, such as a male and female that were both 40 years old, have been in their line of work for the same amount of time, with the same education background, and were equally able to work the same hours, which brings me to another point. On average, men work more hours than women. Women should get paid equal pay for equal work, as long as they are equally qualified and work equally as hard. However, we should not assume that businesses are sexist just because a difficult to compare statistic shows that women make less than men.

  • ||

    Slightly unhinged? A lot of those chicks are way, way beyond unhinged.

  • ||

    Groups have the right to self-define. The problem is not that there is too much ideological purity, but too little. Almost all gross violations of self-ownership rights are the result of a unwieldy chimera of disparate groups swallowing their bile long enough to hammer out a compromise that pleases almost no one except fans of authoritarianism.

    I'd love to see 40 or so hard-line ideological political parties. The lines would be clearly drawn and the stakes of compromising principles would be clear.

  • ||

    NutraSweet wants to see the Feministing Party, the Jezebel Party, and the NutraFisting Party. Just to be clear.

  • Soylent Greens||

    "the NutraFisting Party"

    Where can I sign up for their news letter?

  • ||

    Does this qualify as H&R's Daily Soylent Green Reference­™?

  • DADIODADDY||

    Will there be extreme mud wrestling? Winner take all...

  • Whimpering Moron||

    BUt...But...HITLER!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

  • qwerty||

    You're joking, but there is a point here. Hitler never got a majority, but because Weimar Germany had a bunch of small parties, he could still win a plurality and gain power. If 1930s Germany had had 2 major parties, Hitler probably would never have come to power.

  • DADIODADDY||

    +2 douche points

  • The Art-P.O.G.||

    Ha ha ha ha, what? I've never heard the Godwin defense of the 2-party system before.

  • ||

    Groups have the right to self-define.
    Can you clarify this, please?

    I can see if we were talking about a group of people who create a formal group called "The Feminists" and (just to be legally clear) register a trademark of "The Feminists". Then it makes sense that anyone should not be able to say they are affiliate with "The Feminists" without their consent.

    On the other hand, for an amorphous group like feminists or libertarians, who would be qualified or authorized to say who should or shouldn't be able to describe themselves as such?

    Can you own an adjective?

  • ||

    "The real mystery is why a publication of Slate's stature, and its "women's section," Double XX, would run an article whose main purpose is to exclude dissent from feminist discourse and smear the dissenters."

    Do you ever read Slate Cathy? And XX in particular? If you have, then this wouldn't be a mystery. This is a publication that employs Emily Baylzon and Dalia Lithwick for God's sake.

  • ||

    Double XX and the Marocettes have been feuding for years. Feministing and Jezebel slag on it constantly. (It has died down a bit.)

    It is a mystery of why Slate ran that piece, but one easily explained by courting controversy to garner page-hits.

  • ||

    Really? I didn't know that. I depend on you for all the gossip in the bat shit crazy feminist circles. You report so we don't have to. You are doing God's work Sugar Free.

  • ||

    """You report so we don't have to. You are doing God's work Sugar Free."""

    Right. I have no knowledge of what goes on in the feminist circles, and no interest of knowing. I'll gladly defer to SugarFree's reports.

  • Warty||

    In some of the country's toughest neighborhoods.

  • ||

    Forgot that part. Good catch.

  • Typical Feminist ||

    Sexist! That's no way to talk about our beautiful flowery orchids! Are you implying we're loose?

  • ||

    Quite the opposite. Uber tight and dry as a desert.

  • BakedPenguin||

    Why not Andrea Dworkin? Considering the crap they've printed, they must think calling for the literal emasculation of men isn't hateful, or anything.

  • ||

    Dworkin's dead, baby. Dworkin's dead.

  • BakedPenguin||

    What a shame. I'm sure she was working on the feminist version of Mein Kampf when she died, and now the world will be denied such a brilliant treatise.

  • ||

    It a story to horrible to fully recall, but I've listened to Dworkin speechify for hours. Stupid job.

  • ||

    You know, the problem with post-modern thought and identity politics is that people can make ridiculous statements without being generally labeled as complete buffoons. A truly sane culture would've laughed and laughed and laughed at idiots like Dworkin.

  • ||

    I respect her for her ability to provide red meat for braying crowds, but that doesn't invest her ideas with any sort of validity.

    By the way, that she had a long-term sham marriage with a gay guy supposedly proves she didn't hate men.

  • T||

    I always wondered about him. How full of self-loathing must he have been to voluntarily put up with that?

  • ||

    I bet he wasn't gay. I bet she was having traditional, heterosexual sex with the man. Scandal!

  • DADIODADDY||

    Can there be an incomplete buffon?

  • Hooha||

    we're all incomplete buffoons, except, of course, for the complete buffoons.

  • DADIODADDY||

    A truly sane culture would have feed her to alligators...

  • ||

    And what makes you think that the alligators would want to eat her?

  • Astropud||

    Didn't I just read this article on RCP?

  • ||

    Hmm, why would slate publish a hateful cunt like Marcotte? One suspects that controversy driven clicks might have something to do with it.

    Or the fact that Mandy is the Ali G of the feminist movement and makes me giggle!

  • ▲ ▲||

    She just wants some respek.

  • Rich||

    feminism itself, feminist anti-feminists, co-opting feminism anti-feminism, plain ol' anti-feminism, ...

    With all due respect, I have no idea wheat any of this means. Does that make me a "plain ol' feminist"?

  • Rich||

    Real men never use preview. ;-)

  • ||

    The comments on Marcotte's blog where she retracts the post are a hoot. They are Feministing worthy. I love this one

    "Imagine living in Durham, working at Duke, hearing about it everyday in the local news as well as the national, having every person you’ve ever known all over the country have an opinion about your vote in a local election, having your relatives telling you at Christmas dinner how wrong you are to support your local justice system or like living in your town since it’s obviously corrupt because it believes poor black women over rich white men. It’s like being stuck at the airport…forever."

  • Cyto||

    Wow, that's a gem.

    She's right though, it's because the stripper is poor and black. If that white kid wasn't rich he wouldn't have had money in the bank, so he wouldn't have ATM receipts showing he wasn't there at the time of the alleged incident.

    You're all a bunch of racists. And sexists, don't forget that. Pigs.

  • ||

    The Feministing post on the resolution of the case was a real gem.

    The charges were dropped. Does this mean that they are innocent? None of us actually know what happened that night. Sorry, unless you were there, you don't know what happened. Now for the rest of you that have such a die hard belief in the criminal justice system and evidence, well quite frankly I pity you. This is a system that arrests a disproportionate number of people of color, subjecting them to unfair trials, inadequate representation and longer sentences (in a prison system that resembles slavery) SORRY, I don't trust the courts. When you're a woman of color who's a sexworker, up against white kids with money that can afford *good* lawyers, the outcome is not looking so good.

    They were not found to be innocent, the charges were dropped from lack of evidence. Moreover, innocent until proven guilty only applies to certain people. Ideally, it would apply to everyone but *a lot* of people are guilty at arrest, just for being who they are and where they are. We are not operating in a vacuum, but within a long history of corruption and injustice in the supposed justice system. So, if these guys were in fact falsely accused, they got a taste of how black men are treated EVERY DAY by the criminal justice system.
  • ||

    It is amazing how primitive that post is. It is just medieval. Since black men are unfairly convicted in this country (note no statistics to back that up and not even so much as nod to the idea that maybe a few white people are swept up unfairly in the justice system) rich white people have no right to complain when they are thrown in jail. Wow.

  • Astrid||

    but *a lot* of people are guilty at arrest, just for being who they are and where they are.

    Like being a white male accused of raping a black woman?

  • The Angry Optimist||

    It strangely mirrors what happens on RedState when terrorism charges are dropped.

  • ||

    Really? I don't read Red State. I would be curious to read some of those posts. And I mean posts not comments. The jezibel link is a post not a crazy commenter.

  • The Angry Optimist||

    In fairness, I think Jezebel has a fairly fuzzy line between columnists and commenters. At least, I hope so, because if they pay those people, man are they getting ripped off.

  • ||

    I don't doubt you that Red State says that. I just don't read it and was curious what they are saying.

  • DADIODADDY||

    I'll bet she has a fuzzy line, heh, heh

  • ||

    Some people have the ability to ignore incontrovertible proof if it conflicts with their preconceived notions.

    There's still folks who believe Tawana Brawley fer chrissakes.

  • Maverick||

    The charges were dropped. Does this mean that they are innocent? None of us actually know what happened that night. Sorry, unless you were there, you don't know what happened.

    We know what didn't happen that night: the stripper wasn't Polanski'd. The rest of the rant is pointless, but maybe she felt better after she hurled intertube-lightning bolts from Mt. Vagimpus.

  • Slut Bunwalla||

    I can't believe how many of the commenters on that post are all "you go, girl" and "thank you for supporting women of color" and such. I mean, goddamn. That makes me so incredibly angry. They're thanking her for sticking up for a lying skank who deliberately tried to absolutely RUIN the lives of several innocent men.

  • Joe||

    But they weren't really innocent. They are rich, white, jocks and therefore guilty. See how simple it is?

  • +HoM&M||

    Ow. My op-... oowwww.

    That hurt my optic nerve. It's like the words were phallic, and I got non-consensually skull-fucked by them.

  • Fiscal Meth||

    That was beautiful Cyto

  • Astrid||

    It's obvious this women needs to spend more time on her cooking and not her writing, she's never going to get a man with that sort of half-bake trash.

