Alice laughed. “There’s no use trying,” she said: “one can’t believe impossible things.”
“I daresay you haven’t had much practice,” said the Queen. “When I was your age, I always did it for half-an-hour a day. Why, sometimes I’ve believed as many as six impossible things before breakfast.” – Lewis Carroll, Through the Looking-Glass
In my column “Doublethink” I explained the term, coined by George Orwell in 1984; it means the ability of a political stooge to simultaneously believe two different and mutually-exclusive ideas. Neofeminists are the undisputed champions of doublethink in today’s world:
On the one hand, neofeminists state that women are just as competent as men, yet insist that women need special legal protections. They observe that women are rational adults who can control our own destinies, yet lobby for paternalistic “mandatory prosecution” laws because they claim women aren’t competent to decide for ourselves whether to press charges against abusive men. They say that women should have control over our own bodies, unless of course we choose to use those bodies for sex work. They recognize that women can think for ourselves, then demand we adhere to neofeminist groupthink or be labeled “traitors”. Many of them openly despise men and consider their characteristic behaviors a pathological deviation from female norms, yet they promote all-consuming male-style careers for women and many even adopt masculine modes of dress and grooming. The heterosexual wing of neofeminism bitches about male sexual behaviors, yet encourages women to act in exactly the same way. And so on, and so on, and so on, ad absurdum.
Politicians are nearly as adept at doublethink as neofeminists are, and both groups use doubletalk and double-dealing to foster doublethink in those they wish to control. My column of one year ago today gave a lesson (complete with quiz!) in how the police (with the assistance of obedient reporters) use doubletalk to promote anti-whore hysteria, and today we’re going to look at another example: the oeuvre of “Two Face” Kristof, who uses his New York Times pulpit to promote an oleaginous mixture of prohibitionism and nanny-statism of the cookie-cutter “left wing” variety. Like the neofeminists whose rhetoric he adopts, Kristof claims to respect women yet denies our agency, and bleats about choice while he advocates treating women like sheep. But to this he adds his own special (though, sadly, not by any means unique) duplicity: representing himself as a crusader against the sexual exploitation of women while sexually exploiting women himself by attracting readers eager to stimulate themselves with his lurid “sex slave” porn. Take a look at his column of March 4th, called to my attention by regular reader Aspasia:
…Under a new law that took effect three weeks ago with the strong backing of Gov. Rick Perry, [a Texas woman seeking an abortion]…must typically endure an ultrasound probe inserted into her vagina…“It’s state-sanctioned abuse,” said Dr. Curtis Boyd…“It borders on a definition of rape. Many states describe rape as putting any object into an orifice against a person’s will…The new law is demeaning and disrespectful to the women of Texas, and insulting to the doctors and nurses who care for them.” That law is part of a war over women’s health being fought around the country — and in much of the country, women are losing. State by state, legislatures are creating new obstacles to abortions and are treating women in ways that are patronizing and humiliating…
What about the war on women’s sexual freedom, Mr. Kristof? What about the patronizing and humiliating ways that you and other “rescue industry” fanatics treat sex workers? What about the state-sanctioned abuse of women advocated by people like you; don’t you consider arresting prostitutes and our clients at gunpoint to be “demeaning and disrespectful”? And I think every person whose head, unlike yours, resides outside of his own arse will agree that for a woman to endure a cop’s penis being “put…into an orifice against [her] will” doesn’t merely “border on a definition of rape”, it is rape…rape that you and others like you enable, excuse and celebrate.
Kristof and the neofeminists want you to think that abortion rights and sex worker rights are unrelated issues, when it’s clearly obvious to any intellectually honest person they aren’t: a woman’s right to own and control her own body includes not only the right to decisions about the possible consequences of sex, but also the right to decide how, why and with whom she has sex in the first place. But lest you think prostitution is just a blind spot for Kristof, a single example of doublethink in an otherwise self-consistent personal philosophy, consider this impassioned defense of the nanny state in which he states that “The long trajectory of history has been for governments to take on more responsibilities, and for citizens to pay more taxes” and argues that non-nanny governments invariably lead to countries like Pakistan…you know, the kind of countries where whores are persecuted as they are in the United States.
