(Note: The current inquisition against immoral sexual behavior has many valid points. Not only in modern times, but throughout all history, women have been victims of male sexual abuse. This may be a time in history where there is another movement to stem this pattern of abuse.
However, as we have repeatedly seen in Clear News, there is always an antithesis. With all the incontrovertible validity in the woman’s movement, the movement also contains some false premises, which have dysfunctional effects (for instance, increased hostility and alienation between the sexes and a decreased probability of romantic love). These false premises can be captured in an antithesis, of which this article is one.
As we have also seen in Clear News, any mention of the dysfunctional aspects of the woman’s liberation movement is seen as immoral, just as any antithesis of the civil rights movement is seen as immoral. This is because these are political movements, and false propaganda is often an integral part of many political movements. Also claiming the high ground in the world of ethics is essential for the success of any movement, whether, in fact, the movement is ethical or not. Thus any truthful statements contradicting the woman’s movement — in this case, the career and social destruction of men accused of sexual abuse — is seen as evil.
We can be assured that this article will also be seen as immoral by many in the women’s movement, more specifically, by many involved in the feminist inquisition.
We can also be assured that few professional writers would dare explore an antithesis to this inquisition. Some women would yell and scream and it could be the end of the writers’ careers.)
Now, onto the article (I know it took a little while, but I have to protect my testicles):
The Castration of the American Male
Men are falling like flies: Roger Ailes, Harvey Weinstein, Bill O’Reilly, Matt Lauer, Al Franken, and over 30 other men. That was fine, they were mostly white men on the top of their game. Now they are nothing. They can easily be replaced by women and men of color.
But wait, the feminist inquisition didn’t stop there. Now they’ve gotten John Conyers Jr., a black Congressmen with a 50-year Progressive record and an icon of the civil rights movement.
One would think that the feminist inquisition would have a little mercy on an 88-year-old man with such a stellar political career (if you agree with his politics, which the feminist inquisition does agree with), but noooo! If a man is accused of abusing women, regardless of how minor the offense or how long ago, “hang him up by the neck.” These men must be taught a lesson.
Another progressive icon — ex-Congressman Harold Ford, Jr. — was recently fired from Morgan Stanley as a result of a woman saying he once grabbed her and then later pestered her for a date. And you think men fighting in Afghanistan have it tough!
And even Charlie Rose. Charlie Rose?! He was the darling of the whole American intelligensia, and the darling of America’s political and artistic community! He has been accused of a long pattern of inappropriately hitting on women. Now he is nothing. And all his decades of contributions to American culture adds up to zero. Throw his hundreds of brilliant interviews right in the garbage can. He bit the apple of the feminists’ cardinal sin.
So where will this carnage stop? It may not stop until the entire male aggressive sexual gene — with its drive to fornicate whenever it has a chance — is severed.
The inquisition with not stop until every American male has a similar sexual instinct as the American female. Until every American male is sexually passive until a woman expresses interest in him and verbally assents to his making a move. Until every American male stops treating women like objects or playthings.(1)
In short, this inquisition will not stop until every man listens to the wisdom of Elizabeth Warren, Rachel Maddow and Hillary Clinton. And does what they say!
But the question remains, what is going on?
It seems as though a sexual phenomenon has been going on for centuries — that of men in power and high social status seducing and harassing women with less power and less social status. And women often going along with it. Now, suddenly, this phenomenon is declared to be the height of immorality and must be immediately ended. Otherwise the inquisition will destroy these men.
(To understand this inquisition it must put in the larger context of the political movement of equality: where the goal is for women and people of color having as much money, social status, professional status, and political power as white men — that is the destruction of white male supremacy . Of course, the movement claims to be the height of morality. And any anyone who disagrees ….. look out.)
It doesn’t matter how long ago one committed his sexual sins. Like all good inquisitions, the perp can be punished for sins in the distant past. Forget about the legal concept that you can’t create a rule then prosecute a person for breaking the rule before it was passed. Forget about the concept of innocent until proven guilty. Forget about due process.
So let’s all be honest. Let’s stop by a Catholic Church and put some money in the poor box. They were right all along. (Of course, not that they practiced their theology of sexual morality themselves.)
For 2,000 years to Church has preached no sex outside of marriage, and sexual behavior should only be used to express committed love or a desire to have children. No recreational sex. No sex outside of a committed marriage. And, for heavens sake, no masturbation.
But let’s go all the way! Ladies, cross your legs! No more one-million-a year-abortions; no more crushing unborn children’s heads just before they’re born (partial birth abortions); no more 50% divorce rate caused in large part by infidelity; no more AIDS and STDs, and no more paternity suits.
No more conning rich athletes that they are practicing safe sex, and then having their child and getting a large monthly payment until their child is 21. No more having children with no means of supporting them, and then demand that taxpayers support their children (along with themselves).
No more porn. No more prostitution. No more “dating services.” No more adultery dating services.
No more divorces where women take 50% of their husband’s earnings and go off with the person (sometimes another woman) who they really love. No more breast implants and botox treatments. No more young, beautiful women “falling in love” with old, dying men and taking the inheritance from their new husband’s children.
No more torturing men with constant criticisms and demands that they make more money (Elizabeth Warren, are you listening?)
No more insisting on big homes, SUV’s, and mass consumption for their kids — all contributing to the destruction of the earth as a result of global warming and the using up of non-renewal natural resources.
No more sin! Let’s go all the way! Let’s have an inquisition where everyone who sins is professionally and socially destroyed. Hang em all!