  • ||

    And Valenti and her boobs and bra were the subject of this classic Ann Althouse post. The feminist blogshere went apeshit over that one.

    http://althouse.blogspot.com/2.....ggers.html

  • Coeus||

    Well, those are some pretty nice tits...

  • ||

    Draw attention away from the fact that the head is empty, don't they?

  • Tony||

    How can you be a feminist if you're not for equal pay for equal work? Abortion and whatever is fine, but equal pay?

    Anyway, Sarah Palin is still a dangerous moron.

  • ||

    "How can you be a feminist if you're not for equal pay for equal work?"

    Because you have a basic understanding of labor economics. And you thus understand that equal pay laws do nothing but unfairly screw men and discourage employers from hiring women. But since you have no understanding of micro economics, it is not surprising that you don't understand this.

  • Tony||

    Okay, just don't call yourself a feminist.

  • BakedPenguin||

    Not to speak for John, but no problem.

    Note - out of my last 10 bosses, 8 have been female. The only time I've had a problem with this is when they were incompetent. That was only a couple of them, a fairly good percentage.

  • Lucy||

    Why not? Maybe I don't need to use the word, but I get pretty testy (hehe) when liberal feminists claim dibs on the word.

    I believe in equality. I also belie in employer's choice, the unseen effects of economics and the simple fact that no, you're not entitled to your old job with all benefits intact and a promotion on the way when you left for six months or two years after you had your baby. The idea is ludicrous. An employer can feel free to be as accommodating as possible, but they are certainly not obligated to drop everything so their employee can raise a kid or two.

  • ||

    I have a female friend who is being heavily courted by my company because of her reputation as being good at what she does. I am almost certain she will make more than her male counterparts and be given moving expenses despite my company being notorious for hiring locally so they don't have to provide such expenses which are common in the industry.

    Her talent is getting her this reward, despite her having a young child, perhaps another in the next year or two meaning maternity leave is likely, and they're going to find a job for her lesser earning husband to fatten the offer.

    My question to you is, if she were a feminist, would it make her a hypocrite to accept this greater pay and uncommon benefits while her male counterparts do not receive equal treatment?

  • ||

    "Anyway, Sarah Palin is still a dangerous moron."

    Stop projecting Tony. And stop having such an inflated opinion of yourself. You are a moron, yes. But you are not dangerous.

  • Mango Punch||

    Ever heard of maternity leave?

  • ||

    How can you be a feminist if you're not for equal pay for equal work?

    The longer, more detailed version of what John said:

    Because what you define as "equal work" doesn't mean actual work that is equal. Two people having the same job title doesn't mean they are doing equal work. Two NFL linemen might have the same job title, but get paid vastly different amounts, and deservedly so.

    The same applies in a workplace, where socialist notions that, say, a teacher is a teacher is a teacher ignores huge disparities in the value each employee creates.

  • Mango Punch||

    Assuming that women are an average catagorically worse at their jobs is somewhat sexist. A much simpler explanation is that women are more likely to leave their jobs or incur added costs on their employers do to things such as maternity leave.

    Also - OP: Tony - If you believe in equal pay for equal work, does that mean male strippers should be compensated by female strippers so they make equal $$?

  • Fiscal Meth||

    Also,these stats usually lump everything in together. Construction, for instance, drives the average income for men way up compared to women. It pays well and you don't need college education to get a job so tons of men who would be working low wage jobs make good money. There's no real option like that for most women. Women don't usually think the money is worth the danger or intense physical toll on their body. Feminists are wrong to think that most women are fine with having calloused hands with dirt under their fingernails or sweating all day and being covered in sawdust and chemicals at the end of every day. Plus, the few female workers I've come across in my years of construction, even the biggest, tallest and most experienced ones(OH MY GOD DON'T SAY IT OUT LOUD YOU CAN'T SAY THAT OH MY GOD) were not able to compete with the average male worker because they were not as strong and they were much slower because they tended to be scared of the tools and machinery. They didn't work as swiftly on tall ladders and roofs, they were more worried about strain injuries and just generally averse to danger.

    So men are more likely to die(here's the spoonfull of sugar for feminists, men dying) from a stupid, careless accident because they're not as cautious but, for the same reason, they're better in the building trades and that's a significant part of the reason men make more than women.

  • ||

    Feminists are wrong to think that most women are fine with having calloused hands with dirt under their fingernails or sweating all day and being covered in sawdust and chemicals at the end of every day.

    Because, after all, that describes so much of the leadership of the National Organization for Women or the feminist blogosphere.

  • Rabbit Scribe||

    Meh. I'm on your side, But if there are 5,000 male teachers with a total salary of $500,000,000.00 and 5,000 male teachers with a total salary of $250,000,000.00, eyebrows are understandably raised. I hope and expect somebody can do better.

  • cynical||

    Because equal work is actually equal work*. Unless you think that both genders are equally likely to have to miss months of work and require replacement, or flake out and quit working altogether.

  • ||

    Not to mention then we'd have to have equal pay for ugly people because beautiful women make more money than men and average looking women.

    Also taller people make more, can't have that, equal pay for shorties.

    And worst of all people that work hard make more money! This is an abominable affront!

    Equal pay for slackers!

  • Zeb||

    And what about people who are just plain stupid? They can't help that they were born stupid. They should get pay equal to smart, talented people too.

  • Andy Stern||

    I like the cut of your jib! Say, would you be interested in union job? I know people!

  • Karl Marx||

    You need a good speech writer Andy? Check this out "...from each according to ability, to each according to need..."
    Pretty slick right?

  • Andy Stern||

    Workers of the world unite.
    It's not just a slogan anymore.

  • Friedrich Engels||

    Karl, cut that out. You know that I wrote that! Quit plagerizing my work!

  • Barack Obama||

    We're working on that last one, don't you worry.

  • ||

    Equal pay is inherently immoral and destructive and would just keep women out of jobs, just like minimum wage.

    Intelligent women don't want equal pay, they want and achieve superior pay.

    I work for a woman who makes a hell of a lot more than me and I make a lot.

  • Geotpf||

    The issue I think would be childbirth. I beleive studies indicate that childless women make as much money as men (whether or not they have children) in the same job (based on the same level of education, etc.), but once they have a child, women's pay drops off. The are frequently out of work for a year or more during the pregnancy and immediate post-birth period, and are no longer willing to work the eighty hour work weeks that some higher level jobs require. Many traditional feminist "equal pay" think this is unfair and want equal pay for what boils down to less work.

  • mr simple||

    If women, or any group, were really getting paid less for equal work, why wouldn't someone open a business and hire only women? Their labor costs would be a lot cheaper so they could offer their goods or services at a reduced rate and corner the market. It doesn't happen because the problem as you state it doesn't exist.

  • Fiscal Meth||

    Tony
    I don't think the feminist stance on a woman's right to choose is "Abortion and whatever is fine"

    I'm pretty sure it's a primary concern.

  • ||

    Aside from the issue of government control over people's bodies...

    Which is why feminists lead the charge against the government demanding that restaurants put less salt in their foods and restricting them from opening in poor neighborhoods. After all if killing an unborn child is a right safely ensconced in the Constitution's mythical right to privacy I am sure feminists feel that ones eating habits are even more private. Right???

  • ||

    Yes. And feminists never say shit about the drug war. That whole "leave my body alone" thing ends at the unborn child I guess.

  • BakedPenguin||

    Not to mention prostitution. Most feminists believe that women should have a right to do what they want with their bodies, so long as the activity is approved of by those feminists. Essentially, they want to replace the patriarchy with the matriarchy. And then they want to increase the oppression several-fold.

  • ||

    Patriarchy with matriarchy is about right. Ever notice how doctrinaire feminists are almost always upper middle and upper class white women? There is a reason for that. If you ever notice, all of the policies they advocate basically are designed for the benefit of said upper middle and upper class white women. That is why they don't care about the drug war and think forcing prostitution into the black market is a good idea.

  • Gloria Steinem||

    Damn straight! We must keep the sisterhood free of undesirables.

  • #||

    "Essentially, they want to replace the patriarchy with the matriarchy."

    This is essentially the reality about almost all movements that claim their motive is equality. Most feminsits dont give a shit about equality. They care that their tribe is able to advance at the expence of the other tribes.

  • ||

    That is the most hypocritical stance you will find among many (most?) pro-choice feminists. It boggles the rational mind.

  • jtuf||

    Yeah, the pro-abortion choice crowd has a very narrow view of women. They think a woman's entire body consists of just her reproductive system.

  • #||

    don't you know? Choice is only somthing having to do with abortion.

  • ||

    Yes. And feminists never say shit about the drug war. That whole "leave my body alone" thing ends at the unborn child I guess.

    Uterus! it's uterus mister! That little fuck is oppressing me from the inside! If he's yanked out by his little nugget it serves him right for letting himself get surrounded!

  • ||

    Phenomenal.

  • Lucy||

    I've been needling feminists about that lately. None of them has yet admitted there's a really obvious connection, owning your own body being the commonality. I guess it's really only owning your own torso they're worried about.

  • ||

    Most seem to understand own the body; they stumble over owning the products of the body (i.e. labor.)

  • Lucy||

    Ah yes, the moral outrage over government intrusion -- always a riot when liberals pull that one.

  • ||

    """Which is why feminists lead the charge against the government demanding that restaurants put less salt in their foods and restricting them from opening in poor neighborhoods"""

    I wasn't aware that my state's legislature was lead by feminists.

  • ||

    led by feminists

  • ||

    Hell, I can't say I've ever heard any particularly loud or vociferous opposition to China's one-child policy.

