Make A Radical Feminist's Head Explode With This One Easy Blog Post!

**Note--I am a pro-life conservative.  I am NOT endorsing abortion on demand.  This is rather the inescapable end game if you a) embrace abortion on demand, b) obliterate the idea of any distinction on the basis of sex/gender, and c) use internally consistent logic.**

Allow me to play devil's advocate for those who argue for abortion on demand.  There is a stunning and inexcusable gap in current practice that must be addressed:

Abortion on demand must be available, without any additional restrictions beyond those already in place, for fathers.

I'm sure many radical feminists are even now taking to their fainting couches outrage blogs at the previous sentence alone, but we're only beginning.

Allowing only the woman carrying the baby to decide to have an abortion on demand is a clear violation of civil rights and equal protection.  It is obvious gender discrimination on its face alone.

Since having an abortion on demand is a right, per modern feminist theory and jurisprudence, one cannot deny that right to someone.  Furthermore, because it is a right, one may compel another to take actions to preserve and fulfill that right.  Denying that right to men is therefore a violation of men's civil rights on the basis of gender.

The father bears an equal burden financially for the baby as the mother by force of paternity laws, and so if the mother can have an abortion on demand because a child would be a financial burden to her, the father should be able to compel an abortion for the same reason.  In fact, since a mother is not required to provide any reason to have an abortion up to the 20th week of the pregnancy, a man should be able to have an abortion performed without providing a reason as well.

Feminists have long said that if men could get pregnant, there would be abortion clinics on every corner.  If men can obtain abortions on demand, I have no doubt that the demand will increase and that more clinics will open to supply that demand, which means more abortion clinics for women to use.

**Since this post is about a feminist issue, I will honor the great radical feminist blog custom of presenting straw men arguments and burning them down by indulging in it.  Cue the outrage blogs again.  It never is as much fun when someone apes the flawed tactics and statements of your most extreme members to make you look like absolute idiots, right feminists?**

**Andohbytheway, this whole blog post is satire, which is not hate speech, and thus protected speech.  Since I'm not a raving idiot who ignores the simple, obvious truth that there are in fact differences between the sexes/genders, I don't actually believe these arguments.**

Some feminists would argue that hoary old "her body, her choice!" line.  Well, I suppose one could argue that a risky medical procedure against a woman's will is unethical and possibly illegal, but fortunately feminists have abolished that concern with very public arguments that abortion is so safe that it needs no oversight and simple measures such as making sure that there is a nearby hospital that would handle any potential complications or that abortion clinics need to pass the sort of inspections for cleanliness that any other healthcare setting must are totally unnecessary burdens.  Bravo, Wendy Davis!

The father contributes half the genetic material, and so he has every bit as much claim to ownership of this "clump of cells" as the mother.  Now, some feminists might claim that we know with certainty who the mother is but not the father.  However, with a simple genetic test we can establish paternity beyond a reasonable doubt.  We don't even need to do an invasive procedure on the mother to obtain a sample, a simple blood test will accomplish it, which is such a minor burden for the mother that I'm certain courts would be happy to permit it.

Still other feminists might argue that since only a woman can get pregnant, only a woman can decide.  That sounds like gender discrimination pure and simple, which any good feminist will shriek is wrong in any other context, and we must be consistent.

As a side benefit, since there is a great deal of crossover from radical feminism to environmentalism, having abortions on demand for men will probably lead to a dramatic decrease in the birth rate once the men get to take mulligans on pregnancies, and there will be less people running around to pollute the Earth.

So, feminists, when it comes to abortion, remember to check your pregnancy privilege.

An Open Letter To Witchwind, Radical Feminist

Dear Witchwind:

I am a straight male (translation: cis-normative heterosexual oppressor of wymyn) who came across your blog after you wrote a fascinating exposition on your own phobias and pathologies entitled PIV is always rape, ok? This piece was published by you on your blog December 15, 2013, and I believe I first read it (translation: collected information with which to batter radical feminism) a few days later when it was linked at Ace of Spades HQ. I have also recently read your post entitled In retrospect to the 85,000, reformism and other things which expressed fear of men reading your blog and that the very fact that men read your piece was a threat.

I find this definition of threat curious, but it is consistent with your apparent willingness to ignore accepted definitions of words in your posts. You describe heterosexual intercourse as PIV (penis in vagina), and state that it is “a basic fact: Intercourse/PIV is always rape, plain and simple.” This is not plain and simple at all, primarily because it is not true. Your formulation means that either intercourse and rape are identical, meaning the words are perfect synonyms, or that all intercourse is a subset of rape.

Your working definition of rape appears to be any sexual activity that may potentially cause harm to a woman. To quote your working definition, “intercourse is inherently harmful to women and intentionally so, because it causes pregnancy in women. . . . Pregnancy = may hurt, damage or kill. Intercourse = a man using his physical force to penetrate a woman. Intention / purpose of the act of intercourse = to cause pregnancy. PIV is therefore intentional harm / violence. Intentional sexual harm of a man against a woman through penile penetration = RAPE.”

Logically speaking, your argument is complete bullsh*t. For example, all PIV would not qualify as rape under this definition because there are scenarios where pregnancy cannot happen—a woman who has had a total hysterectomy is not raped by PIV, because she cannot suffer any “intentional sexual harm” since she cannot become pregnant.

By your logic, anyone who walks down a flight of stairs is an attempted suicide, because the risk of falling down the stairs cannot be completely eliminated, and a fall may hurt, damage or kill.

I will also assert that there is plenty of anecdotal evidence that not every man desires pregnancy as an outcome every time he has intercourse, which would render one of your underlying premises invalid.

Even if I concede your invalid premises, however, it still leads to absurd conclusions. Every male of every species that ever procreates or even engages in intercourse is a rapist by your argument. Furthermore, rape ceases to have any meaning of its own, as you reduce it to simply another word for intercourse (or PIV, to use the absurd RadFem term). You very much do in fact belittle the experiences of women (and men) who have suffered rape, particularly violent, forcible rape, which is in no way synonymous with consensual intercourse. You further insult non-RadFem women by telling them that they have no sexual liberty, and cannot consent to intercourse because they are brainwashed and could never allow anything in their vaginas other than an infant being born. In my opinion, this shows a heterophobia on your part that I suspect you would label rank bigotry and discrimination if it were applied in reverse, i.e. a straight male decrying all lesbian relations as felonious.

You seem to have an all-pervading hatred of all things men. You not only oppose their (imagined) Illuminati-level control of all things, but state that there is no room for any male in the agenda or cause to advance women's rights. You state that enlightened women, such as yourself, can see through all this and that men will never change, yet then demand that men give you money, property, essentially the universe. I offer you and all your RadFem allies this instead (WARNING—SATIRICAL CONTENT AHEAD):

Settlement in a location that has not been pillaged by men—an intact region of the Amazon rain forest seems reasonable, as it has not been despoiled and contains adequate food and water.

And nothing else.

No heavy equipment for clearing the land for farming, because such equipment was invented and built primarily by men.

No gasoline or any products dependent upon the petrochemical industry, since these all come from a crude simulation of intercourse by penetrating the earth with drills (which are just phallic symbols, of course).

No vaccines or antibiotics, because these were discovered/invented by men.

No firearms for defense, since they were invented by men.

Finally, no men for procreation, no male domestic animals for maintaining your herds/flocks. After all, we're all rapists anyway. I'm sure you can start from scratch in mud huts with stone tools and get to successful cloning within 30 or 40 years before your movement goes extinct.

Or, maybe, you could renounce your irrational hatred of men. I don't expect that, of course, since your writings indicate a zealotry wholly divorced from reality, but this Femtopia sounds like exactly what you want. No men, no influence from the patriarchy's toxic ideas or desire to control your womb. Just you and your fellow RadFems, sitting in the jungle telling each other how smart and superior you are, dying off one by one from illness, injury or starvation, and with no way to propagate yourselves, until the last RadFem living lives out her days ranting at the trees how this is all the fault of men.

 

Sincerely,

 

Conservative Crank

Remembering 9-11 and Benghazi

The most important part of today for me, aside from remembering and honoring the innocent victims and brave emergency responders and passengers of Flight 93, is to not forget why it happened and who is to blame.

9-11 happened because radical Islamists hate the United States--it's culture, it's wealth, it's defense of Israel/Jews.  Islamists hate the freedom that is at the foundation of America because it allows for liberty, and for people to make decisions that might conflict with the Islamists' view of a perfect sharia caliphate.  To them, any act no matter how barbaric is permissible if done for the greater glory of Allah or to cause harm to the infidels.  Alas, my understanding of history is that when religion and politics are in bed together, the usual product of that union is bloodshed.

Benghazi happened--well, we still don't have an openly acknowledged reason why Benghazi happened.  It certainly was not about a YouTube video.  My best understanding (cribbed from various sources) is that the Libyan mission included CIA running arms to Syrian rebels fighting against Assad (where the fighting is primarily two strains of Islamists pitted against each other, though there are some less extremist elements in the Syrian rebel forces), and another group of extremists (the Al Qaeda affiliate in Mali) decided to make a little statement and perhaps score some surface-to-air missiles in the bargain.

My point is, radical Islam is a mortal foe of the United States.  Radical Islam will accept nothing but complete obedience and adherence to its vision of the world.  Radical Islam must be marginalized and, when an imminent threat, crushed ruthlessly.  Those who renounce extremism and allow for the peaceful coexistence of others are not my enemies, or enemies of the United States.  But those who would kill another because they pray to a different god, or do not follow their particular strict moral code, those have no place in the world and are the enemy of all.  Those who would give no quarter to the infidel deserve no mercy, and the sad reality is that millions who believe "death to the infidel" is a central part of good religious practice would rather die than tolerate a Christian or a Jew living peacefully nearby.  Those who can change and tolerate others, all well and good, but those who do not must be dealt with, by force if necessary to prevent their ability to harm others.

The Founding Fathers understood the dangers of mixing religion and government.  This is why the First Amendment of the Constitution explicitly addresses it.  However, the Founding Fathers also understood the value religion has in society for contributing to moral well-being and order, at least in the Christian faith.  Although often now misunderstood, particularly by atheists with an agenda, the First Amendment does not call for the banishment of religion from the public sphere or anywhere there is government involvement.  Instead, it prohibits government from establishing a state religion or church, and also prohibits the government from abridging religion.  I could rant for pages about how this element of the First Amendment is often ignored, but that is for another time.

A Case For Impeachment of President Obama--Libya, Syria, and the War Powers Resolution

I will attempt to lay out a case for the impeachment of our 44^th President that, had the Congress any integrity at all, would surely result in the filing of Articles of Impeachment and likely a successful conviction in the Senate. I will also make a brief argument for the timing of this, should Boehner grow a pair.

A couple disclaimers up front: I am not a lawyer, nor what most people would recognize as a “scholar” of the Constitution—i.e. I do not have a degree in Government or Law, with an emphasis on the Constitution. What I do have is a pretty good grasp of political philosophy and philosophy in general, which is certainly adequate for an understanding of the Constitution as intended by Madison and the other framers. I will not be seriously entertaining penumbras and other such perversions of the original language as understood at the time of passage of the Constitution or the relevant Amendments.

Two relevant links here. This is the full text of the U.S. Constitution and here is the text of the War Powers Resolution (sometimes also called the War Powers Act).

It is also important to note that the Constitutionality of the War Powers Resolution is itself an open question.

Okay, enough with the pre-game, on to the matter at hand.

A Return to Blogging and Some Tidying Up

It's been quite some time since I posted here.  Some of that has to do with frustration at the electorate, and much of it has to do with the demands of meatspace--job, family, etc.  Nonetheless, I hope to begin writing again here, probably 2-3 posts a month.

I've also changed the description of the blog somewhat.  Whereas I once described myself as "a committed conservative with some moderate tendencies", I realize that is not really accurate.  I was allowing myself to be trapped by a leftist prism on what constitutes conservative and moderate in regards to social issues.  Although I have compassion, I would not categorize myself as a "compassionate conservative" in the mold of George W. Bush.  Specifically, this realization came to me during the recent Supreme Court deliberations and decisions on gay marriage.  I realized that it does not make me a moderate to support fair treatment of homosexuals, just as it does not make me some reactionary h8ter because I oppose state-sanctioned gay marriage.

Further introspection has made me aware that I have a fair libertarian streak in me as well.  Again, I had previously allowed my interpretation of libertarianism to be unfairly biased due to a false preconception, that libertarians were simply about legalization of drugs.  What I discovered was that libertarians (as opposed to the Libertarian party) were those who wished to maximize individual liberty.  To my thinking, this puts libertarians (classical liberals, as Locke or Madison might have understood them) much closer to conservatives than the modern liberals (Democrats, Socialists, Communists, etc.), although on a different axis.

However, I am in no danger of going on full-on libertarian, which stands only a few steps away from anarchy in some respects.  I believe that a strong but tightly limited government is necessary for the common defense, a precursor to having any degree of liberty in society as opposed to a Hobbesian jungle.  I believe the Founding Fathers were much, much smarter than many people give them credit for by choosing a constitutional republic rather than a democracy or even democratic republic as the blueprint for the United States.  Unfortunately, the original Progressive movement from Teddy Roosevelt over a century ago has gradually altered that blueprint, building up paper mountains of laws and regulations that have pushed inexorably in a direction of statism.  But this author will not quietly submit to a socialist agenda, or the implicit messaging of der State über alles that modern leftists such as President Obama support.

Culture Wars, Part II--Schools and Socialism

In the prior post, I briefly covered two topics, acceptance that conservatives have lost the culture war, and what that meant in terms of the loss of cultural touchstones.  This post addresses the how and why.

How did this happened? We let it. We let liberals, by which I mean socialists, take over the schools and destroy our youth. The nanny state believes that it, through the schools, is the proper authority to raise and guide children, not the parents and extended family. I laughed when I heard that Hillary Clinton wrote a book called It Takes a Village, because even as a teenager I knew the premise implied in the title was ridiculous, but I'm not laughing any more because I now know that there are a great number of people who actually believe that.

Why did this happen?  Because the socialists waged total war, while the conservatives sought a limited action.  Socialists fought on every front all the time, always making sure to keep an eye on the long game as well, whereas the conservatives were focused on the individual battles and merely lamented about gradually losing the war.  Ask any Vietnam vet how well a limited action works out in the long run.  And the ultimate long-term goal was to gain control of the schools, because compulsory education guarantees that virtually every young, malleable mind will be able to be shaped by teachers, without the children realizing it, until they become just like the teachers.

For a more specific example, the Left fought to have prayer removed from schools for decades, and have achieved almost total victory in this.  They lost many court cases along the way, but always they probed for a new angle, a different judge, and gradually they chipped away at a ritual that was once a given and have turned it into a historical footnote in most districts.  Having accomplished this, they now attack the most sacred of the American Christian cows--Christmas itself.  How many districts now insist on parity between Christmas and Kwanzaa, or have banned any sort of Christmas celebration?  Does anyone actually know what Kwanzaa is and celebrate it for those reasons?  Search Ann Coulter's column archives for a devastating indictment of Kwanzaa and its founder--the short version is that the holiday's roots are about as genuine as a three-dollar bill and that it not-so-secretly promotes radical socialist redistribution.

Volumes could be written on how public schools have been subverted to left-wing ideology, but I don't have the desire to tackle all the evils at this time.  For my purposes at this time, it is sufficient to acknowledge that this is the case.

The next post in this series will be Culture Wars, Part III--The Triumph of Relativism and Divinity of Self.

Culture Wars, Part I--Where We First Went Wrong

In the ongoing culture wars, conservatives continue to be routed by liberals.  The recent election proves this, where a slim majority reelected a man--Barack Obama--who has made negative net progress on the economy in the past four years over a man--Mitt Romney--who has rebuilt numerous now-successful businesses.  Now, we could argue a great deal about who on the Right is to blame for this specific failure, but the truth is that it is all of us.  We have ceded the entire war on culture and values in the name of political correctness.  To be sure, other elements are in play--which I hope to discuss later--but we have failed the Founding Fathers.

We have allowed separation of church and state to be twisted to mean virtual banishment of religion, especially Christianity, from the public sphere.  We have failed to inculcate entire generations with mores and norms that were a given for centuries in Western Civilization.  How many children or young adults can describe the framework or the meanings of even a fraction of Aesop's fables?  Would they see the ant as a horrible villain and the grasshopper as oppressed, or would they even understand that so much of the current culture encourages them to become grasshoppers?  Would they jeer the mouse for removing the thorn from the lion's paw?  What about other former cultural touchstones?  Would they understand Hansel and Gretel is an object lesson on poor planning and disobeying one's parents, or would they decry the violence of the story as too toxic for children?  Would they understand the parable of the prodigal son as the love of a father (and God) for his child, or see it as a template for endless largess for the wealthy to the poor, even if one is poor after having squandered his own wealth so foolishly?
This is the first post in a series on this topic.  Next will be Culture Wars, Part II--Schools and Socialism.

Thoughts on the RNC, and Paul Ryan

I watched or listened to a fair bit of the Republican National Convention the past few days.  Now that the convention is over, I have a number of thoughts.  Some of them may not be strictly convention related due to the gap since my last post, especially some of the material on Paul Ryan, but the focus will be the RNC.

Overall, I think the convention was very successful.  There was a concerted, focused effort to build up Mitt Romney and illuminate the shortcomings of Barack Obama, and I imagine the organizers are probably, and rightfully, quite pleased with themselves today.  And now to my thoughts, organized in almost no particular order (Ryan is last for a reason, though).

1) Ann Romney--There were multiple speeches by non-political figures, including members of Romney's church with stories that cannot fail to move a person with any sense of compassion, but Ann Romney's speech was the most memorable, and the most helpful, to the cause of making Mitt Romney more approachable for those who only knew him as that rich Mormon guy from Massachusetts.  Frankly, I liked him more after her speech--and I already was finding him more likable than I did in the heat of the primaries or even a couple months ago.  She has shown that she will be an asset to Mitt Romney as First Lady.

2) Clint Eastwood--The most talked about speech of the convention right now, a bit of political commentary and improv comedy that has extremely polarized responses--I caught it on the web later.  Ace at Ace of Spades HQ is a huge fan, as is Sean Hannity.  Most liberal commentators are not.  While I personally appreciated what he was trying to do, and think it was funny, it certainly was a bit of a non-sequitur.  If it gets people to laugh at Obama, and opens their eyes to his flaws, then it was a success.  I don't think it will cause any harm to the Romney brand, though Clint may find himself invited to a lot less parties.

3) Mitt Romney--I did not see or hear all of Mitt's speech, but I've read both left-wing and right-wing takes on it.  With the exception of actual Democratic operatives (CNN includes high-ranking members of the DNC in its review of the the convention), the consensus seems to be that the speech advanced the cause of his candidacy.  Some of the more right-wing pundits believe it was Mitt's best speech--though he does not exactly have the reputaion of being a barn-burner on the stump.  Nonetheless, he did not commit any gaffes, and nothing else that happened this week appears to have harmed him.  Incidentally, getting ahead of Obama on going to Louisiana in the wake of Hurricane Isaac is a brilliant move.

4) Governor Susana Martinez--This speech was a tour de force, and was tied for the second best speech of the convention that I heard.  A remarkable life story, a conversion that comes from a small epiphany--not like Paul on the road to Damascus, but a sudden realization that her own values align with conservatives and the Republicans, not the liberals and the Democrats--this is a story that wins converts, not just voters for a single cycle.  Her delivery of the speech was very impressive, and I sincerely hope she remains prominent in the party.

