The Bible and Society

How God’s Word is True

Posts Tagged ‘Feminism’

Muslims rape feminists. Leftists silent

Posted by Mats on 08/10/2010

Original

Liberalism claims to encompass many causes, but there is only one cause in the end. Since 9/11, this cause has been advanced by supporting Muslims. When an alleged commitment to the welfare of women gets in the way of sucking up to the Religion of Peace, feminism goes overboard faster than you can say Juanita Brodderick. Useful idiots in Israel provide more proof:

Two activists have exposed a disturbing phenomenon that they say is an open secret within the “peace camp”: female “peace” activists are routinely harassed and raped by the Arabs of Judea and Samaria with whom they have come to identify. They say the phenomenon has gotten worse lately and that many foreign women end up as wives of local Arabs against their will, but cannot escape their new homes.

Roni Aloni Sedovnik, a feminist activist, penned an article in News1 — an independent website run by respected investigative reporter Yoav Yitzchak — under the heading “The Left’s Betrayal of Female Peace Activists Who were Sexually Assaulted.”

“A nauseous atrocity has been going on for a long time behind the scenes at the leftists’ demonstration at Bil’in, Naalin and Sheikh Jarrah [Shimon HaTzaddik],” she writes. “A dark secret that threatens to smash the basic ideological values upon which the demand to end the occupation of the Territories rests.”

It turns out, she explains, that when female peace activists from Israel and abroad come out to Judea and Samaria and demonstrate against the Israeli “occupation,” they are assaulted sexually by the Arab men whom they have come to help. These are not isolated incidents, Aloni-Sedovnik stresses. Rather, this is an “ongoing and widespread” phenomenon that includes verbal and physical abuse. She accuses the ‘peace’ camp of purposely covering up the trend so as not to offend “the Palestinians and their heritage, which sees women as sexual objects.”

Activists who manage to escape their rapists instead of being kept as slaves are encouraged not to press charges, so as not to undermine the grand struggle against oppression. Once again we see that leftists have zero moral credibility.

Advertisements

Posted in Politics | Tagged: , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

Manslaughter Case against Massachusetts Abortionist Begins Today

Posted by Mats on 14/09/2010

By Kathleen Gilbert

http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2010/sep/10091308.html

BOSTON, September 13, 2010 (LifeSiteNews.com) – The trial into charges of involuntary manslaughter against a Massachusetts abortionist whose botched abortion killed Laura Hope Smith, 22, begins Monday, exactly three years after the young woman’s death, according to an Associated Press report.

Prosecutors charged Dr. Rapin Osathanondh of Cape Cod with manslaughter in July 2008 in connection with the death of Smith, 22, whose heart stopped during an abortion. Osathanondh resigned his license in February 2008, the same day the Massachusetts Board of Registration in Medicine issued charges against him over the incident.

The board said that Osathanondh “engaged in conduct that calls into question his competence to practice medicine,” including failing to monitor Smith’s heart or “adhere to basic cardiac life support protocol,” and failing to call 911 immediately after her heart stopped. The abortionist, said the board, also neglected to keep oxygen or a functioning blood pressure monitor in the room, and later lied to cover up his negligence.

A Boston attorney specializing in medical malpractice cases told the AP that bringing criminal charges in such a case was extraordinary, implying an extreme level of negligence, as most such cases are handled in civil court.

“The more extreme the action, the more extraordinary the negligence, the more likely it is that it may cross over that line where it also becomes criminal,” said attorney Andrew Meyer.

Osathanondh will face the charges in Barnstable Superior Court.

Posted in Medicine, Politics, Society | Tagged: , , | Leave a Comment »

Feminism, Pornography, and Choice

Posted by Mats on 25/08/2010

Pornland: How Porn Has Hijacked Our Sexuality
by Gail Dines
(Beacon Press, 256 pages, $26.95)

You may think you know what porn is. But there is a good chance you don’t. In particular, if you are a woman, or if you grew up in the age prior to the Internet, the word “pornography” might evoke images of a blushing Playboy centerfold, or perhaps some flimsy-plotted film with a delivery man, a desperate housewife, and just a bit more sex and nudity than an R-rating would allow. In reality, mainstream pornography today is far more brutal, more graphic, and more violent than most could imagine if they hadn’t seen it for themselves.

