“Once we suffered from crimes, now we suffer from laws”

6 Responses to ““Once we suffered from crimes, now we suffer from laws””

1. 

   Ray (novelactivist) January 23, 2012 at 9:10 pm #

   Love it. Especially this:

   “The intuition problem stems in part from a failure to appreciate that other people may not react to the activity in question in the same way, with the campaigner having great difficulty imagining him or herself into someone else’s head. When it comes to the objectification of adult women, for example (one of Wilson’s ‘categories’), we may be dealing with normal statistical differences both between men and women, and also statistical variation within the set, ‘women’. Many women dislike male attention, being ogled, say, or chatted up. They dislike porn and find it degrading of women. By contrast, many women like and want male attention. They have no problem with porn. There are also intermediate positions between the two.”

   That nails it. And I love the distinction between ‘principled’ and ‘means-end’. Of course I disagree with MTR’s (and her cohort’s) principled AND means-end arguments. Both are wrong.

   On my blog I’ve been talking about sex-negative and sex-positive attitudes. http://novelactivist.com/9405/sex-negative-sex-positive/ The sex-negative sees sex as inherently problematic; inherently dirty, sinful, shameful, embarrassing, degrading, exploitative, etc. The sex-positive sees sex as inherently good and joyful and argues that any degradation, exploitation, etc is attitudinal; a belief of either party (a misogynist believes particular things and so acts from those beliefs) that is imposed on sex.

   MTR aligns herself with people who have an extreme sex negative belief. Sex is only ever okay within a religiously sanctioned marriage which cleanses it of its inherent sinfulness. Except that some of the most extreme think sex is always a moral problem and even within their own marriages never quite shake shame and guilt (especially if they desire things outside vaginal sex for procreation – or even they just desire sex).

   That’s why Melinda seems so vexed by sexualisation – whatever it is, it must be a bad thing.

   Thanks for linking this.

   LikeLike

   Reply
2. 

   Hypocritophobe January 23, 2012 at 11:53 pm #

   Oh No!

   Someone else for the Gilligans Island Law Firm to Crucify.

   http://www.perthnow.com.au/unholy-row-for-feminism-high-ground/story-fn6mhct1-1226247457743

   LikeLike

   Reply
3. 

   Hypocritophobe January 24, 2012 at 12:16 am #

   The truth is MTR has damaged (simultaneously, and probably irreversibly) both brands.

   Christianity and Feminism.

   By trying to control both, by way of an impossible ideological juggling exhibition, she has taken both to a position,where if there *were* any chance of compatibility, that chance has now all but disappeared (In Australia).

   She has taken something personal and made it political, and now is demanding for a ‘rewrite’ of the rules.

   It smacks of:
   “You can’t do this to me! I’m an American” syndrome.

   It’s not her ‘religion’ or ‘denial of it’ which negates her position.
   It’s her attitude.

   Subject Change:
   Perhaps when the dust settles MTR can do some meaningful research on the influence of narcissism on our culture.

   And if so I hope sheuses a broad brush (for once) which examines WOMEN and men equally,Christians and non as well.

   My reading lamp awaits………….

   LikeLike

   Reply
   • 

     AJ January 29, 2012 at 12:07 pm #

     Good comment. Its something I have been dwelling on a lot lately, Narcissism is more damaging to the self than people realise, check the leaked breast implant horror stories for instance or the botox disasters. On a social level it creates an attack motivated by envy sometimes, jealously sometimes, insecurity by the dont haves, scorn by those that think its a wank to have a view point, its an evil puddle of no win and on it goes. Best characterised by the joke of political representation we have in parliament. Lots of “Your wrong but I dont have a workable answer either” in so many areas,

     LikeLike

     Reply
4. 

   Doug Quixote January 24, 2012 at 1:03 am #

   Thank you for the link, Jennifer. Skepticlawyer extracts the nub of this argument and shows why this is a “never the twain shall meet” type clash of worldviews.

   However, it is not a legal analysis as such but one I would call more to do with jurisprudence, the science and theory of law; or perhaps of philosophy.

   It is a truly excellent analysis.

   LikeLike

   Reply
5. 

   Hypocritophobe January 31, 2012 at 9:22 pm #

   Imagine, if you dare, a world where Tony Abbott is your elected leader and the likes of MTR was your Minister For Womens Interests (Or adviser to)

   http://www.theage.com.au/news/national/big-grants-to-prolife-groups/2005/11/04/1130823401641.html

   You may need an extra night cap,tonight.

   LikeLike

   Reply