If we combine all of Kristof’s various positions in one place, we get something like this: “Only third-world countries allow people to make their own financial choices; advanced countries control their citizens’ lives, except in the case of abortion. Compulsory ultrasounds are rape, and prostitution is rape, but police rape isn’t rape as long as it happens after they abduct a woman against her will from a brothel. Nanny states are good, except when they decriminalize prostitution, at which point they become bad. And third-world dictatorships are bad, so our prostitution policy should be more like theirs.” Rational people, like Alice, simply can’t believe in such self-contradictory nonsense. Unfortunately, we live in a world populated largely by people like the White Queen, who practice believing impossible things every day until doublethink becomes second nature.
i have observed the same . every time i see the women saying ” Our bodies our choice” i wonder what the hell don`t get. We must continue to remind them Of ” our bodies our choice” , Dr Marty Kline has a great blog on his web . He says it is not just a war on Womens sexuality, it is a war on all , men and womens sexuality. I have not heard anyone one the main stream say this . someone. I tell you if they want to get mens support someone will raise the torch an declair it is a war on both men and women. It feels like the women are try to drive a bigger devide between men and women. Lets not let Patroizing male and sex/ neg fiminist drive a wedge.
Absolutely! I quoted that column in my upcoming column for April 10th (yes, I’m that far ahead). 😉
I’m anti-abortion and I despise this new law in Texas and I’ve told everyone I know about it. Like it or not … Roe V. Wade is the law of the land at the present time and women have the right currently to terminate their pregnancies for whatever reasons they choose, within certain guidelines. The Texas Law is a stupid clown trick. I also found out about a law making its way through the Virginia Assembly that requires abortions to be publicly posted – I suppose in newspapers – with names included and even including the attending physician’s name and address of his practice. Most of my anti-abortion friends support these laws but I’ve told them these laws will only result in the public turning against the anti-abortion movement. Lately, according to which poll you choose to look at, the “Pro-Life” position has been slowly gaining favor.
Expect that to change with these petty and stupid laws designed to attach red tape and shame to terminating pregnancies.
I had to say that top part there, so everyone knows how pissed off I am about those laws, before I said this …
With regards to Kristof and his literary “portrait” of the Texas law. He makes it sound like a medieval torture tactic. The Texas law is stupid – and it’s a violation of a woman’s liberty – but it’s NOT rape. If you want to define a violation of liberty as “rape” – well, I can go with that I suppose and I’ve been “raped” myself by these governmental bastards and, I’m pretty “butt-hurt” over it.
But I really don’t think Kristoff does justice to the thousands of women out there who are violently raped each year – some suffering permanent life-altering injuries – some losing their lives in the process.
But – this is kind of where we’re at now with public discourse in this nation, I suppose. Everyone that disagrees with you is a “Fascist Nazi” who’s intent on bringing about another Holocaust of some kind. Every time you look at a woman – it’s rape. This isn’t even as mature as sixth grade debate class – it’s totally second grade pap.
Absolutely agreed. The “this is rape” cry is the Left’ answer to “you want the terrorists to win”. It’s a voluntary procedure and pre-operative ultrasound was very common even before these laws. I oppose them but they can be opposed without resorting to hysterical and inflammatory language.
I read an article by a journalist about her abortion in Texas a few weeks ago, though I don’t remember where it was or how I came to it. She described foetal abnormalities, which sounded like hydrocephalus/spina bifida, though she didn’t name names. yet she had to undergo this ritual, have an transvaginal ultrasound — she’d had several abdominal ultrasounds — was performed while the embarrassed physician described what was seen; and then had to wait the 24 hour “cooling off” period. In no way was she helped by this legislation, and she surely won’t be alone.
I manage to piss almost everyone off with my views on contraception and abortion.
I think birth control pills and condoms and “morning after” pills should be available on the shelf at Wal-mart or any pharmacy or grocery store for anyone of any age.
After the fertilized egg attaches itself to the lining of the uterus, my dislike for abortion basically increases linearly with time up until it reaches the point where the fetus could survive outside the womb and at that point I believe killing it is murder.
That in between time between implantation and viability is hard to define and women should have the final choice but they should never let it reach that “viable” point and then decide to abort for anything less than almost certain death for the woman. Not wanting a scar is not good enough for me at that point.
“I think birth control pills and condoms and “morning after” pills should be available on the shelf at Wal-mart or any pharmacy or grocery store for anyone of any age.”
I agree. I also think it should be anonymous, no questions, no ID required. I’ve even suggested it should be free for all, though I’m not really strong on that one. By “free for all” I mean ALL: if Bill Gates wants free birth control, if the homeless fourteen-year-old dressed in rags wants free birth control, Bill and the kid both get it. Like I said, I’m not strong on the free thing, but I’m thinking about it.
.
Maggie: Kristof and the neofeminists want you to think that abortion rights and sex worker rights are unrelated issues, when it’s clearly obvious to any intellectually honest person they aren’t: a woman’s right to own and control her own body includes not only the right to decisions about the possible consequences of sex, but also the right to decide how, why and with whom she has sex in the first place.
Totally agree, as long as those consequences are her own. A woman should not get to decide to have and keep a child if that carries with it forced support from a man who didn’t agree to any such thing (and having sex does not constitute one). We have a well-tested, formal process for obtaining that consent, and it should go on having that meaning. It’s called marriage.
I agree; in fact, I’ve gone on the record with it.
Neofems don’t really believe in contradictory things of course. In their minds, there are subtle subcategories of women, with “true” women who have seen the light, like themselves at the top and deserving of all rights and protections, and then steadily declining degrees of womanhood depending on how badly the individual strays from the “truth”. Right at the bottom are the sub-human women who actually like men.
Such women (especially prostitutes) are either deliberate traitors to the cause, or mentally and morally deficient and need to be saved and “guided”. For such aberrations, punishments such as painful and humiliating sexual probing and state sanctioned (or at least ignored) rapes are especially appropriate, since they commit the heresy of actually approving of sex with men. They would probably highly approve of impalement if they could get away with it.
But, since the neofems are kind and compassionate people, when possible they prefer to believe that offending women are simply mentally deficient or misguided, and just need to be made to see the “truth”, or failing that, protected from their own stupidity. Only wilfully treasonous women (such as unrepentant prostitutes) deserve to be put down like the rabid dogs they are – for the good of society, of course, and for the children. Always for the children.
This “GOP War on Women” is making me angrier by the day.
First, all you men who are against abortion? Don’t have one. Otherwise, you should keep what opinions you have to yourself, since pregnancy, wanted or unwanted will never have to impact your life if you choose it not to. You have as much place talking to me about abortion as I have talking to you about prostrate problems.
Problem is, so many men have an opinion on everything, regardless of if they know anything about it or not, or if they are involved or not. I suspect it’s related to “Male Answer Syndrome”, and every man down to the pub is an expert on everything.
And that Texas and Virgina law? That ultrasound is a totally unnecessary medical intrusion. It’s as need as a colonoscopy is for an eye exam.
Part of the reason that prostitution is open to any sort of attack, and to a lesser degree porn and other areas of sex work is that it depends on women. It couldn’t operate without women, and some women have done quite well with it.
Secondly, it’s still an economic area where the big capitalists haven’t taken ownership. A single woman, with little start up capital, can make a good business out of it, and the 1% doesn’t get a dime. You would think that governments would love to legalize, regulate, and tax sex work. Instead, they are so owned by the capitalists that they attack it.
Since my teenage years, I’ve had some busy body, male or female giving me aggro over how I lived. I’m totally fed up with it.
That’s exactly why I oppose the Nevada Model; the only way to be a legal whore is to dance to whatever tune some politically-connected licensed brothel owner calls, and then fork over half your income for the privilege. No, thanks. If a girl chooses to work for a brothel she has that right, but it shouldn’t be her only choice.
Under the decriminalization you promote, what do you think brothels would be like? Not “how would you have brothels run,” obviously, since the whole point is that they wouldn’t be following some script of yours or anybody else’s.
I think of brothels, and I think there are times that, even if I could afford all the call girls a man could want, there are times I’d want to visit a nice, not-against-the-law brothel. I think of it like buying food: I can send out for pizza or Chinese food or something, and if I’m rich enough I could even hire somebody to come to my place and cook a meal, and somebody else to serve it to me. But dagnabit, sometimes I want to go to a restaurant.
Since I neither visit brothels nor hire call girls, I can’t really know. Maybe I’d quickly change my mind once out in the real world (I write a best-seller or win the lottery or such). But that’s how it seems to me. I might even prefer call girls, but sometimes, dagnabit, I’d want to visit a brothel.
I think they’d be a lot like they are now in New Zealand and New South Wales.
Comixchik,
I have an opinion on abortion. And even if I’m convex instead of concave, genitally speaking, I won’t let your disapprobation affect my offering it.
You see, I think that every woman should be able to determine for herself what her reproductive options are and act accordingly. If she is in a relationship – such as marriage – it might be nice to consult her significant other. But ultimately, it is her body, her choice. It should also be her responsibility.
The Leftists forget that part. They expect all of the rest of us to pickup, as a social imperative, the cost of her reproductive choices, whether it’s contraception or abortion. They either get it through direct taxpayer subsidy, mandated employer coverage, or telling insurance companies that they have to cover such things.
I think that the GOP defense of the Catholic Church on the basis of religious freedom is wrongheaded and essentially no different than the exemptions from Obamacare granted to labor unions and Pelosi’s Business Pals, particularly in light of the fact that Catholic institutions have been lobbying for something like Obamacare for decades. An institution cannot legitimately argue for their own freedom of choice while explicitly advocating abrogation of that same freedom for others.
Now while the GOP is perfectly capable of inserting their foot in their mouth, and then shooting said foot, the fact is that if a woman wants to avail herself of contraception, abortion, etc., she should do it at her own expense. Now admittedly, this is complicated by the prescription drug laws; contraception should be OTC and a doctor consulted by the woman at her own discretion, not the State’s, but the solution is to make the drugs available to the woman in question, not to dragoon the taxpayers or other third parties into paying for it.
As far as the question of GOP rhetoric a la Santorum on contraception, abortion, pornography and sex work, that is a moral question, not a political one and if they and their cohorts kept it at that level; that is, as a guide to action for their own lives, I’d have no problem with that. But I think that the mere fact that Santorum is willing to use the government gun to enforce his moral code on the rest of us is abhorrent, and in a rational society, would preclude him holding political office at any level. The support for his position comes, not from some lackeys of Capital who haven’t managed to cash in on the Sex Work Revolution, but from religious folks who believe that they have a right to make sure you do “WHAT IS RIGHT” and are willing to point a gun at your head, by proxy, to make sure you do it.
But let’s be honest here. What is Obamacare but the Leftists enforcing their moral values on the rest of the citizenry at the point of a gun?
A very simple working definition for evil is “the attempt to exert control over another sentient being that it neither desires nor requires”. In other words anything, no matter its motivation, becomes evil the second it is implemented at gunpoint. Period. End of line. Now, in a large society there are a few necessary evils, and we need to argue out exactly what those are, but we can never forget that they are, in fact, evil. And anyone who does, or pretends that any dictate (whether of king, church or mob) enforced by threat of violence is actually a positive good, is unfit for office and should be permanently barred from it.
Unlike many here, I believe a society is necessary for the best life for most people. Aye, there are a few hermits who are happiest out on some mountain top, but we’ve evolved over the hundreds of thousands of years to be social creatures, and live in groups.