In her new book, Pornland: How Porn Has Hijacked Our Sexuality, Gail Dines draws on years of research to reveal just how extreme the porn industry has become. She takes readers deep into the world of hardcore porn, describing one nightmarish scene after another, full of men punishing and humiliating women sexually on camera.

The material she covers is truly shocking, and, often, difficult to read. I physically gagged more than once while reading her descriptions. Every sort of bodily waste and fluid, and every conceivable method by which a woman’s body can be pushed to the limit, often at the hands of two or three men at a time, is commonplace in today’s porn.

Forget about Hugh Hefner and his silk pajamas. These days porn is dominated by Gonzo filmmakers. In the Gonzo genre, the emphasis is on “real” rather than scripted scenes. Such films are cheap to produce. In the Internet age anyone with a camera and a computer can sell porn to the world. In order to stand out, porn producers are coming up with ever more extreme material. If the girl is crying, vomiting, or even bleeding, that’s Gonzo gold. According to Dines, it is not uncommon for pornographers to film close-ups of the injuries that have occurred to the girl’s body, once a scene is over.

Dines argues persuasively that porn today is not simply about men looking at naked women, or watching sex acts. Rather, the goal of much of it seems to be to depict the maximum amount of humiliation for the girl on screen. One website proudly offers its customers the opportunity to “access total degradation.”

Almost as disturbing as the abusive material itself is the fact that so many men view it as a turn-on. Like drug users always looking for a more powerful fix, porn addicts are often shocked by how quickly they became desensitized to porn, seeking out increasingly bizarre material that they once found distasteful.

The average age of first exposure to porn for American males is eleven. Internet porn now serves as a de facto sex education for America’s youth. To suppose that porn is mere fantasy, with no effect on the real world, is simply not credible. Dines reports that many young women come to her, complaining that their boyfriends expect them to act out the humiliating scenes they see in hardcore porn.

Dines is a feminist. She makes no effort to hide the fact. Her fierce opposition to porn is motivated chiefly by her objection to the sexual inequality it depicts. However, as a self-described “progressive,” she finds herself uncomfortably aligned with social conservatives on the issue of pornography. Consequently, she has the tiresome habit of gratuitously singling out conservatives for attack, as though she were anxious to reassert her liberal bona fides. (Gee whiz, did you know Mitt Romney sits on the board of Marriot Hotels; and Marriot sells porn on pay-per-view?)

Dines also seems to have a problem with capitalism. Pornography is “first and foremost a business,” she writes in one weighty passage, as though that fact alone were enough to damn the enterprise. Admittedly, smut peddlers are a greedy lot. But Dines never says exactly how Karl Marx might save our sexual culture. Once again, her main point seems to be that she is not a conservative.

It is easy to see why Dines and other anti-porn feminists have a hard time reconciling their “conservative” views on porn with their liberal views on personal choice. Feminists, after all, have been saying for a long time that a woman should be able to do whatever she wants with her own body. The question is: if a girl allows a man to urinate on her on camera in exchange for a thousand bucks, can a feminist really approve the transaction merely on the basis of the girl’s consent?

Porn pits the principles of choice and equality against one another. As a liberal, Dines believes the basis of morality is the unrestrained freedom to choose any sort of lifestyle one desires. As a feminist, she also believes that gender equality is an inviolable moral standard.

In her epilogue entitled, “Fighting Back,” Dines articulates feminism’s moral confusion thusly: “We need to offer an alternative way of being, a way to envisage a sexuality that is based on equality, dignity, and respect.” (This is her expression of equality-based morality.) She goes on to say, “Such a sexuality cannot be scripted by a movement because it belongs to individuals and reflects who they are and what they want sexually.” (This is her expression of personal choice-based morality.)

Choice is the holiest word in feminism. To comprehend a moral order that originates outside the domain of personal choice, one must acknowledge a higher law — one above human will. As a liberal, the very idea of a revealed moral standard conflicts with Dines’s commitment to personal choice. Dines understands that porn is wrong; but I don’t think she really understands why.

What is wrong with porn is that it debases the modesty and dignity of the human beings who make it, as well as those who consume it. In the sixties, feminists spent so much energy throwing off the strictures of religion and tradition. They never realized that chastity itself was a form of power. They never realized that the moral restraints they discarded were vital to the equality they so desperately wanted.

“Bras are a ludicrous invention,” declared Germaine Greer in her 1970 feminist hell-raiser, The Female Eunuch. Two years earlier, the mythical burning of the bras at the 1968 Miss America pageant in Atlantic City had signified feminists’ rejection of the strictures of male-dominated society — especially in the realm of sexual mores.