  • ||

    Gah!

    I forgot to type in "from feminists".

  • Urkobold™||

    THE URKOBOLD IS DISTURBED. IT IS COMMON KNOWLEDGE THAT MS. PALIN'S BOSOM HAS GROWN, YET WE SEE A MERE HEADSHOT POSTED ABOVE.

    FOR A MAGAZINE CALLED RACKS, THIS IS DISAPPOINTING.

  • ||

    Drink the breast milk!

  • Urkobold™||

    THE URKOBOLD PLANS TO OPEN A BAR STAFFED BY LACTATING, BOUNCY WOMEN. ALCOHOL WILL BE INJECTED DIRECTLY INTO THE BOSOM FOR THE GREATER CONVENIENCE OF BAR PATRONS.

    NO GLASSES, NO BARTENDERS, LOW OVERHEAD!

  • Lactating BarMaid||

    Hey! No teeth!

  • The Angry Optimist||

    Silly Urkobold - all of the Rax closed years ago.

  • ||

    Hey, I remember Rax. It was kind of like a hybrid of Wendy's and Arby's. No Wuv's or Burger Chef, but it was decent for fast food.

  • ¢||

    What happened to letting a hundred flowers bloom?

    This is how "hundred flowers" works. It's entrapment.

    "The Party welcomes dissent!"
    "Cool. 'Cause I was thinking we might consider maybe—"
    "BETRAYER!"

  • ||

    the Duke University rape hoax.

    Ooh, are you in trouble...

  • Tawana Brawley||

    Rev. Al! Get over here quick!

  • ||

    If Palin's a feminist, I'll gladly explain to her why a woman needs a man like a fish needs to be cooked up and served to me for dinner by a woman on a bicycle.

  • jtuf||

    Um. In the Palin family, a woman needs a man to watch the kids while she governs a state or goes on a multi-million dollar speaking tour.

  • ||

    Sounds pretty good to me. I would keep house and watch kids if my wife could bank a few mil touring the country. Where do I sign up?

  • ||

    Only if there is no pre-nup.

  • jtuf||

    My ideal is me and a spouse each working 3 days a week in a flex-time situation so we can take turns home schooling. I also wouldn't mind me and 2 spouses each working 4 days a week and taking turns with the home schooling. The economy of scale works better in the second case.

  • ||

    I think in the modern world polygomy would work great if you were lucky enough to be one of the few guys who snagged two women. Sadly the problems created for the guys left out would outweigh the benefits.

    Seriously though, the current model for jobs and a career is set up all wrong for women. Right now the model is go to college, get a job and then get married and have kids when you are in your 30s. That is great for men. But it sucks for women.

    First, women are more fertile and have fewer medical problems when they have kids young. Men don't have that issue. Second, motherhood winds up derailing women's careers right when they start to take off. A women gets out of college and hits her prime earning years in her thirties and forties only to drop out of the workforce to take care of young children. That totally screws a lot of them.

    The better model would be for women to get married to an older man who can support her at 18 or 19 and immediatly have kids. Then after the kids are in school, go to college in her mid 20s. She could then start her career in her late 20s when her kids are starting to hit their tweens and teens and not have to worry about dropping out of her career to have kids.

    I think that would work much better for women. But it will never happen. We are too tied to the current model. And there are too many social taboos about a woman in her teens marrying and having children with anyone much less a man in his late 20s or 30s.

  • ||

    Obviously written by a pud that cannot garner a woman. This dilusional asshole thinks more than one would be a good thing. But then, perhaps he's deaf.

  • Fluffy||

    If you had more than one, they might talk to each other instead of you.

    Sort of like having two preschoolers sometimes is easier than having one.

    And if you had two, you could use one to threaten the other and keep them in line. "If you keep being a bitch, I'll just go talk to Carol instead. Maybe Carol and I will have some beers and some little necks too, while you stay here."

  • Michael Ejercito||

    And if you had two, you could use one to threaten the other and keep them in line. "If you keep being a bitch, I'll just go talk to Carol instead. Maybe Carol and I will have some beers and some little necks too, while you stay here."


    And then she will reply, "Well, after that, Carol and I will 69 each other. It's more fun than what you can ever hope to do."

  • +HoM&M||

    Fluffy|6.22.10 @ 2:19PM|#
    Michael Ejercito|6.22.10 @ 2:53PM|#

    K, you guys really needed to clarify that you were back to talking about women, and not preschoolers.

    My brain went to a bad place.

  • Zeb||

    The polygamy thing would work great if we could get more men to be gay. If only that were as easy as the anti-gay nutters seem to think it is.

  • ||

    Getting two women isn't the hard part. Getting two women who can put up with you and each other is. Getting two women who can put up with you and each other and aren't sexually jealous is really difficult. You end up with women you probably don't want raising your children. That's why only cultures where women are oppressed have institutional polygamy.

  • ||

    Very true. Women are just not wired that way. I don't know a single women who would go for sharing her husband with another woman.

    Also societies that practice polygamy tend to also practice child marriage. They marry girls off before they are old enough to object. I really can't see how you square widespread polygamy with a society that treats women in anyway equally.

    That said, I stand by my larger point that our societal career model of college then kids would work better if we inverted that for women.

  • Deman Llama||

    I don't know if I agree with this either. I don't know that women just aren't wired to accept polygamy, but that they have been raised that way. If polygamy were a choice, and not a forced institution, I think more women would jump on board. It makes sense to me- another woman around the house to share the responsibilities.

    Monogamy is not a natural state of being- it's a social construct designed to keep people in control, which explains why so many people (men and women) cheat on their partners both in and out of marriage. And it also explains serial monogamy- dating successive strings of people. If we just made polygamy as acceptable as monogamy, I think you'd see more people engaging in it.

  • robc||

    There is always line marriage.

  • Michael Ejercito||

    The better model would be for women to get married to an older man who can support her at 18 or 19 and immediatly have kids. Then after the kids are in school, go to college in her mid 20s. She could then start her career in her late 20s when her kids are starting to hit their tweens and teens and not have to worry about dropping out of her career to have kids.


    So whom do younger men marry?

    I think in the modern world polygomy would work great if you were lucky enough to be one of the few guys who snagged two women. Sadly the problems created for the guys left out would outweigh the benefits.


    What stops women from having multiple partners?

  • ||

    "So whom do younger men marry?"

    They wouldn't. They would concentrait on their careers and marry when they were older and able to support a family.

  • Michael Ejercito||

    They wouldn't. They would concentrait on their careers and marry when they were older and able to support a family.


    But the problem is that by the time they get married, they would have a bunch of STD's with which to infect their younger wives.

  • ||

    Just curious, but why palygamy but not ployandry. That would solve the "excess men" problem.

  • ||

    "polygamy" "polyandry'

    Need to use preview more.

  • ||

    I guess if you properly balanced polyandry and polygamy, you could solve the excess men problem. Not sure how well that would work. But the math would work.

  • Deman Llama||

    I must disagree here. I do not think the problems for the guys left out would outweigh the benefits. It stands to reason that the males able to get two or more wives are the more capable, genetically desirable males- the John Wayne types who want to own a bunch of broads to bang all the time.

    That would probably work out better for the gene pool in the long run, as they would breed more than the wussies who could only snag one wife (if there are any girls left), thus culling the herd and strengthening the the gene pool.

    Your theory supports polygamy, too. An older man could marry young women, sire many children, and while the young wives stay home and breed, the older wives go off and work to support the family. AND, as the children of the older wives get older, they act as free baby sitters, etc. Meanwhile, the man gets the extra added benefit of not having to wait till his ONE wife is done fetching his beer before she can get to rubbing his aching feet.

  • Fiscal Meth||

    I'll bet Marcotte isn't so bad. She just needs a big strong man to tell her everything's gonna be alright. If I saw her, I'd say "c'mon little kitty-cat no need to get all scratchy. Why don't you come sit on my lap and tell me all your problems with that little umm...girl power club your always playin with." and I'm sure she stop being so angry.

  • ||

    I think the rise of Palin has pushed Ann Coulter off the republican main stage. I can't complain about that.

  • BakedPenguin||

    I am not a Palin fan, but she is preferable to Ann Coulter by an order of magnitude.

  • Ann Coulter||

    Awwww, BP, you'd still fuck me!

  • Michael Ejercito||

    Among other things, this dissident feminism criticized the tendency to redefine rape (particularly "date rape") so broadly as to include miscommunication due to mixed signals or sex under the influence of alcohol.


    Where have there been attempts to redefine rape so broadly?

  • ||

    It is fairly common cant with the Pandagon/Feministing/Jezebel crowd that assuming implied consent is rape.

    And that an intoxicated women (usually posited as one with a BAL too high to drive) is unable to give meaningful consent to have sex. And the concurrent idea that no man can be intoxicated to the point that assuming consent is at least defensible.

  • ||

    If she's drunk enough to grab my junk in front of a room full of people and drag me into the nearest bedroom by it, she's drunk enough for me to retaliate with it.

  • ||

    If memory serves me correctly, I believe Ms. Marcotte related a story about taking a couple of drunk guys to a room for sex and calling it quits because she was afraid of getting raped. This was supposed to be evidence of why women should have wide latitude in claiming rapes. If she's the person who related this particular story, I find it more than a little amusing that she can do so without realizing that, by her own definitions, the only rapist in the room was her.

  • ||

    Mixed signals? Like no means yes?

    If you take home a drunk chick, and she says yes to sex, then in the morning claims rape, you are screwed.

  • Michael Ejercito||

    If you take home a drunk chick, and she says yes to sex, then in the morning claims rape, you are screwed.


    How would the prosecution prove that a rape happened?

  • ||

    That's the type of thing that they want to change. Basically, in a"he said, she said" the woman would be believed up front.

  • cynical||

    I think Dave Chapelle already solved this problem.

  • ||

    Like Family Court. Mommies are always better at taking care of kids than daddies. Always. Everyone knows this.

  • Hooha||

    This all-too-common false notion caused untold destruction to most of my childhood, and to this day, it fills me with despair to imagine what it had to be like for my father.

    She repeatedly proved herself unfit to parent, and my father constantly did everything in his power to take care of my sisters and I. The courts ignored the facts for six years. He had to pay child support while taking care of us full time and working as a single parent.

    It's a wonder; you never seem to hear about that kind of thing in any form of media.

  • Drax the Destroyer||

    Because the hypothetical hot blond is out of the hypothetical stoned loser's league. Why would such a wel-bred young women take it in the ass from that pot smoking douchebag? Because she actually wanted it, and regretted it later because of her bullshit social standing? No that can't be the case. That's ridiculous. Women NEVER want sex.

  • Dave||

    Sounds like this hit a little too close to home, Mr Destroyer.

  • Drax the Destroyer||

    Nah actually just a hypothetical. I'm a grade A fuck-up so getting a hot blond to pay attention is virtually impossible, let alone getting her into the sack. My solution: Hardcore pornography and eventual violent, nightmare inducing suicide. I think I'll blow my brains out at a Chuck E Cheeze.

  • Hooha||

    You think they have a 2-for-one-special?

  • ||

    ""How would the prosecution prove that a rape happened?""

    A rape kit and victim's statement. Isn't that all the prosecution needs?

  • Michael Ejercito||

    A rape kit and victim's statement. Isn't that all the prosecution needs?


    And if the rape kit does not provide corroborating evidence...

  • ||

    No. Because all the rape kit will show you is that they had sex. Absent evidence of force, there is no gaurentee that that plus the victim's word is enough. What are the circumstaces surounding the allegation? Is there a reasonable basis upon which to conclude the victim had sex with the accused but is now lying about the rape? If so, the rape kit and the word of the victim is not enough.

  • Michael Ejercito||

    Is there a reasonable basis upon which to conclude the victim had sex with the accused but is now lying about the rape?


    It depends on the circumstances.

    If I were a lawyer defending an accused rapist in this situation and in a jurisdiction where women could be flogged for the crime of having premarital sexual relations, I would argue that she was lying to avoid punishment. (In such a jurisdiction, my client would also face punishment for consensual sex, but not as severe as the punishment for forcible rape.)

  • ||

    And who among us has never bruised a willing cooter???

  • Fluffy||

    This is precisely why the OP said that some people want a redefinition, sir.

    The redefinition that is sought is to create the presumption that the woman did not consent if she consumed alcohol.

    The people who want this want to put women who have had anything to drink in the same category as minors. Where it's not necessary to prove a lack of consent, because the lack of consent is legally presumed.

  • Michael Ejercito||

    The redefinition that is sought is to create the presumption that the woman did not consent if she consumed alcohol.


    How does that square with DUI laws which hold drunk people responsible for their actions.

    The people who want this want to put women who have had anything to drink in the same category as minors. Where it's not necessary to prove a lack of consent, because the lack of consent is legally presumed.


    And if both partners are drunk?

  • Coeus||

    Then it's the man's fault. It's always the man's fault. You really have to ask?

  • ||

    There is this thing called "google". You should try it.

  • The Angry Optimist||

    How about the "Rape Shield Laws"? Not a broadening of the crime itself, but certainly creating an incentive to cry "Wolf" more often.

  • BakedPenguin||

    And another violation of the right to face one's accusers. I can understand that it could be very hard for a woman who was brutally raped to face down her attackers, but these laws do encourage false accusers.

  • Michael Ejercito||

    And another violation of the right to face one's accusers. I can understand that it could be very hard for a woman who was brutally raped to face down her attackers, but these laws do encourage false accusers.


    I wonder if false accusations would be more common in some places where it is considered a taboo for women to have premarital sex.

    In some countries, women who commit fornication and adultery are put to death. In such places, women who have been discovered to have engaged in sexual activity would have a pretty great incentive for making a false accusation of rape.

  • ||

    Incentive? They're often put to death even if they are legitimately raped, so crying rape instead of getting smuggled out of the country in the middle of the night isn't going to do much for them. Didn't you know, they're not victims, they're temptresses sent by the devil to hike up their burqas and soil the purest of young men who would never do such a thing since some god said it was naughty.

  • Michael Ejercito||

    Incentive? They're often put to death even if they are legitimately raped, so crying rape instead of getting smuggled out of the country in the middle of the night isn't going to do much for them. Didn't you know, they're not victims, they're temptresses sent by the devil to hike up their burqas and soil the purest of young men who would never do such a thing since some god said it was naughty.


    People who support such a policy have an eerily similar mentality to Amanda Marcotte.

  • Cyto||

    You don't remember the late 80's and early 90's, do you? It was a big deal... "No means No" was expanded to the ridiculous.

    They actually had college orientation classes that explained how to ask a woman "is it OK if I kiss you now? Is it OK if I touch you here?" Failure to get an explicit affirmation of permission for each and every step of a romantic interlude opened you up to a sex assault charge. Really, I'm not making this stuff up.

    Louisiana was at the forefront of this issue in the early 80's, with prosecutions for sex with an intoxicated woman (can't give consent if she's impaired) - even if the guy is equally drunk (have to wonder how he'd form the mens rea for a crime under that definition). I used these cases for some Balkoesque editorializing for the school paper back then. At about the same time Louisiana cops and courts were pioneering civil forfeiture abuses. Go Louisiana!

  • Michael Ejercito||

    Louisiana was at the forefront of this issue in the early 80's, with prosecutions for sex with an intoxicated woman (can't give consent if she's impaired) - even if the guy is equally drunk (have to wonder how he'd form the mens rea for a crime under that definition).


    So why was not the woman charged with rape too?

    This would be an equal protection case, if having sex with drunk women was considered rape, but sex with a drunk man was not.

    Would the Supreme Court uphold such an interpretation of the law?

  • Cyto||

    Those were the arguments we shouted at the time. The courts found differently for a while. I don't remember any laws being changed, or any "win" moment - but they quit interpreting things this way after a while.

    Contemporaneous to the cases mentioned above, there was a famous statutory rape case in Washington DC. 13 year old boy and 17 year old girl (just shy of 18). He got charged with "corrupting the morals of a minor" (as an adult, if I remember correctly). She was the victim. Logic and the law are uneasy bedfellows...

  • ||

    And this is reason #496 why they invented the 2nd Amendment.

  • Michael Ejercito||

    Contemporaneous to the cases mentioned above, there was a famous statutory rape case in Washington DC. 13 year old boy and 17 year old girl (just shy of 18). He got charged with "corrupting the morals of a minor" (as an adult, if I remember correctly). She was the victim. Logic and the law are uneasy bedfellows...


    Should she not get charged too?

    After all, a law that punishes underage boys for having sex with underage girls, but not underage girls for having sex with underage boys, would be an equal protection violation of a greater scale than allowing opposite-sex couples but not same-sex couples to marry.

  • Dave||

    This actually happened a few years ago in Utah. 12 year old boy, 13 year old girl, both charged with raping the other. The boy plead guilty, the girl challenged it, but I haven't heard what the resolution was.

  • Admiral Ackbar||

    That policy, labeled "active consent", is still in force at my college.

    And people believe that it is perfectly reasonable.

  • ||

    By people, you don't mean students, do you? I've never met a girl who would fuck a guy who was that polite when she's horny. I think the idea of a woman being horny frightens some people. She should only be a vessel for God's children or some shit like that.

  • Admiral Ackbar||

    No, sadly, I do mean students.

    I got a lecture from a friend once for actions performed on a dance floor. Nice guy, but what a total freaking twat when it comes to feminism.

  • Coeus||

    The whole point of that shit is so they don't have to put up with the advances of an inexperienced and/or timid guy. Most of them would never fuck a guy who behaved that timidly. After the goals of feminism were largely met, it became about making life easier for women instead of fair. The cardinal sin in the world of a feminist is making a woman uncomfortable.

  • Brett L||

    College campuses? Every major college campus I've been on in the last 10+ years accepts that post-coital retraction of consent is an acceptable definition of rape if any intoxicant was involved by either party.

  • Michael Ejercito||

    College campuses? Every major college campus I've been on in the last 10+ years accepts that post-coital retraction of consent is an acceptable definition of rape if any intoxicant was involved by either party.


    I wonder if these people had any idea that dumbing down the definition of rape would cause people to question why rape is wrong.

    Rape has been viewed as an act of wickedness for over two thousand years, and these colleges are undermining that belief.

  • ||

    """I wonder if these people had any idea that dumbing down the definition of rape would cause people to question why rape is wrong."""

    Doubt it. But in the long run, I think it does some of that but I think it belittles the horror of what real rape victims experience.

    A woman changing her mind is not like what actual rape victims experience.

  • Michael Ejercito||

    Doubt it. But in the long run, I think it does some of that but I think it belittles the horror of what real rape victims experience.


    Belittling the horror of what real rape victims experience is the first step for the "normalization" of rape.

    It makes you wonder who is really pushing for the dumbing down of the definition of rape.

    A woman changing her mind is not like what actual rape victims experience.


    Describe these differences.

  • Dave||

    I *have* been seeing things lately that claim that 'Raep is just surprise sex!'

    I think you have a point.

  • MJ||

    These are probably the same people who think a TV show/movie that shows a male character having no compunction against punching out a female character, because they think not having a taboo against men hitting women promotes gender equality.

  • Hooha||

    From a technical perspective, it does. But then, the misnomer exists that ALL THINGS EVAR SHOULD BE COMPLETELY AND TOTALLY EQUAL!

    They're not, and shouldn't be. It's a shame the Feminists are about friction and discord, instead of celebrating our differences and unique strengths as men and women.

  • Thoreau||

    Can you link to a university web page with a statement to that effect? I hear this a lot, but I would like to see the evidence.

  • Brett L||

    http://www.city-journal.org/2008/18_2_letters.html

    See the bottom letter.

  • Zeb||

    That is what they tell you (or I guess told you 12 years ago, but I assume it is still the same) at college orientation.

  • ||

    Feminists have never been big on that whole due process thing. Here is an old piece by Cathy Young on the feminist role in the child abuse hysteria of the 80s and 90s.

    http://cathyyoung.blogspot.com.....cript.html

  • BakedPenguin||

    I get the definite impression from all proponents of victimology that because injustices were committed in the past, the only way to make up for it is to commit - deliberately - injustices against the favored group (usually white males).

    The idea of trying to right previous wrongs, and ensuring that injustices no longer happen doesn't seem to occur to them.

  • #||

    what is also absurd is that they are arguing that past injustices carried out by people who no longer exist against people who no longer exist. So its punishing someones grand kid for something someones grandfather did in order to get retribution for people who didnt actualy suffer any injustice.

  • #||

    its what happens when you never look at anyone as an individual and only see someone as a group.

  • ||

    There is this thing called "google". You should try it.

    You mean like, "drunk chick pics"?

    Or something else?

  • ||

    Google does other things?

  • Michael Ejercito||

    It is fairly common cant with the Pandagon/Feministing/Jezebel crowd that assuming implied consent is rape.


    Any quotes?

    And that an intoxicated women (usually posited as one with a BAL too high to drive) is unable to give meaningful consent to have sex.


    And yet, if she were to drive at that same blood alcohol level, she would be held responsible on the basis that she consented to drive.

    And the concurrent idea that no man can be intoxicated to the point that assuming consent is at least defensible.


    There is a contradiction here.

    For thousands of years, rape had been viewed as an abhorrent and detestable evil among widely independent cultures. Dumbing down the definition of rape will destroy thousands of years of abhorrence and detestation that humanity has for rape.

  • The Angry Optimist||

    For thousands of years, rape had been viewed as an abhorrent and detestable evil among widely independent cultures. Dumbing down the definition of rape will destroy thousands of years of abhorrence and detestation that humanity has for rape.

    Um...no. That just is not true. Actually, for the longest time, "rape" was assumed to be something that happened and just, well, was it was. Remember that we didn't even get around to saying a husband could rape his wife until, what, the 70s?

    And yet, if she were to drive at that same blood alcohol level, she would be held responsible on the basis that she consented to drive.

    So what? I don't understand your point here.

  • Michael Ejercito||

    Um...no. That just is not true. Actually, for the longest time, "rape" was assumed to be something that happened and just, well, was it was.


    The idea of rape being abhorrent and detestable is at least two thousand five hundred years old. (2 Samuel 14 describes a rape, and it is clear from the description that the act was abhorrent and detestable.)

    So what? I don't understand your point here.


    If intoxicated people can still be responsible for their actions while intoxicated, then consent to sex while intoxicated is consent.

  • The Angry Optimist||

    As for 2 Samuel 14...are you sure? Not seeing that in my copy.

    If intoxicated people can still be responsible for their actions while intoxicated, then consent to sex while intoxicated is consent.

    Yes...and what is your point, exactly?

  • Michael Ejercito||

    As for 2 Samuel 14...are you sure? Not seeing that in my copy.


    Maybe it was 2 Samuel 13.

    Yes...and what is your point, exactly?


    Drunken people are responsible for their actions while drunk. Therefore, drunk people who consent to sex are responsible for their sexual acts.

  • Cyto||

    Either that or you aren't responsible for your actions while driving drunk. Sauce for the goose...

  • The Angry Optimist||

    Michael, I doubt that the actual rape is the "dishonor" talked about in that chapter. It could either be the incestual aspect or (more likely), the fact that Tamar was a virgin that caused the "dishonor".

  • ||

    In the ancient world, the crime was violating the property rights of a father or husband. And occasionally, the crime was making paternity impossible to confirm.

  • Michael Ejercito||

    Michael, I doubt that the actual rape is the "dishonor" talked about in that chapter. It could either be the incestual aspect or (more likely), the fact that Tamar was a virgin that caused the "dishonor".


    It was avenged by her brother, who would not have a material interest in her honor.

    (In Jewish society circa 1000 B.C., the bride price for a virgin was paid by the groom's family to the father of the bride. )

  • ||

    Yes, and as I note below, in Jewish society circa 1000 B.C., if a jewish man raped a jewish virgin who was not betrothed to another, he could square it with the old man by paying the bride price. and if he was rich enough, he could for an additional fee square it with the offended bridegroom.

    Now if the rapist was not jewish he'd be killed. And the girl, if she was not killed for dishonoring the family might be lucky enough to simply be abandoned and make a living as a prostitute.

    The Hebrews were certainly not doing any of that stuff out of any actual concern for any of their girl children.

  • ||

    As for this:

    Drunken people are responsible for their actions while drunk. Therefore, drunk people who consent to sex are responsible for their sexual acts.

    All I can say, is that you have obviously not been paying attention for the last twenty or thirty years.

  • Michael Ejercito||

    All I can say, is that you have obviously not been paying attention for the last twenty or thirty years.


    Either people at a particular BAL are responsible for their actions regardless of their BAL, or they are not responsible because of their BAL.

  • ||

    For most of history rape has been a crime not against the woman who endured it but against the man who owned her, Father or husband.

    The reasoning was that whatever value a woman had (and it wasn't much) lay in her reproductive abilities. Some outsider sullying up the bloodlines diminished her value and was an offense against the family.

    If the rapist were of sufficient standing, of course, he could compenste the family by marrying the wench and paying the necesary brideprice. How he treated her after that was a matter of complete indifference to the family involved.

    The notion that rape is a crime against an individual woman and one that she should be remotely concerned about is an extremely recent development.

  • Michael Ejercito||

    The notion that rape is a crime against an individual woman and one that she should be remotely concerned about is an extremely recent development.


    What was the reason for this development?

  • ||

    Changing attitudes as to the dignity of the individual and an increasing notion the women had actual, you know, rights as individuals, I guess.

  • The Sabines||

    In retrospect, it wasn't so bad. And the Romans didn't seem to think it was so bad, either. Unless you asked Lucretia.

  • ||

    Google "enthusiastic consent." The first few hits are a discussion of the idea.

  • Warty||

    Feminists have developed a consent model that goes beyond saying "no" and instead requires an enthusiastic "yes!" to avoid rape and celebrate consensual, pleasurable sex.

    So what if she says, "Sure, fuck me, just get it over with already," while rolling her eyes? Am I a rapist because she wasn't enthusiastic enough?

  • ||

    Not speaking hypothetically, are you, Warty.

  • Warty||

    And yet when cokewhores enthusiastically give it up for a line, that's probably still rape.

  • Warty's Cokewhore||

    Only when the high wears off baby. Give me a snoot full and I'll give you a poont full!

  • ||

    Lucky for her, it doesn't take long to "get it over with already," does it, Warty?

  • Warty||

    Depends if I gave her the flametongue beforehand. You like hot wings, don't you, Dag?

  • Warty's Saturday Night Special||

    Warty loves the red wings more than I love the flametounge.

  • Warty||

    I'm confused. Are you suggesting that I perform capsicum-aided cunnilingus on my low-priced handguns while they are menstruating?

  • Warty's Saturday Night Special||

    You do have oddest fantasies Wartykins. Whatever gets you and me off.

  • ||

  • ||

    It is like they get their view of sex from the Penthouse Letters section. If you just pressure the woman enough she will go for anything.

  • ||

    I haven't read Penthouse letters in a very long time. Is the average size of a man's penis still that of a 2 liter Coke bottle?

  • ||

    Three liter last I checked. And every girl really wants to have a her first lesbian experience with you in the room. That is one of the few moral constants in the universe.

  • Michael Ejercito||

    Whoa. These assholes have as low an opinion of women as the "traditional gender roles" crowd they love to hate. They think our frivolous little girlbrains are incapable of determining whether or not we want to have sex.


    Why should they think otherwise?

    That is what they learned from the Taliban's sex education curriculum.

  • ||

    I think the real problem isn't knowing whether or not we want sex, but being raised and imbued with a sufficient sense of self-worth to speak up and utter an unequivocal NO when we don't want it.

    They are right about the coerced yeses and quiet I guess so's, but their solution is wrong.

  • cynical||

    True, but allowing Marcotte style feminists any power would destroy classical liberalism and the gains of the enlightenment altogether.

    Science? Due process? Rationality? Rule of law? Tools of patriarchy and masculinity.

    Feudalism? Monarchy? A form of government that allows women to achieve their dream of being a princess and having a pony. Sold!

  • Lucy||

    Great piece, but I don't get this scorn I've been hearing/reading lately about quote-unquote date rape lately. I understand the eye-rolling over some of the obsessing over consent (Cyto's college class and all) but isn't date rape just being raped by someone you knew or were dating? What's so dubious quotes worthy about that concept? Unless my definition is totally off.

  • ||

    Date rape is problematic. Not to say it doesn't happen, but it's trivial to accuse and extremely difficult to disprove.

    Also.

    If I walk into a notoriously crime ridden neighborhood and am mugged, yes I have still been victimized. But there is some idea that maybe I shouldn't have been there.

    If I get hot over some notoriously brutish bad boy basketball player, and disregard the history because he's such a bad boy and so hot and then end up raped, yes I have still been raped but a more prudent women would not have been.

    Sliding the definition of rape such that rape is synonymous with claiming rape essentially shifts the costs of the risks of my foolish behavior onto society at large.

  • ||

    Sliding the definition of rape...

    My first thoughts about Knocked Up always go to when the star of the movie "misinterprets" a whine of "Hurry up and do it" to skip putting on a condom on altogether instead of hurrying up with putting it on. As far as I'm concern, rape by negligence. She didn't want unprotected sex and he purposely made it into unsafe sex.
  • ||

    She was drinking anyway. Rape by default.

  • Michael Ejercito||

    Date rape is problematic. Not to say it doesn't happen, but it's trivial to accuse and extremely difficult to disprove.


    The burden of proof is on the prosecution.

  • ||

    Prosecutor to cop: "And did you smell his fingers???"

  • Pope Jimbo||

    If that's the burden of proof, look for our prisons to fill up quickly with serial rapin' sushi chefs.

  • Lucy||

    I agree and disagree. I agree with feminists when they say that men (or how about people!) shouldn't rape should be the bottom line. I also think that getting totally trashed in a bar in a neighborhood you're unfamiliar with is a bad idea. And it's probably a worse idea if you're a woman.

    However, sometimes the argument of she should have been more careful gets a little too close to people who think civil disobedience or even just not obeying police orders fast enough being met with violence is not justified because cops are right, but from some twisted pragmatism that says you deserve something wrong if you knew it could possibly happen.

  • MJ||

    "Date rape is problematic. Not to say it doesn't happen, but it's trivial to accuse and extremely difficult to disprove."

    That's backwards. Date rape is difficult to prove beyond a reasonable doubt, so the more misandrist feminists have pushed to get presumption of innocence protections weakened or outright removed for such cases.

  • Michael Ejercito||

    That's backwards. Date rape is difficult to prove beyond a reasonable doubt, so the more misandrist feminists have pushed to get presumption of innocence protections weakened or outright removed for such cases.


    What were the presumption of innocence protections that were weakened?

  • Cyto||

    Nobody would condone raping somebody you are on a date with. Or anyone. The eye-rolling and shouting is about attempts to redefine rape to mean just about anything. If you weren't around for the peak of the hysteria, it is hard to imagine that it could have been that serious, but there really was a concerted movement to define any sexual contact that was unwanted as rape - even if the "unwanted" part was never communicated in any way, or even if it was arrived at later. People actually went to jail for 20+ years because she sobered up and realized that she banged a loser.

    Most people were operating under a definition of date-rape that meant a couple went out on a date, he felt a connection, she didn't. He insisted. She said no. He had his way with her anyway. There was actually a legitimate fight here - because for quite some time "she led me on" was an excuse for date rape that might actually fly in court. Particularly if she said yes to 3rd base, or a hummer, then tried to say no to intercourse.

    Lots of movies, after school specials and sitcom lectures later, they rightly won that fight. Unfortunately they refused to take yes for an answer and continued fighting well past the point of ridiculous. Even more unfortunately, a lot of people listened to them or were cowed into going along.

  • Lucy||

    Well, somebody would. Or maybe actual rapists are really good at denial.

    But thank you for that post. I am definitely too young for peak hysteria, so as much as I note some of the absurdities, I kept being alarmed and puzzled by recent talk of date rape in disdainful quotes.

  • Warty||

  • ||

    Burck dropped out of the last New York City mayoral race on September 5, 2009.

    Why do reporters do this? It is entirely irrelevant to the rest of the story.

  • ||

    "Enthusiastic consent"

    *dreams of the good old days*

  • ||

    While I quibble with feminists over retroactive withdrawal of consent (there must be some way for the man to act in good faith), their notion of consent is something I admire and think libertarians ought to incorporate fully.

    Step back from the sexual aspect and think about consent. And think about consent being a necessary verbal contract to violations of self-ownership. Consent is a vital area: S&M is torture without consent; theft or gift is decided on consent; a trip to see the protologist is not a prison shower scene due to consent.

    The notion of "enthusiastic consent" encompasses the believe that consent must be freely given meaningful, and continuous.

    Freely given: No duress or fraud

    Meaningful: You know exactly what you are consenting to.

    Continuous: Agreeing to one thing doesn't mean you agree to a accepted or assumed chain of events to follow.

    Apply this notion to the bogus theory of the social contract and I believe you will see how useful it is. Apply this to majority rule. Apply this to property rights and the right of self-ownership.

    The "social contract" is a null idea under "enthusiastic consent."

    Under the social contract consent is implied, given by a third party, and is not continuous.

    Freely given? It doesn't matter what my ancestors did. Can your grandfather give someone the permission to rape you?

    Implied consent? Does "Anyone that doesn't leave this room right now is agreeing to being raped?" sound tenable?

    Consent by majority? A fraternity decides to have sex with an entire sorority? If 51% of the sorority votes "yes" are the 49% being raped? Of course.

    Yes, I use a really horrible example to make my point, but it is an important point. If you are unwillingly to do something and someone does it to you anyway, it is a gross violation of your right of self-ownership. A simple idea that so many cannot, or refuse to, grasp.

  • ||

    How does claiming to be a race-car driver fit into that scheme?

  • Cyto||

    Enthusiastic consent mostly sounds great, until you dig a little deeper. From the #2 link on google:

    The person initiating contact is required to take account of and not exploit a relationship, the other person's intoxicated state, or the power of peer pressure or social conditioning.

    So under this definition "If you really loved me you would" is rape. "I'm going to break up with you if you don't have sex with me" is rape. "We both got a little drunk and had sex and it was really fun at the time but now one of us regrets it" is rape.

    Suddenly rape isn't rape anymore, and enthusiastic consent is just a code word for the power to send any guy you've had sex with to jail if you decide you don't like him any more.

  • Michael Ejercito||

    So under this definition "If you really loved me you would" is rape. "I'm going to break up with you if you don't have sex with me" is rape. "We both got a little drunk and had sex and it was really fun at the time but now one of us regrets it" is rape.

    Suddenly rape isn't rape anymore, and enthusiastic consent is just a code word for the power to send any guy you've had sex with to jail if you decide you don't like him any more.


    And furthermore, people will begin to wonder why rape is considered wrong.

    This may actually increase the incidence of forcible rape.

  • Lucy||

    Yeah, the first two are called being an asshole, the third is being careless. None of those are rape.

  • NavinK||

    I don't quite agree with the idea of "enthusiastic consent" even as an idea of social interaction, but I don't think anyone is suggesting making it a legal requirement for sex.
    I think the attitude is more like "If you respect the other person you'll wait till she/he is enthusiastic rather than merely willing".

  • ||

    I agree with you, but when it comes to their idea of enthusiastic consent to sex, I get the distinct impression from the feminist crowd that determining the level of "enthusiasm" is 100% the man's responsibility, which is a load. In these shadowy, threatening backseats and dorm rooms they imagine, the woman is perfectly capable of standing up and walking out. "Pressure" isn't rape, and it isn't even morally wrong when you're dealing with two adult individuals.

  • ||

    Well, they and I do use it a bit differently. I find the notion of non-physical, non-threatening "pressure" to not real being coercive.* You can ask me all you want for my to give you a dollar; if I finally relent to to get you to go away, that isn't theft.

    I personally think it's fairly scummy behavior. Maybe I just have a hard time (as an adult, at least, you have to grow into this stuff) being into having sex with someone who really wasn't interested until you pestered them.

    *It leads to the asinine notion that expecting people to have a job and pay their own way in life is some sort of oppression, for one.

  • Cyto||

    That's why all this "enthusiastic consent" crap is focused on college campuses. By the time you are in your mid to late twenties, having sex is not mysterious and mystical. Everyone knows what they are agreeing to up front and everything goes generally according to plan. I really can't imagine a 30 year old woman who would be coerced by societal pressures into saying yes to sex she didn't really want. Settling for less, maybe, but not being subtly coerced.

  • ||

    One quibble/clarification on your General Theory of Consent.

    Continuous: Agreeing to one thing doesn't mean you agree to a accepted or assumed chain of events to follow.

    Unless you want to get ridiculously formalistic, I think its fair to say that you have consented to the foreseeable chain of events to follow.

    I spend a fair amount of my professional time on issues of informed consent in the medical setting. I definitely agree that it is a central issue that most people don't think much about.

  • ||

    OK, I'll clarify that a bit. Consenting to something means consenting to the consequences, of course. But consenting to a kiss is not the same as consenting to sex an hour later after you have passed out. Continuous consent about avoiding assumed consent.

    Setting in motion a chain of event is one thing; assuming that agreeing to a part is the same thing as agreeing to the separate acts of a whole is another. Consent and consequence can be teased apart without the abdication of responsibility.

  • ||

    You use a medical analogy... I consented to the surgery, not to having forceps left in my chest.

  • ||

    Don't you give implied consent when you engage in behavior that typically will lead to intercourse and say nothing when the act commences and throughout the act?