5) Senator Marco Rubio--I missed this speech as well (Thursday's schedule was not conducive to following the convention), but once again he is gaining lots of accolades.  He is one of the true rising stars in the GOP, and has acquited himself quite well in the Senate as well as a speaker--but I still need to see a lot more before I am ready to nominate him for President.  Having read the transcript and heard the speech, he did well, very well indeed.  I do have high hopes for Senator Rubio, but his time has not come yet.

6)  Condoleezza Rice--This speech I rank with Governor Martinez's, although for different reasons.  Ms. Rice's story is in some ways the most remarkable of any of the speakers, summed up in her one line about going from Jim Crow Birmingham to the highest diplomatic position and most prestigious cabinet office of the United States.  Furthermore, she gave this speech without benefit of a teleprompter, which is almost unheard of for a scripted speech in the modern political environment.  It is easy to see why many in the Republican party, especially the more moderate elements, are drooling at the prospect of her running for office.  It is not clear, however, that she has a desire to hold office.

7) Representative Paul Ryan--To my thinking, Paul Ryan was the true star of the convention.  Krauthammer wrote a piece a couple weeks ago that echoes my own thoughts, namely that Ryan is set up to be the standard bearer for the Republican party for a generation.  I disagree only in that Ryan might actually be a two generation figure.  If Romney does become the next President, and can in fact manage to turn around the economy, Ryan would then be able to stroll into the White House in another 8 years, since he will have played a significant part in said turnaround.  After 2 terms as vice president and 2 terms as president, Ryan would sill be under 60--a younger, wonkier Reagan figure who could still have a strong voice for another 20 years.

And then there is his speech--a speech that was filled with pointed truths (don't believe the fact-checkers--everything they harp on is either factually accurate or a matter of opinion) that several have called "devastating" and led Ace (hardly a font of unrelenting optimism) to pronounce the election "over".  (Ace is feeling his oats a little less since the Nielsen numbers are in, but he still seems pretty positive.)  The word I used at the time, listening to the speech, and that I've also seen used by others including Ace, was "evisceration".  It was utterly damning of Obama's policies and failures, with both national elements and personal touches.  Like many other speakers, he allowed for former Obama supporters to save face by not voting for him in 2012, but no other speaker that I am aware of managed to destroy Obama's record so thoroughly in the process.

I thought Perry had fire in the belly at the onset of his campaign, but his nomination was not destined to be.  Romney, I believe, will be adequate to the current challenges, but it is Ryan, with fire in the belly to spare, who can lead the Republican party, and conservative philosophy, into the future--and as of this moment, I do not see anyone on the political landscape who would make me happier in that role.

Executive Privilege and Fast and Furious

With all due respect to the offices of Attorney General of the United States and President of the United States;

Mr. Holder, President Obama, the two of you are a disgrace to this country, and anything short of impeachment and a criminal trial is too good for you.

Executive privilege has been asserted by the Obama administration in response to multiple subpoenas from the Congressional Oversight Committee regarding documents from the program known as Fast and Furious.  In case the reader has not been following this story, it is the operation run by the Department of Justice through the ATF that involved selling guns to known straw purchasers (illegal gun buyers) who would then sell or otherwise provide these weapons to the Mexican drug cartels.  Another brief summary of the particulars of the operation can be found in this post by Dedicated Tenther.  As a bonus, that link contains DT's thoughts on what should happen to those responsible.

Why Wisconsin Matters

I will try not to echo here what has been said in other parts of the blogosphere regarding Walker's victory in the recall effort yesterday in Wisconsin.  I do think that there is much truth in the notion that this election is more important than the Presidential election this November.  I have listed before my reasons why a conservative victory in November is critical, especially with regard to upcoming Supreme Court vacancies.  In terms of what Joe Public will see and hear and be conscious of, Romney versus Obama will be the story of the year.

However, in terms of a true shockwave to the American political system, Walker's victory likely heralds a sea-change.