The disappearing bra soon became a metaphor for feminism itself. The image is all too fitting. No metaphor could better capture the way in which feminism has left women exposed, when all along it was supposed to bring their liberation. By embracing sexual liberation as a fundamental tenet of the women’s movement, feminists embraced the irreconcilable aims of getting under men and getting out from under them at the same time.

Feminists preach moral self-determination as an article of faith. The porn-saturated culture we now live in is, in this sense, of half their making. And for the same reason, Dines is unable to offer any real solution to the problem she articulates. Nevertheless, her book deserves attention because the porn industry is currently doing hardcore damage to an entire generation of young people, both conservative and liberal alike. If you have a strong enough stomach to read Pornland, you will gain a new appreciation for just how poisonous pornography is to our sexual culture.

Letter to the Editor

Nathan Harden blogs about higher education at National Review Online.

Posted in Politics, Society | Tagged: , , | Leave a Comment »

Women ‘Must Be Prepared to Kill’ Unborn Children to Protect Autonomy: Times Writer

Posted by Mats on 10/07/2010

LONDON, U.K., July 6, 2010 (LifeSiteNews.com) – After contemplating the immense mysteries of human life and sacrificial love in comparison to a woman’s “right to fertility control,” a writer for the Times of London concludes that attempts by pro-aborts to dismiss the life of an unborn child are a “convenient lie” hiding the fact that, “Yes, abortion is killing.

“But,” she concludes, “it’s the lesser evil.”

Columnist Antonia Senior in a June 30 column (available by subscription only) says that, despite the fact that the abortion debate hinges upon whether the unborn child is a unique life or not, women who wish to assert the cause of their freedom from male domination “must be prepared to kill for it.”

Senior begins by linking the cause of abortion to that of religious martyrs.

“Cradle Tower at the Tower of London is an interactive display that asks visitors to vote on whether they would die for a cause,” she says. “Standing where religious martyrs were held and tortured in Britain’s turbulent reformation, I could think of one cause I would stake my life on: a woman’s right to be educated, to have a life beyond the home and to be allowed by law and custom to order her own life as she chooses.”

“And that includes complete control over her own fertility.”

However, she admits that her “absolutist position” has been “under siege” since she gave birth to her own child.

She notes how “having a baby paints the world an entirely different hue” by revealing the underlying selfishness in what at first appears to be courageous self-affirmation.

Senior gives the example of Leo Tolstoy’s adulterous heroine Anna Karenina in the book by the same title, writing: “If you read the book as a teenager, you back her choices with all the passion of youth. Love over convention, go Anna! Then you have children and realise that Anna abandons her son to shack up with a pretty soldier, and then her daughter when she jumps under a train. She becomes a selfish witch.”

Senior then launches into discussing abortion, which she says “hinges on the notion of life,” no matter what other arguments or tactics are employed. “Either a foetus is a life from conception, or it is not,” she notes.

Senior then admits that: “What seems increasingly clear to me is that, in the absence of an objective definition, a foetus is a life by any subjective measure. My daughter was formed at conception, and all the barely understood alchemy that turned the happy accident of that particular sperm meeting that particular egg into my darling, personality-packed toddler took place at that moment. She is so unmistakably herself, her own person — forged in my womb, not by my mothering.”

“Any other conclusion is a convenient lie that we on the pro-choice side of the debate tell ourselves to make us feel better about the action of taking a life.”

“That little seahorse shape floating in a willing womb is a growing miracle of life. In a resentful womb it is not a life, but a foetus — and thus killable.”

This fact, she says, leaves feminism with a “problem,” to which she attributes the “groundswell” of young pro-life feminists.

But, she insists, “you cannot separate women’s rights from their right to fertility control.”

“The single biggest factor in women’s liberation was our newly found ability to impose our will on our biology.”

She concludes therefore that, “As ever, when an issue we thought was black and white becomes more nuanced, the answer lies in choosing the lesser evil” – in this case choosing “the expectation of a life unburdened by misogyny,” which she suggests can only be achieved through abortion.

Hence, she says, “The nearly 200,000 aborted babies in the UK each year are the lesser evil, no matter how you define life, or death, for that matter. If you are willing to die for a cause, you must be prepared to kill for it, too.”

Posted in Medicine, Society | Tagged: , , | Leave a Comment »

 
%d bloggers like this: