The present age…prefers the sign to the thing signified, the copy to the original, fancy to reality, the appearance to the essence…for in these days illusion only is sacred, truth profane. – Ludwig Feuerbach
I’m doing a regular Q & A column tomorrow, but every so often I get a question whose answer is complex enough (and general enough) to justify a full column; this is one of those times. The author also very cleverly flattered me, ensuring a thorough answer.
I was wondering why you have not mentioned the birth control and Planned Parenthood controversy that has been going on, specifically the GOP attacks on its existence and availability. I realize that it has been widely covered, but I would be (selfishly) interested in your thoughts, since they are usually quite logical and minus any hysteria or posturing. I’m also pretty alarmed by where the GOP is heading with their pronouncements–if all the career girls are to be stuck in the kitchen cooking, how much worse will the sex-loving girls have it? I’m a current career girl and previously a sex-loving girl, so doubly-damned. BTW, your articles on rape and the role of prostitutes in mopping up excess male sexuality were truly a light bulb moment for me. Literally, I had NEVER once thought that out, but once explained, I could only marvel that I’d never seen it before. And I’m a firm third-wave feminist, well-read and far too well-educated about biology to believe that nonsense about how gender is just “conditioning”…yet I was so blinded by what “everyone knows” I never thought about the function that prostitution plays in a healthy society.
In a recent article for Smithsonian, Teller (the short, silent half of Penn & Teller, my all-time favorite magicians) explains “how magicians manipulate the human mind”, and points out that a number of their principles are also used by non-entertainers for less benign reasons. Two of these principles are involved in the whole birth control “controversy”; one is misdirection, and the other what we might call “false choice”. Misdirection is when the magician (or politician) gets his audience to look someplace he wants it to look in order to draw attention away from someplace he doesn’t want it to look; magicians accomplish this by showmanship, comedy or lovely assistants, and politicians by manufactured controversies they can loudly posture about. “False choice” is the principle that if a person is given a choice, he believes he has acted freely; a magician uses this when he asks you to pick a card from a doctored deck. As Teller points out, “You think you’ve made a choice, just as when you choose between two candidates preselected by entrenched political parties.”
The whole birth control “controversy” is nothing other than a smoke screen (on which both parties collaborate) to draw attention away from the real issues, such as the collapsing economy and ever-increasing police state. We don’t have two parties in the US any more; we have two chapters of one party, the Big Centralized Government Party, and their differences are purely cosmetic. That’s why I cringe when I hear women buy into the idea that the GOP is their enemy…it certainly is, but so is the Democratic Party. They both want women safely denuded of rights and placed in farms where we can be kept “safe” and docile; all they differ on is which holding pen is best (kitchen vs. cubicle). And though one might say that Republicans want us forced to produce babies, one might also say the Democrats want to imprison the babies we do have in government indoctrination centers (i.e. crappy public schools) where they’re taught to shut up, sit down and do as they’re told…and both want those kids arrested if they disobey or “make trouble”. They both spread “sex trafficking” myth to suppress whores, both support ever-expanding police and government surveillance powers, both have refused to consider ending the drug war, both support universal criminality, and both support “end demand” schemes which criminalize men and define women as retarded adolescents.
So though I’ve touched on the controversy a little on Twitter and mentioned it obliquely in columns, I don’t think it would be productive to discuss it as an isolated phenomenon…because it isn’t. The closest I got was probably in “Legislators Gone Wild” last March, in which I pointed out that a lot of the misogynistic legislation (from both sides of the aisle despite the claims of Democrats) is a predictable backlash against the anti-male policies of the past two decades, which have created a huge pool of resentment in mostly-male legislators (as any practical psychologist could’ve told them it would).
I’m really glad you found the articles on rape (and prostitution’s role in preventing it) enlightening; I’m afraid they’ve allowed anti-sex neofeminists to brand me a “rape apologist” (a propaganda term explained in my column of one year ago today along with many others), because the only way they can keep the believers in line is to teach them not to think about it. The idea that seeking to understand the causes of a crime, and to discover inobtrusive preventative measures that work, is somehow “apologizing” for that crime, is a favorite of totalitarians everywhere; anything that interferes with criminalization, punishment and police suppression must be shouted down as “soft on crime”. Demonization of human beings who harm others ignores the fact that they’re human beings, and just as flawed as everybody else. Those who desire to suppress a particular group (men, blacks, the poor, etc) don’t want their followers thinking too hard about why the members of that group commit anti-social behaviors (i.e. crimes), and they oppose anything that discourages members of the target group from committing crimes, because if they don’t commit crimes the state has no excuse to brutalize them and lock them up. In a very real sense prohibitionists of all types are pro-crime, because they WANT people of the group they hate beaten and caged, not helped to stay straight.
BRAVO!