(One thing this inquisition would accomplish is the solution to the world’s over-population problem.)
The unforgivable sin
No one seems to notice how anti-Christian this inquisition is. For Christianity introduced the theology of the forgiveness of sins. In fact, Jesus said he would shed his blood for the forgiveness of sins.
This movement is also anti-Catholic. The Church has the sacrament of reconciliation, where a person can confess his sins and they are forgiven (as long as he forgives everyone who has sinned against him).
But, nooooo, there is no forgiveness for sexual abuse of a woman, no matter how long ago it was in the past, and no matter how much the perp repents. This is one unforgivable sin. Lock him up! Lock him up!
Crime and punishment
And what ever happened to punishment fitting the crime?
It all started it Anita Hill. With the feminist mythology of evil men/immaculate women, all the feminists and Progressives believed it was totally appropriate to destroy Clarence Thomas’ career, and in fact his social life, because — Hill said — he tried to get her, an employee of his, to enter into the world of porn with him. The standard was set:
One sexual sin in the last 40 years and the Progressive inquisition will destroy you.
If the same standard was held in previously years, John Kennedy and Lyndon Johnson would have been destroyed before they had a chance to gasp.
We can imagine the effects of the prohibition against any future political leaders who have committed a sexual sin against a women in the last 40 years. These perverts will know — as Al Franken has found out — that any violation of a woman’s dignity will mean career termination. How many effective political leaders will be left?
And you can forget about any legal protection. What about “innocent until proven guilty?” Forget about equal protection under the law. A man giving a woman an unwanted kiss now has less legal protection than a murderer. A group of consumers, bosses, or voters protesting the alleged sin is good enough to destroy him socially and professionally. Although not convicted (because he probably couldn’t be convicted of a criminal offense), he is fired. And that is good enough to do the job.
Let’s all be like Saint Lawrence O’Donnell and Saint Chris Mathews (who have never done anything wrong — you can tell by their sanctimonious denunciations of others). Let’s all have our hearts as pure as snow.
Equality of women
As an antithesis, Jennifer Lawrence, recently did an interview where she was asked about Harvey Weinstein. Lawrence said that he was always nice to her, except when he wasn’t. When he wasn’t nice, she called him an “asshole” and they both went on their way.
Thus the question arises, are women equal to men in strength and resilience — deserving of equal professional outcomes — or are women fragile beings where an unwanted hand on their breast will throw them into a lifetime of dysfunction (and necessitate a million dollar lawsuit)?
(A joke: A beautiful secretary wasn’t doing her job at work. She was talking to her friends all day and taking long breaks. Her male boss said to her: “Just because I kissed you at the office party, who told you that you didn’t have to do your job?” The secretary replied, “My lawyer.”)
For instance, one professional woman who caused Matt Lauer’s downfall was asked into his office. He pushed his “lock the door” button and asked her to take off her blouse. (Did the button lock the door from the inside, and thus stop her from escaping?) She then took off her blouse! Was she incapable, like Lawrence, of saying “no?” (And does she want equal professional outcomes such as equal pay for equal work?) Then Lauer asked her to bend over a chair, and she did! Was she incapable of saying “asshole” and walking out?
Of course, any man who suggested that a woman should have equal strength as men to resist immorality, this person would have his professional testicles removed.
An antithesis to the above paragraph — and there is always an antithesis — is that women are very aware of the backlash that frequently happens when one reports sexual abuse. Even other women in the workplace will often be against them — trying to ally themselves with the men in power. The victims career is often hurt or even destroyed (like the abusers’ careers are now being destroyed). Often victims say that the backlash was worse than the initial abuse.
There is also the reality — which is taboo to discuss, except in Clear News — where some women use sexual favors to get what they want, or to entrap men.
Speaking of lawsuits, is there a financial incentive in this inquisition? How much is Gloria Allred worth? It has been reported that Bill O’Reilly paid out over $31 million in hush money. Since lawyers usually get one-third of the cash, that’s around $10 million for them. Say, O’Reilly paid off 10 women. After paying the lawyers, that’s around $2 million apiece.
As for myself, O’Reilly can fondle me as much as he wants for $2 million.
The Golden Rule
One way we could solve the problem of men sexually abusing women is to treat men as bad as men treat women. Give men some of their own medicine and see how they like it.
We can do this with a thought experiment. How would men react if a woman, say in a movie theater — with no warning — slipped her hand down his trousers and fondled his penis? Or if she squeezed his ass? Or if she invited him to her apartment and answered to door with no clothes on? Or if she made suggestive sexual comments to him?
Actually, we can forget the thought experiment. There could be a movement of feminists treating men the way these evil men treat women. Then we can measure the results. Once men were abused and treated as sex objects, they would understand how women feel, and the whole problem might evaporate………..might.
(1) It is a paradox in contemporary culture that one of the biggest complaints of feminists against men — in their goal to prove that men are bad and women are good — is that many men treat women as objects.
In a cultural contradiction, this is exactly how many secularists, scientists, and materialists(2), treat the Creator of the universe — as an object. Since the Creator doesn’t behave like every other material object in the universe — and can’t be tested like a material object — they claim that He doesn’t exist.
These evil men, who treat women as objects, at least agree that women exist! Thus, they treat women better than the materialists treat God!
(2) I’m using “materialism” as the philosophy that states that only physical phenomenon exist in the universe. Spiritual phenomenon — such as universal love, miracles, and answers to prayers — are childish illusions.