How “Yes Means Yes” fuels the hookup culture.

Commenter theasdgamer asked how Yes Means Yes is intended to grease the skids of hookup culture for women.  This is a crucial question, because conservatives are tempted to assume the law will greatly constrict the hookup culture, as Heather Mac Donald of The Weekly Standard argues (H/T Martel):

Sexual liberation is having a nervous breakdown on college campuses. Conservatives should be cheering on its collapse; instead they sometimes sound as if they want to administer the victim smelling salts…

The ultimate result of the feminists’ crusade may be the same as if they were explicitly calling for a return to sexual modesty: a sharp decrease in casual, drunken sex. There is no downside to this development.

But this fantasy denies what the promoters of the law are saying outright.  The intent of the law is to make women feel freer to engage in the hookup culture, as Ezra Klein explains:

The Yes Means Yes law could also be called the You Better Be Pretty Damn Sure law…

A version of the You Better Be Pretty Damn Sure law is already in effect at college campuses. It just sits as an impossible burden on women, who need to Be Pretty Damn Sure that the guy who was so nice to them at the party isn’t going to turn into a rapist if they let him into their dorm room — and that’s not something anyone can be sure about.

As the proponents of the law are very openly explaining, the point is to make it feel safe for women to take strange men back to their dorm rooms, or to travel to unknown cities and sleep in strange men’s beds.  This is what feminists have in mind, and this is what such a law will promote.

It is worth reiterating that the law will only make these foolish choices seem safe.  It won’t actually make doing these things safe.  Just like “Teach men not to rape” won’t reduce rape, giving women comfort in making risky choices won’t actually make those choices safe.

Posted in Fantasy vs Reality, Feminists, Foolishness, Traditional Conservatives, Yes Means Yes | 234 Comments

Making the world safe for foolish promiscuous women.

I stumbled on a recent piece by Ezra Klein at Vox titled “Yes Means Yes” is a terrible law, and I completely support it.  It is a remarkably frank discussion of California’s new law defining how universities which receive state funds are to handle allegations of rape.  My initial reaction on the whole “Yes Means Yes” question was one of limited interest.  As I’ve explained before, I’m not interested in creating rules of the road for fornication.  It isn’t that I don’t care about injustice, but that I don’t see a way to make fornication safe.

My own initial response is I’m quite certain the standard response for most conservatives.  To their credit, feminists have done a brilliant job of maneuvering conservatives as a blocking force around the battlefield of the culture wars.  The problem however is not that conservatives aren’t interested in creating rules of the road for fornication, it is that they are all too eager to assist feminists in doing this.  The greatest precedent for this is in the area of child support.  Feminists complained that it wasn’t fair for the fornicating woman to be responsible for any resulting pregnancies while fornicating men get off scott-free.  The idea of a cad not being responsible for supporting his children understandably enrages conservatives, and you will be hard pressed to find a conservative who objects to child support in theory or in practice.

The problem with child support however is that in trying to make fornication fair, conservatives have unwittingly given their approval for the replacement of marriage as the fundamental family structure in the Western world.  Making fornication “fair” (for women) turned out to come at a profound cost, something we haven’t begun to process.

What we see in the Yes Means Yes law is the next level of legislation attempting to make fornication as pleasant and rewarding an experience for women as possible.  As Klein explains in the opening of the piece, it is in fact a ridiculous law:

It tries to change, through brute legislative force, the most private and intimate of adult acts. It is sweeping in its redefinition of acceptable consent; two college seniors who’ve been in a loving relationship since they met during the first week of their freshman years, and who, with the ease of the committed, slip naturally from cuddling to sex, could fail its test.

Yet while he is very open about the absurdity of the law, he goes on to explain that it is needed in order to create a culture of promiscuity where men are afraid and women are not:

If the Yes Means Yes law is taken even remotely seriously it will settle like a cold winter on college campuses, throwing everyday sexual practice into doubt and creating a haze of fear and confusion over what counts as consent. This is the case against it, and also the case for it…

…”No Means No” has created a world where women are afraid. To work, “Yes Means Yes” needs to create a world where men are afraid.

Klein explains that this other piece by Amanda Taub was largely responsible for bringing him to support this view.  Taub’s piece is even more eye opening, explaining that women’s fear of doing risky things is “a tax on women”.

That status quo puts women in the position of having to constantly police their own behavior to make sure that they are not giving the appearance of passive consent. That’s not only exhausting; it’s limiting. It reinforces power imbalances that keep women out of positions of success and authority.

This is the core idea behind the slogan “Teach men not to rape”.  Feminists are pushing for a world where female promiscuity is encouraged and defended with the full force of society.  The danger is, conservatives could be baited into backing this as they were baited into backing child support.  Those who don’t formally approve of the new order are likely to want to stay out of it, out of a reluctance to being perceived as going to bat for promiscuous men.  Ironically the standard argument against the law, that it will create a chilling effect on the hookup culture, only confirms to conservatives that this is in fact a good law.  But the law isn’t designed to put a damper on the hookup culture, it is designed to grease the skids for women to participate more fully in the hookup culture.

Taub describes the problem of the status quo in greater detail:

As a result, certain opportunities are left unavailable to women, while still others are subject to expensive safety precautions, such as not traveling for professional networking unless you can afford your own hotel room. It amounts, essentially, to a tax that is levied exclusively on women. And it sucks.

The example she is referring to here is a woman named Sophia Katz who by her own account traveled to New York City to take a man she had never met up on his offer to share his bed.  The first night she spent in his bed she rebuffed his sexual advances with “Hey, I’m really tired. Could we not do this right now?”  On the second night she first argued that his roommates would hear before giving in.

Katz is the poster child for the Yes Means Yes law, because while neither she nor the man she slept with were involved with California universities, the intent is to make it safe for women to do exactly what Katz did without fear of feeling pressured to have sex.  Likewise, the intent is to make it safe for women to go home with random hook up partners and not risk feeling regret later.  In order to accomplish this, the law must as Klein explains create a world where men are afraid so women will feel comfortable in doing foolish, risky things.

Right now this law only impacts students at California universities.  However, the push is clearly to modify the criminal code across the West in similar fashion.  Nothing short of this will make women and girls feel safe pursuing promiscuity with wild abandon, even though making something dangerous feel safe will only put women at far greater risk.

The question is how will non feminists react to this latest gambit.  Will they actively support it, or at least not protest as it is pushed through, out of a sense of disgust at cads like the one who shared his bed with Katz expecting sex in return?  Or will non feminists recognize the folly in yet further laws attempting to make promiscuity and foolishness as fun and rewarding for women as possible?


Related:  We are trapped on Slut Island and Traditional Conservatives are our Gilligan

Posted in Feminists, Feral Females, Foolishness, Philosophy of Feminism, Replacing Marriage, Traditional Conservatives, Yes Means Yes | 210 Comments

If it was a snake, it would have bitten them.

CNN Money has a new article up claiming that men with children magically earn more than childless men (H/T Sunshine Mary):  It pays to be a dad

Dads had a median salary of $49,000 compared to around $29,000 for men without kids.

“Parenthood is giving advantages to men but not to women,” said Justine Calcagno, a social psychologist and author of the report.

The sad thing is very few can spot the problem with this logic.  Men who have families to support have larger expenses than single, childless men.  This means they have to work harder to earn more money.  They all but tripped over this fact while rushing to their false conclusion:

Overall, 92% of dads are employed full-time compared to 77% of non-dads, who are more likely to be part-time workers.

Even to the extent that managers prefer fathers over childless men, the reason is that they know the father is much more motivated.

Everyone understands this when talking to a young man who wants to someday have a family.  Everyone knows the young man had better work hard if he wants to be able to support a family.  But once the family man has done what he needs to do, this is suddenly proof not of sacrifice by men, but of unfairness to women.  Even most conservatives can’t spot the flawed thinking.

We see the same nonsensical thinking regarding findings that married men earn more than unmarried men:

“Particularly for men, marriage typically brings what has been called the ‘marriage premium’ where married men with identical experience and education make more money than their single counterparts.”

Edit: Here is a link to the original study. The ‘Mommy Tax’ and ‘Daddy Bonus’

Posted in Data, Denial, Fatherhood, Foolishness, Patriarchal Dividend | 272 Comments

A woman’s work is never done.

The indignities of marriage never stop piling up for feminists.  On top of being trapped in boring drudgery, Kelsey McKinney explains at Vox (the other Vox) that Obama’s latest bit of male groveling insidiously forces wives to train their husbands.  Clearly now the patriarchy has finally stooped too low:

What President Obama is suggesting, really, is that women — on top of dealing with internet trollsdomestic abuse, higher rates of sexual assault, and being paid less than men for the same work — must also deal with the mighty task of reforming all of the world’s males into decent husbands.

At the event, Obama also said, “Eventually we learn, but it takes us a little longer, because we’re not as smart.”