You got one side saying … “No problems, we can get you your prayer in schools and keep your gun buying easy while at the same time we lock up kids for possession and throw whores in jail! We’ll protect YOUR rights, but the other guys … eh, we don’t like their rights and neither do you.”
Then you got the other side saying … “No problems, we can get your birth control and abortions and we’ll make the cat’s who oppose those things pay for it! We can totally do this and we’ll never have to come to you and ask you for money to do something you abhor – like teach creationism or abstinence in schools. We’ll protect your rights – the other guys? Fuck ’em!”
Dudes … these two positions WILL NEVER resolve with each other without a concentration camp somewhere in the mix.
American voters need to Wake the Fuck up to this fact. Each party uses the other party as a scare tactic to herd their voters into a voting booth. “Women … don’t vote GOP because they’re at WAR with you!!” … “Christians! Don’t vote Democratic because they’re at WAR with you!!”
Anybody who’s believin’ that shit is not enlightened. That’s okay though – it took me almost 50 years to learn this, but I’m a dunderhead. Anybody can learn this if they just open their eyes.
I really thought, when the Tea Party came out – that we had a chance to reform the GOP and make it a party of LIBERTY. There were many of us who joined that movement thinking we could wrestle that party from the hands of the elitists and put grass-roots liberty loving folks in charge of it. We were wrong … firstly because we didn’t have enough real libertarians in the Tea Party movement and a lot of people still thought you could “prohibit” activities you don’t like and then “protect” others that you do like (you can’t). Secondly – the GOP establishment defeated us and maintained control of the party. Tea Party is dead now … killed by the elitists and the fact that the movement never went full-out for liberty.
No one’s choosing a President in November – they’re choosing a pilot to fly the plane to the scene of the crash, because – it IS going to crash no matter which one of these vomitous parties is in charge. Personally … I’ll be voting for Obama for this crash landing because he’s associated with big government Socialism and if the thing fails on his watch – big government Socialism will receive the backlash. Maybe “U.S.A. Version 2.0” will be a smaller government and more freedom.
Maybe not.
I suspect that this crash, if it comes in the lifetime of those here, won’t come before 2016. Whoever wins in November, Obama (who I won’t be voting for, but that’s another story) will not be flying the plane when it happens.
Feminists keep saying they want equal rights to men. Well, no health insurance plan that I’ve ever heard of pays for birth control for men. So now that some politicians want health plans to not pay for birth control for women, either, that’s a “war on women.” Personally, I think insurance plans should cover birth control, if for no other reason than it’s much less expensive than paying for a trip to the hospital nine months later (not to mention all the pre-natal care).
And like you said, I can NOT believe our country is talking about birth control when so many things are literally falling apart around us. Could we, maybe, wrap up one of the wars we’re fighting before taking on some other issue?
Well, in all fairness many insurance plans cover Viagra, but not birth control pills. I still think it’s a non-issue politically speaking, and have opposed the idea of “insurance” paying for recurring expenses since the late ’80s; can you imagine how much auto insurance would cost if it paid for tires and oil changes? Regular readers may gasp when they hear this, but actually I wouldn’t be opposed to government footing the bill for catastrophic health care for everyone, as long as A) there was some sort of dedicated tax to pay for it; B) it was strongly protected from politicians who wanted to expand it to cover “well visits”, elective surgery and the like; C) people could still choose their own physicians, and physicians/hospitals would still be private entities, not government bureaucracies; and D) medical malpractice was made a criminal offense, not a civil one, so nobody could get rich by suing doctors.
The issue wasn’t contraception – that was the “misdirection”.
The issue was about forcing the Catholic Church (opposed to any form of contraception other than abstinence) to pay for health insurance plans for their employees which included birth control.
And the issue there was … Obama lied to the Bishops …
http://newyork.cbslocal.com/2012/02/09/cardinal-designate-dolan-obama-reneging-on-birth-control-provision/
I’m PRO-Contraception. I think it should be in the health care plans (actually I like the Maggie plan better but I’m dealing with status quo atm). I think the Catholic Church is a bit silly here since most of their members practice birth control anyway and … I note that the Catholic Health Services, who have long desired universal healthcare – actually ENDORSED ObamaCare on the eve of it’s passage. And a part of me is quite giddy that the Catholic Bishops got duped by Obama into going along with ObamaCare – which is now the instrument of their woe. This is why I won’t get off my couch to help the Bishops – they put themselves into this mess by trusting Obama in the first place.
However, they are a Church. They have certain religious beliefs and they ought to be able to exclude birth control from their health care plans if they have religious objections to it (which they do).
Allowing the government to force them to provide contraception empowers the government to come and force me to do something I don’t want to do later on. Protect their right in this instance means protecting YOURS later on down the line.
Krulac,
I would happily join in the fight to protect the Catholic Church’s religious freedom if they hadn’t previously conspired to destroy my medical freedom. Until they repudiate their support for Obamacare in toto I won’t speak up for them except to continue to point out that they supported this abomination, and, having made their bed, should be required to lie in it.