So society is then a real thing. And I believe it’s in society’s interest to provide certain conditions for it’s people, so that the society functions best.
Health care is one of those things. It’s best for a society if it’s people are healthy, and cared for when they are sick, and their wealth shouldn’t determine that. I’ve lived in a society with a public health care scheme, the NHS, and I’ve lived here, in the USA where it’s “let the poor die”. And I prefer the NHS.
Thus, I think paying for health care for all IS society’s business. I think most Americans look at it wrong. We see it as “I’m paying for someone else’s health care!” whereas we should see it as “I’m healthy now, and that’s good. Someone else is ill, and I’m helping pay for their care. Someday, when I am il, they will help pay for mine, and the better that care is for all the better for me.”
We do pay a lot of taxes. But we get so little for it. Here’s an example: Recently the government approved military aid to Egypt. But not a dime goes to Egypt, It all goes to US corporations that Egypt has contracts with. Corporate welfare, money going right from the taxpayers to the corporations. That’s where our money goes.
Thanks. Yes, and I wish that a bunch of mountaintops could be set aside for those who think that they’d be happier there. Some of them would be, but most would come back in fairly short order, taxes and all.
No. You’re both indulging in black-and-white thinking, and it’s beneath you both. I’m not saying “everyone should just let himself die of cancer because chemotherapy is awful”; I’m saying it’s moronic to pretend that chemotherapy is wonderful and hunky-dory and doctors should try to treat as many diseases as possible with it, and give every patient as many treatments as he can possibly afford because hey, if a little chemotherapy is good a lot must be better, right?
Government, like chemotherapy, is better than the alternative, but not by much. It should be used sparingly, those who use it should always be looking for alternative therapies, and we should all be working toward the day when it can be replaced by something a lot less destructive to the patient.
You granted that roads are good a long time ago. You aren’t saying you want to live on a mountaintop so that you will be free from inevitably-evil-doing government. YOU aren’t looking for a mountaintop.
I’ve talked to people who, to take you analogy, want to lynch any doctor who gives chemo to anybody, ever, at all.
Or so they claim. I suspect they’re all talk.
To continue your analogy, I don’t think it’s the amount of Chemo, but who has the power to decide. If the chemotherapy can be forced on you, it’s a bad thing regardless of outcome.
Government is much the same. If the power to govern comes from those being governed, and the decisions are made and enforced by the group concerned, it’s good, and people can choose how much they want or need.
If the government serves a certain group or narrow interest, as has happened commonly, it’s not good. Today, government serves the rich and capitalists. The interests of the rest of us are not considered.
I think you’re forgetting the bureaucrats and the unions, Comixchik.
I’m suspicious of any rationale for government that undercuts the autonomy of the peaceful and freely-interacting individual. Majority rule may be a tool of governance but it is not a stand-in for morality. When you write of groups, it appears that you are accepting that what the group agrees on and enforces is good and that people, in the collective sense can choose how much they want or need. What about dissenters from the group?
My standard of good government is that it forestalls or punishes the initiation of force and leaves the individual free to act by mutual consent to mutual benefit, including the formation of freely chosen associations, and, correspondingly, dis-assocations.
I may be misinterpreting your point, but your phrase, “If the power to govern comes from those being governed, and the decisions are made and enforced by the group concerned,” (my emphasis) tends to make me think that in your approach the majority dictates to the minority; that is, that you accept the primacy of the collective over the individual.
Yes, I was about to post something similar. Tyranny by groups is worse than tyranny by individuals, because individuals blink, sleep, overlook things and can be influenced while collectives don’t. I don’t accept ANY group – rich, poor, numerous, elite, “feminist”, “patriotic”, “religious” or whatever – claiming the right to speak for me or for any individual who has not freely assigned that group the right to speak for him.
The Athenians got it right with the random people from all ethnicities were randomly picked to be part of the government. If done right the system won’t be rigged.