    Being intoxicated* should be considered assumption of the risk, not a defense against personal responsibility.

    *We're assuming that intoxication arose from voluntary action and not through deceit.

  • ||

    I don't think that "continuous consent" necessitates a constant stream of "yeses" but a "no" or unvoiced struggle stop things dead in its tracks.

    I also to don't truck with the "little drunk is rape" idea. There is a yawning gulf between intoxicated and incapacitated. Passed out is a good indication.

  • ||

    Passed out is a good indication.

    You're really cutting into my game, Sug.

    but a "no" or unvoiced struggle stop things dead in its tracks.

    Oh, I agree, (define "struggle"--is it squirming? hitting? pushing?) but we're still faced with the thorny issue of he/she said, which is a byproduct of trying to legislate human sexual interaction.

  • ||

    "Thorny" indeed.

    There will always be bad actors in any system. It doesn't mean that the system is flawed. I think "good faith" has to be worked in to the feminist-level "consent."

    Frankly, I think that all accusations of violations of self-ownership should be taken seriously by law enforcement. Despite what they think, that is their actual job. Rape is so emotionally charged that it makes some bad laws on the margins.

    But... saying you were raped when you were not is fraud. Fraud is always difficult to prove; that doesn't mean there shouldn't be laws against it.

  • ||

    And a fraud that will be just as difficult to prove as an accusation of rape. When cases of false accusations have happened in the past, only a recanting by the "victim" freed the men.

    Rape should be difficult to prove, being that the consequences for too lenient of a burden of proof leads to innocent men in jail. (Wait, never mind, I forgot we're all potential rapists.) Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

    That aside, I was mostly taking issue with the notion that implied consent can't be given through behavior or silence. Not every silence nor every action could be considered consent, but there are certainly instances where it easily could.

  • ||

    I agree.

  • ||

    Thanks for reminding Saccharin Man; I knew I forgot something! BTW, you should read the fine print on that surgical consent form you signed.

  • ||

    Actually, I'm big on the personal responsibility side. You have to know what you are consenting to. If there is obfuscation in furtherance of fraud, then you did not meaningfully consent; but failing to read a contract is all on you.

  • ||

    Thanks for taking the wind out of my funny sail, you can keep those forceps. I have plenty.

    On a serious note, that is why when an operative consent from is signed, there is always a health professional as a witness and also to make sure the patient understands the process and the inherent risks, including death.

    Perhaps sexual relations should have a similar process and checklist so all the consent bases and risks are agreed to either beforehand or commensurate with each level of intimacy achieved. In triplicate, with the disclaimer:

    "Signing this form and initialing the appropriate lines affirms the signatory agrees to all commensurate consent forms and understand that this is not a guarantee of sex, and either party can withdraw from coitus at any time."

    Hmmm, medically supervised sex...

  • ||

    Will you take Medicare for supervising?

  • ||

    I don't accept CMS, JW. Not even supervising old people sex (dodged a bullet there).

    I give Saccharin Man and Warty all the supervisory responsibility, with RC Dean as their general counsel for mitigating liability.

  • ||

    Sorry, sleep deprived and in undergrad philosophy minor mode.

  • SusanM||

    It's worth noting that SM is torture *with* consent.

  • .||

    "Signing this form and initialing the appropriate lines affirms the signatory agrees to all commensurate consent forms and understand that this is not a guarantee of sex, and either party can withdraw from coitus at any time."

    Sounds like modern legal marriage.

  • Comrade Zero||

    If you sign a form saying that you understand that you might die during an operation does that allow the surgeon to kill you on purpose? Does "Buyer Beware" permit fraud?

  • ||

    Consenting to something means consenting to the consequences, of course.

    A well known consequence of unprotected sex is that another human being may be growing inside of you. You don't often give fuel to the pro-lifer's fire...unless you are willing to separate the act of intercourse with the condition of being pregnant. That's like separating the act of drinking water with having water in your stomach.

  • ||

    The problem is that you can define consent so narrowly that, absent a written contract, non-consent becomes the impossible-to-disprove assumption. Consider all the collectivist critiques of advertising that ascribe consumer decisions to media manipulation.

  • Hooha||

    a trip to see the protologist is not a prison shower scene due to consent.

    The appendage used for the 'probing' might have a little to do with it, too. Oh, and years of medical schooling versus a felony conviction.

    Just a thought.

  • fashion vibramfivefingers||

    feminism itself, feminist anti-feminists, co-opting feminism anti-feminism, plain ol' anti-feminism, ...

  • Warty||

    You know, I love my fivefingers, but I hope you're ashamed of yourself for spamming for such an insanely nerdy product.

  • ||

    That is a step up from leaving your filthy hooves unshod, but just barely. You horrify me.

  • Warty||

    You can't fool me. You are overcome with animal lust by the very thought of me deadlifting while wearing them, my sweet Eskimo princess.

  • ||

    Seriously those offer nearly as much protection from getting laid as a recumbent bicycle.

  • ||

    I've been morbidly interested in them, but not $120 interested.

  • Warty||

    I say go for it, because the horrified looks I get from bystanders are AWESOME.

  • ||

    The troll shoes or the celibacy cycle?

  • Warty||

    Why not both? For the ultimate in vagina repellent, one should also have a waxed mustache.

  • ||

    You mean the ones where the ends are waxed into needle this protuberances?

    Think I'll stick with my luxuriant Errol Flynn variation. :)

  • ||

    needle thin. gahh.

  • ||

    Bonus points for "protuberances," though.

  • ||

    Both, apparently.

  • Alan Vanneman||

    "Is the "Year of Conservative Women" bad for women?"

    Well, after reading this article, I have no idea, because this article is not about the "Year of Conservative Women." Instead, the title should have been "Amanda Marcotte is a jerk," which is something I already knew. But after skimming the comments, I'd add that "a lot of the people who read Reason are jerks too." I mean, do libertarians ever get laid? Ever? It doesn't sound like it.

  • Warty||

    You still post your drivel here, huh? Shut the fuck up, Vanneman.

  • Drunkenatheist||

    A++++

  • Shorter Alan Vanneman||

    Hat tips count as pussy. Look at me everybody!

  • ||

    Yes Alan. I am sure you could get laid any time you want. You just chose to spend all of your time writing lame ass movie reviews. You are saving yourself for the right girl right?

  • Drunkenatheist||

    Jesus fucking Christ.

    And you wonder why people troll with "for a magazine called REASON, y'all sure don't use a lot of it."

    Whatever happened to keeping the government OUT of my fucking business? I know that guns and taxes are such more important than allowing me to retain autonomy over my fucking body and life, but some of us uppity feminists take issue with the warmed over Republicanism pushed by this magazine.

    Fuck this shit. I'm sticking to reading actual libertarian publications. This is retarded neo-con logic.

  • Michael Ejercito||

    This is retarded neo-con logic.


    How so?

  • Warty||

    Oh, no. Please don't leave us. No.

  • Drunkenatheist||

    Warty, get a life. I know it's pretty to the point, but every time I go to this god awful joke of a website, you're spouting off your retarded nonsense. Do you get laid? Ever?

    Michael, are you so fucking stupid that you don't understand the concept of keeping the government out of my fucking life? How does legislating against abortion - something doesn't effect you - accomplish that goal?

    I know, you've probably got some convoluted manarchist reasoning as to why buying an Ak47 and a kilo of smack are cool, but choosing to have a fucking abortion IS OMG MURDER AND THE WORST IN THE WORLD!...lol, because AKs are used to "hunt game," rite? I love guns, but I'm not a dishonest jerkoff. I want access to a gun so I can riddle an intruder with bullets if I need to.

    But that's somehow morally superior to me having an abortion. You people are fucking idiots, and most of you really prove the point that libertarians only care about hookers and blow because it's the way you socially inept retards would get laid.

  • ||

    "But that's somehow morally superior to me having an abortion."

    Well considering how things turned out, it would definitely not be morally superior to your mother having aborted you.

    Seriously, if this is performance art stop it. It is not funny and it is just fucking up the thread.

    And if it is not, get back on your meds and shut the fuck up. Nothing you are saying makes even the remotest sense.

  • Warty||

    Oh, come on, John. This is out-fucking-standing. You're just sad that she a fan of me, not you.

  • ||

    Okay. I am a little jealous I will admit. Between this and you commanding all of Dagny T's attention, I am feeling a little neglected.

  • Sarah Palin||

    You always have me John, your lil' thrilla from Wasilla!

  • Michael Ejercito||

    Michael, are you so fucking stupid that you don't understand the concept of keeping the government out of my fucking life? How does legislating against abortion - something doesn't effect you - accomplish that goal?


    Who on this thread was in favor of outlawing abortion?

    Most of the comments on this thread were about the issue of date rape.

  • Ragin Cajun||

    You didn't "enthusiastically consent" to the pro-choice position. Now you are in trouble.

  • Cyto||

    Ok, that was funny....

  • ||

    "Who on this thread was in favor of outlawing abortion?"

    No one. But facts never get in the way of trolling.

  • ||

    Not to start a war... but if you really think it's murder, why don't you want it outlawed?

  • ||

    I think it should be. That is the only logical conclusion. But, the problem is that I think it is definitely murder in the later stages of pregnancy. I can't see how anyone can not consider a third trimester fetus to ba life. It has a heart, brain, it reacts to stimulus and pain and can with assistance live outside the womb.

    But, I can defintely understand how you could consider a zygote not a life. So life begins somewhere in between. Where that is, I think is negotiable. But, at some point during pregnancy, it becomes a life and should be illegal. Where that is, I am not totally sure. But I am not sure anyone is.