The Republican push to exclude the Catholic Church from the karma coming at them is on the same moral level as the Democrats handing out exemptions to the unions and the various “businessmen” that are Pelosi’s pals.
They’ve already signed off on the idea of the government coming around and forcing <b<you to do something; they’re just pissed off that their politician didn’t stay bought.
I have this message for the Catholic Church; Stop advocating for the abrogation of my freedom of association and contract and, when that time comes, I’ll not advocate for the abrogation of yours. Heck, I’ll even go so far as to defend the Church’s rights as the voluntary embodiment of its adherents. But until then, the Church can reap what it has sowed.
Obama dealt with this the way he deals with everything: he compromised. Women can get their birth control, and the Catholics don’t have to pay for it. The insurance company does.
I’ll have to give the McNeil Single-Payer Catastrophic Health-Care Plan a bit more thought. And yes, I gasped.
The churches themselves are still exempt. The argument is over whether the various non-religious enterprises owned by the Catholic Church also get that exemption.
That’s a pretty bright line, as far as I’m concerned.
Maggie,
“BTW, your articles on rape and the role of prostitutes in mopping up excess male sexuality were truly a light bulb moment for me. ”
This is how brain dead western women are. Their view is that if a man is denied sex for much of his adult life that is just his bad luck. It is not like he “needs” it, right?
When my wife was using sex as a weapon I used to point out to her that sex is a normal and natural need for a man just like food for a woman. Of course her usual response is that men do not die without sex and women do die without food. Pointless talking to such women. I once said to her “It is now clear to me why some men sexually molest their daughters. They are married to women like you.”
Its not just rape Maggie. I keep getting told by these moronic women AND MEN that “men start all wars” like someone has taught them that as a mantra. This is crap. The men at the top set the scene for wars but WOMEN are the culprits when it comes to starting wars. Why? It is WOMEN who are demanding more resources than the men can provide so the men go out and procure resources for the DEMANDING WOMEN. See white feather campaign.
I have long argued, and I mean since I was a teen, that if women were getting all the food and sex they wanted they would NEVER go off to a war. There would be NO MOTIVATION.
It is very easily argued that prostitution being legalised is the single biggest contributor to world peace that could ever be made.
It’s not that they’re “brain dead”, Peter; was everyone in the 16th century “brain dead” for not accepting the Copernican theory instantly upon reading it? It’s difficult for an adult to “unlearn” dogma that has been drilled into him, especially when he has no means of directly knowing the truth. If the sun went around the Earth it would look exactly the same from the ground; most people lack the math skills and observational data necessary to prove the heliocentric model, so for them it was a matter of “who do you believe”, and it’s the same for women who have been lied to by neofeminists. It’s a credit to that reader’s intelligence that she recognized a better psychological model when she saw it.
And the idea that women are to blame for wars is just as ridiculous as the notion that men are. PEOPLE are to blame for wars, not one sex or the other. When I see this ludicrous finger-pointing game between MRAs and feminists I feel like a mother watching two bratty kids:
“Your fault! Your fault!”
“Mommy, John’s looking at me!”
“I was not! Mom, Jane touched me!”
“Did not!”
“Did too!”
“Did not!”
Honestly, if I had the power I’d set two really big islands aside and then ship everyone who carries on like that to one for men, and the other for women, with no internet access to either one.
Maggie,
It looks like someone preempted you on that solution…
From Harry Birch, ca 1871..
Reuben, Reuben I’ve been thinkin’
What a glad world this would be
If the boys were all transported
Far across the Northern sea!
Rachael, Rachael I’ve been thinkin’
What a glad world this would be
If the girls were all transported
Far across the Northern sea!
It seemed to me that part of the reason for the “rape is about violence NOT about sex!” argument was to help make the difference clear between ‘normal’ men who desire a sex partner who’s into it and having fun, and ‘abnormal’ men who specifically want to hurt and denigrate their sex partner.
Rape is is about sex! could be seen as condemning all men, because all men do desire sex. Rape is about violence! is only condemning of some men.
In other words, an argument that would exonerate most men and put the blame on the abnormal minority. And would also excuse women from the pressure to dress like nuns, because heaven forbid that a man see a well-turned ankle! It clearly differentiated between men that did not need to be protected from their own sex drive and the minority that did rape.
But I formed this impression in the late 70s and early 80s, before we had so much knowledge about date rape and rape themes in porn and all the rest. Too much knowledge and news reporting of that stuff clouded the water and put us in this present environment where modern women tend to believe that any/every man is a hair-blink away from rape.
The late 70s and early 80s were both more innocent and a much more sex-positive time.