The president may have gotten this idea from his wife, who claimed in August that women are the more intelligent sex. But if that’s true, then it’s important women are able spend their time developing cures for cancer and renewable energy sources rather than training men to do the dishes.

What we need is a great hero, someone who can rescue feminists from this endless misery instead of expecting women to solve it themselves.  Won’t some big strong not-woman come rescue the poor feminists?

Posted in Feminists, Weak men screwing feminism up | 64 Comments

Selling sin.

Recently a self described conservative Christian mother of 5 came to scold me for criticizing the Christian Broadcasting Network’s endorsement of actress Janine Turner’s book praising single mothers:

I encountered your blog because I had found Janine Turner’s book in my church library and a Google search led me here. I am pretty disgusted with the condescension and misogyny that you express in so many of your articles. I am a very, very conservative Christian, married for 20 years with 5 kids to a wonderful man, and I can’t ever imagine Our Lord looking down on human beings with the contempt that you display in your writing. You do not have the heart of Jesus–he came to save, not to condemn…

It’s very sad to me that you can’t seem to recognize that there are many women out there who lived sinful lives, who now have sole care of a child from their past, and who have had a conversion BECAUSE of their struggles. One of God’s greatest talents is to bring good even from our sinfulness, as He did on the Cross. These single mothers are trying to work out their salvation with fear and trembling just like you and me, and all Janine Turner was doing with her book was trying to encourage women in that situation to hold fast to Jesus and not despair that God can’t do amazing things for their lives and their children because their circumstances don’t “look” wholesome and perfect…

As I’ve written before, as feminist thought has taken hold across our culture instead of becoming more vigilant to feminist rebellion Christians have become desensitized to it.  No matter how blatant the expression of feminist rebellion, we just can’t see it.  As a result, we no longer need radical feminists like Sanger and Friedan;  ordinary Christians now reflexively toe the feminist line.  In a world where unwed motherhood and kicking the father out of the home are celebrated feminist rights, objecting to Christians declaring these sins as godly is the new heresy.  Objecting to declaring evil good is now hateful, misogyny.

Make no mistake;  Miss Turner is quite open about what she intended to accomplish in writing her book.  This is not as the commenter implied a book about repentance.  In the forward to the book Miss Turner describes her own out of wedlock pregnancy and birth without a hint of repentance.  She presents her out of wedlock birth not as a foreseeable result of sinful choices, but something which life did to her (emphasis mine):

My Journey
I’ve often reflected, How did a Baptist girl from Texas end up as a single mother? My pregnancy, however, was the most miraculous event of my life. I would read to her in the womb, play Mozart, and pray with her. I even felt the joy when she kicked, literally, to the music of a Broadway show.

As my pregnancy progressed, however, it became increasingly evident that my journey as a mother was to be a singular event. One day I predicted that my daughter’s father would not be there when our baby was born. He responded by holding me tightly and saying that, yes, he would be there. I knew in my heart that he would not. Call it women’s intuition, but I knew. This is not how I envisioned the drama of my life, the joy of bringing a child into the world, but life presented itself to me in this way.

A bit further down she explains her mission in writing the book:

My Mission
There’s one thing I believe fervently, and that is that 90 percent of single mothers never intended to be single mothers. Most young girls, as they daydream about the day when they will have children, rarely say, “When I grow up I want to have a child and raise the child without a father.” Or, “When I grow up I want to get a divorce and raise my children all by myself.” It rarely happens.

I wrote this book to inspire these women. I wrote it so that single mothers of today would not feel alone, troubled, burdened, shamed, or depressed.

To drive home the need for such a book, Miss Turner points out that we are experiencing an explosion of single mothers:

The U.S. Census Bureau data published in 2004 reports that approximately 43 percent of women raising children are single mothers;  this number is likely higher today.  51 percent of women in America are not married.  The wisdom that the women of this book impart to us is that we are not alone.  Women have been doing it for centuries and through tragic circumstances in social environments that, for the most part, pale to any we could encounter today.

This is the message Miss Turner with the help of CBN, the married mother of 5, and her church (by placing this book in the church library) is selling to young women.  There is no sin, only circumstances that life hands you.  With a little girlpower and moxie you don’t need a husband, and your children don’t need a father.  Hold your head high.  You’ve come a long way baby.

Posted in Attacking headship, Book of Oprah, Church Apathy About Divorce, Denial, Feral Females, Stantons Heroes, Ugly Feminists | 221 Comments