  • ||

    That makes sense, John. I go with non-medical-intervention viability as a cut off. But what penalties should be involved seem so convoluted to decide that I can't go forward with a stance.

  • ||

    My issue as well. I don't trust politicians to decide when life begins when half of them say at conception and the other half are OK with abortion as long as the kid wasn't delivered already. So, based on that, I sure as hell don't trust them to come up with a punishment since they are so far off on the crime.

  • Michael Ejercito||

    Not to start a war... but if you really think it's murder, why don't you want it outlawed?


    God Almighty does not consider it murder. (Note while abortion is taboo in the Torah, it carries a lesser associated penalty than murder.)

  • Cyto||

    That's from Numbers - for those who care to read old books.

  • Steve Nash Equilibrium||

    A+ will read again.

  • Astrid||

    and most of you really prove the point that libertarians only care about hookers and blow

    To be fair I care about guns and booze as well.

  • Bonsai Girl||

    Wow, somebody is a little touchy! How did you get over to abortion? The article is about a feminist writer who refuses to accept the innocence of the Duke lacrosse players (among other offenses) - something akin to an NAACP leader refusing to acknowledge that O.J. killed those people.

    The discussion is mostly about feminist overreaching of the last twenty or thirty years. Is that a neo-con only topic? We're Libertarians here, we get to gore everyone's ox. It is one of the great things about being a Libertarian. We can call neo-cons assholes and turn around and call leftist feminists assholes and feel smug and self-satisfied.

    Most libertarians put abortion in a special class - because you either believe life begins at conception (therefore: abortion is murder) or you don't (therefore: stay the fuck out of it). There really is no scientific basis for either side to claim absolute victory - so there really is no productive way to argue the point. I think the libertarian view should be "if you can't prove it one way or the other, then the government should stay the fuck out of it" - but that's just an opinion.

  • Zeb||

    What the fuck are you talking about? Who is talking about abortion?

  • ||

    There is a sub-thread upstream about choice as it relates to feminism. "Choice" is the current dogwhistle for abortion.

  • Smarmy Marmot||

    I thought we only cared about bananas and blow.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TpGFAMlZsmE

  • Fiscal Meth||

    Ween right? Nice

  • ||

    That's quite a reaction to the soothing blandness of a Cathy Young article.

  • ||

    some of us uppity feminists take issue with the warmed over Republicanism pushed by this magazine.

    Thiiiiirsteeeeeee

  • ||

    But after skimming the comments, I'd add that "a lot of the people who read Reason are jerks too." I mean, do libertarians ever get laid? Ever? It doesn't sound like it.

    *clutches chest, falls to floor*

  • ||

    It says here that libertarians, even anarcho-free enterprise-individualist freaks like me, do the wild thing. In my case, even with big government girls.

  • Rick||

    you forgot the comma after "big"

  • Grammarian||

    I think you meant hyphen

  • ||

    I know that guns and taxes are such more important than allowing me to retain autonomy over my fucking body and life,

    What on earth makes you think guns and taxes and such aren't all about allowing you to retain autonomy over your fucking body and life?

  • ||

    I love it when feminists talk about riot grrrl like it actually mattered.

  • Warty||

    I love it when they do their best to live up to their reputation as shrill harpies.

  • ||

    The Feminists are the ones who took the heat and still take the heat...shrill harpies, are they?
    Well, the shrill harpies cleared the way for imposters like $arah to step in smoothly and easily. Now that she is there she will only block the way and block progress.....I'll take the shrill harpies over $arah's donkey bray babble talk anytime.

  • ||

    Sarah Palin never participated in and abetted the the child sex abuse hysteria of the 80s and 90s. She also to my knowledge have ever tried to deprive me of my presumption of innocence or right to due process if I am ever accused of rape. She also has never advocated stacking the family courts against men.

    Feminists have a lot more to answer for than Sarah Palin. Until feminists are willing to come to terms with their horrible history on criminal justice system and equal protection, they will rightly be considered harpies. Feminists seem to like naval gazing. Perhaps they should do some gazing and ask consider their sins and wonder why they are so unpopular.

  • Tony||

    I take it men, on the other hand, get a pass for the prior thousands of years of oppression...

  • Coeus||

    You oppressed someone for thousands of years? That takes dedication. I'm impressed.

  • Tony||

    John said feminists have a lot to answer for their horrible crimes against humanity past and present. I'm wondering if he holds the same standard for men.

  • Coeus||

    Feminists are a self-identified group. White males are born that way.

  • MJ||

    As Coeus points out, feminists are defined by an ideology, men are defined by having external genitals. How exactly are these comparable groups for holding an individual responsible for the past actions of others of the set?

  • +HoM&M||

    Most people alive today (at least in western society), men included, haven't done very much oppression. Those alive today cannot be held accountable for the actions of their ancestors.

    Most of the feminists who helped destroy lives in the 80s, however, are still alive. They, and men responsible for similar crimes, should be punished.

    Individuals are responsible for crimes, groups aren't. Herpaderp.

  • Grammarian||

    Feminists seem to like naval gazing

    Personally I prefer trainspotting, but hey, any form of transportation will do.

  • ||

    You can't mean that. Nobody could mean that.

  • ||

    I'm on record for not caring a white about Sarah Palin, but spelling it "$arah" is just childish.

  • Ragin Cajun||

    How do you feel about shrill harpies?

  • ||

    I think it's redundant.

  • ||

    Didn't they tell you, making money is evil.

  • Warty||

    Do you ever get laid, SugarFree? Ever? DONT CALL ME CHILDISH SHRIEK SHRIEK SHRIEK

  • Fluffy||

    Especially since the correct spelling is ¢arah

  • ||

    No, it's Sara.

  • ||

    ...progress...

    I don't think that word means what you think it means.

  • Fluffy||

    Sugarfree should start a blog called "Stuff Feminists Say" so we can all have a laugh now and then.

  • ||

    I think the better title would be "Feminists say the funniest things".

  • iamtheeviltwin||

    "Feminists say the Darndest Things" for the total rip-off title.

  • Liberal Genius ||

    Men and women are identical in preferences and abilities. That is why exactly half of all great scientists and mathematicians have been women.

    You can see this for yourself at any college. The upper physics and math classes are simply swarming with girls.

    Men are just as compassionate as women. History is mostly the story of how opposing groups of men worked out their disputes peacefully.

  • Rudan||

    Can't really say a dick means you're more able to do math or physics. Cultural expectations and gender roles have a lot to do with it. Testosterone definitely makes you more douchey though.

  • +HoM&M||

    That sequence up-thread about women cutting their career off in its prime to raise kids, probably applies here.

  • John Lofton||

    Forget, please, "conservatism." It has been, operationally, de facto, Godless and therefore irrelevant. Secular conservatism will not defeat secular liberalism because to God both are two atheistic peas-in-a-pod and thus predestined to failure. As Stonewall Jackson's Chief of Staff R.L. Dabney said of such a humanistic belief more than 100 years ago:

    "[Secular conservatism] is a party which never conserves anything. Its history has been that it demurs to each aggression of the progressive party, and aims to save its credit by a respectable amount of growling, but always acquiesces at last in the innovation. What was the resisted novelty of yesterday is today .one of the accepted principles of conservatism; it is now conservative only in affecting to resist the next innovation, which will tomorrow be forced upon its timidity and will be succeeded by some third revolution; to be denounced and then adopted in its turn. American conservatism is merely the shadow that follows Radicalism as it moves forward towards perdition. It remains behind it, but never retards it, and always advances near its leader. This pretended salt bath utterly lost its savor: wherewith shall it be salted? Its impotency is not hard, indeed, to explain. It is worthless because it is the conservatism of expediency only, and not of sturdy principle. It intends to risk nothing serious for the sake of the truth."

    Our country is collapsing because we have turned our back on God (Psalm 9:17) and refused to kiss His Son (Psalm 2).


    John Lofton, Editor, TheAmericanView.com
    Communications Director, Institute on the Constitution
    Host, “TheAmericanView” radio show
    Recovering Republican
    JLof@aol.com

  • Brian||

    John we're not secular conservatives or Rockefeller republicans.

  • Brian||

    Why the fuck did Edwards hire this loon Marcotte? Seriously, given his extramarital activity he should be the last one hiring someone who would want to dismantle innocent until proven guilty presumptions when a woman cries rape. Could have easily happened to him.

  • links of london||

    thanks

  • mbt shoes ||

    good news

  • moncler||

    Whilst picking out for winter coats is not just for your type but in addition for your functions. moncler jackets are not ordinary jackets. moncler for the development of e-commerce, more and more products online wholesale trade are distributed.

  • USA UGG Boots||

    After 2006, Jiangsu became the second largest production base of UGG, Jiangsu handicraft sewing industry has years of tradition, fine workmanship, rich labor resources and good port facilities resources Next, use a cloth soaked in cold water to dampen the outside surface of your boots, being careful not to thoroughly soak through the entire sheepskinBefore you mind for that nearestugg bailey button shopping mall to purchase your really non-public pair of ugg Australia boots ,

  • Scarpe Nike||

    is good

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online

  • Progressive Puritans: From e-cigs to sex classifieds, the once transgressive left wants to criminalize fun.
  • Port Authoritarians: Chris Christie’s Bridgegate scandal
  • The Menace of Secret Government: Obama’s proposed intelligence reforms don’t safeguard civil liberties

SUBSCRIBE

advertisement