Women act skittish, regular guys see it as an insult and get mad, women get more skittish, and on and on, hallelujah, amen. Until the sexes start trying to understand and listen to each other, it won’t get better.
Maggie McNeill wrote: And the idea that women are to blame for wars is just as ridiculous as the notion that men are. PEOPLE are to blame for wars, not one sex or the other. When I see this ludicrous finger-pointing game between MRAs and feminists I feel like a mother watching two bratty kids.
One of the things which impresses me about your blog is the idea that men and women are not (nor should be) on opposite sides of a “battle of the sexes” but are really part of the same team.
The inability of extreme feminists, and many women in general, to understand the power of the male drive for sex is extremely dangerous. The male urge to secure a reliable source of sex (as a group – individuals of course vary) is incredibly powerful. More so than the desire for food. Hunger can be easily sated.
When denied sex, men will resort to the next best thing – violence. Not just against women, but against other men, or in support of the most dubious and extreme of “causes”.
Thanks Maggie, I agree with your analysis. You mention the backlash against anti-male policies and I think it’s about that too – people don’t like losing power and privilege. I like what Eve Ensler said today at the very end of this article: http://www.cnn.com/2012/03/28/living/vagina-politics/index.html
Could you please give me the link to your piece about rape and prostitution’s role? I couldn’t find it on your site with a search and would be very interested in reading it. Thanks a lot.
It’s a fairly old one named “Out of Control“. 🙂
Any of your sex workers got a mortgage?
http://www.youtube.com/embed/fHKo9zpEkmI
I know how to not pay mortgages… 😉
Change one word in Maggie’s contention that both Republicans and Democrats are the party of big government to both are the parties of big capitalism and we agree. Maggie and I agreeing on politics? It has to be snowing in hell. (Actually, we agree on the goal, more freedom. We just disagree on what will get us there.)
I see the Catholic bishops claims as ludicrous. Religion of any type is merely opinion unsupported by any evidence or facts- Religion actually seeks to ignore facts. It’s just politically powerful superstition. If you allow not following the law simply because it’s against one’s unsupported beliefs, then you open the door to total chaos. unless you want to get into the business of choosing which unsupported beliefs you think are worthy and which aren’t.
In fact, it’s the mind set behind religion, the “I’ll believe it because it’s comfortable, or serves a purpose for me despite no evidence behind it” that’s a major cause of problems in our world. Look at the whole sex trafficking hysteria. As Maggie has shown us so well here, the numbers, the evidence just doesn’t support the idea that there’s much of it going on. Yet some prominent people promote the idea for their own reasons, and many believe it.
As for the male sex drive, I’ve spent decades working with it, and it still surprises me. I just don’t think we (women) can really know what it’s like. Kingsly Amis once described the male sex drive as like “being chained to an idiot.”. Reading that was a light bulb moment for me, and explained so many things, including how so many powerful men allow their sex drive to destroy them. I’m sorry for you guys.
And no, any reading of history shows that women DO NOT start wars.
Whether big government or big capitalism, we seem to be moving toward an oligarchy–rule by a privileged few.
If anything, latest events point toward a Gibson-style rule by global multinational corporations where governments still exist but are almost obsolete. Our current government seems to exist only to legitimize and rubber-stamp whatever is good for the wealthy and powerful few–whether they be corporate ‘persons’ or political clans.
I don’t think the war on women OR the war on men is the goal–rather it’s the war on the many. Putting men and women at odds is merely yet another excellent way to achieve this.
[…] Misdirection (maggiemcneill.wordpress.com) […]
Hey thanks for calling adolescents “retarded”.
I do necessarily agree with a lot of what you write, but even if that one comment wasn’t meant as offensively as I initially took it, the ammount of adultism shimmering through in some of your blog posts is astounding, and sometimes in fact annoying.
You do understand that an adjective is only attached to a word in order to modify it, yes? In other words, nobody says “huge giant” because giants are, by definition, huge. And we don’t say “wooden tree” because all trees are made of wood. So when I say “retarded adolescent”, it automatically implies that adolescents are not normally retarded, Q.E.D.
I suggest you get that huge chip off your shoulder, stop using inane neologisms like “adultism” and read a few posts like “The Shape of the Spoon” and “Too Young To Know” before you embarrass yourself any further.
Hey Sumpfie. I know what you mean, because there seems to be a general assumption in my generation (which is also Maggie’s generation) that adolescents are indeed retarded, almost by definition. So the “huge chip” is understandable. Still, you need to not do what too many others do to you (assume that an entire generation is alike).
Believe me, if Maggie or anybody else starts ragging on young folks in general, I’ll have something to say about it. But Maggie, she’s OK. The two links she’s provided make for some good reading.
One of the reasons that the grups have trouble with the onlys is that, I feel, the onlys are a lot closer to our biological instinctive behaviours. It makes sense, when you think about it.
(Google “Star trek miri” for the pop culture references)