Douglas Wilson’s Letter From Moscow

Feminist Rape Constructs

Douglas Wilson

Blog and Mablog

January 21, 2015

Let us first review the facts.

Mount Holyoke College is an all-women’s college that recently began admitting male students who self-identify as female. And then, in a spasm of self-righteousness, there was a successful student-led effort to get a college performance of The Vagina Monologues cancelled because that play was insufficiently sensitive to those women who were vagina-less. We know that such creatures exist because we recently began admitting them to our college.

At American colleges, The Vagina Monologues is traditionally — ah, tradition! — performed on Valentine’s Day because, and this is important to note, American colleges generally don’t have a clue. But, and this is also important to note, if ever you think that this vapid cluelessness has disappeared down Alice’s rabbit hole forever, up it pops again later, right in your news feed, still chattering at us about gender constructs.

We need to recognize that some rapists self-identify as tender, sensitive, and thoughtful caregivers. What is more of a social construct than violence? We need to raise awareness of that, people.

So then, speaking of gender constructs, let us pursue the will of the sexual revolution all the way out to the end. Unless it is endless, of course, but we can still make some pretty good time. I think. After a while you lose track because the outer darkness doesn’t keep their mile markers maintained very well. And the roads are really bad.

The Vagina Monologues — that sexist throwback to earlier misogynistic times — was performed the way it was by the thoughtless feminist minions in order “to raise awareness of gender-based violence.” But if we have now gotten to the place in our absurdist theater review where we are laboring to avoid offending all the women-without-vaginas out there, I don’t know why we shouldn’t follow this to the utter frozen limit. We need to recognize that some rapists self-identify as tender, sensitive, and thoughtful caregivers. What is more of a social construct than violence? We need to raise awareness of that, people.

Of course, I hasten to break satiric voice here because we live in a time when satire has become virtually impossible. Someone might think that I am the one urging that we go easy on rapists, when it is I who want to deal with rapists with actual biblical justice. It is feminism that is laying all the intellectual — heh, so to speak — groundwork for a robust defense of both rape and rapists.

Do you doubt what I say? What, then, are the limits of self-identification? When does a poor lost soul bump into nature as it is, the world the way it is, the eternal law of Almighty God as it actually is? When do we say, and on what authority, that we don’t care about your stupid self-identifications? If a man with a penis can get sympathy on a modern college campus because his womanhood has been insulted, bringing a blush to the maidenly cheeks of us all, then what isn’t possible? What can’t self-identification do? I ask this question indignantly, going so far as to toss my curls at you.

And you can’t just tell me that there is such a limit. You have to tell me why it is there, who put it there, why the rapist needs to obey it, and why we need to obey it. Obey? Obey? There’s that misogynistic word again.

Be careful how you answer the question though. We are up against nature, and nature’s God, the Father of Jesus Christ, who through the Spirit gave us the books of Deuteronomy and Matthew both. When we come before Him, we find all our self-identifications going up in a blaze, like tissue paper in a wood stove, and we discover that we must answer to the name He has given us, and we must answer for the way we behaved in the natural world He gave us. For feminism this will be, I trust you have noticed, problematic.

What A Difference Fifty Years Can Make

Psychology, Sin, and Bigotry

In 1960–more than half a century ago–a prominent psychologist, O. Hobart Mowrer wrote the following in the American Psychologist:

For several decades we psychologists looked upon the whole matter of sin and moral accountability as a great incubus and acclaimed our liberation from it as epoch-making.  But at length we have discovered that to be “free” in this sense, i.e., to have the excuse of being “sick” rather than sinful, is to court the danger of also becoming lost.  This danger is, I believe, betokened by the widespread interest in Existentialism which we are presently witnessing.  In becoming amoral, ethically neutral, and “free” we have cut the very roots of our being; lost our deepest sense of self-hood and identity; and with neurotics themselves, find ourselves asking: “who am I?”  O. Hobart Mowrer, “Sin, the Lesser of Two Evils,” American Psychologist, XV (1960), pp. 301-304.

Fast forward to the present decade.
  The pervasive attempt to expunge sin from human being-ness, replacing it with “sickness”, has developed still further now that we are fifty years down the track.  In the present climate “sickness” is a no-no.  The identification of another as “sick” is pilloried as pejorative discrimination.  It has been trumped by the politics of identity.  In the sixties and seventies, sin was re-categorised as sickness; now sickness has been re-categorised not an illness at all, but as one’s true identity.  “I am who I am.  Human being-ness necessarily involves the realisation and acceptance by me (and others) of who I really am.  If society maintains a primitive prejudice against my identity, society, not me, commits a great sin, and is itself evil.” 

We see it all around us.  “I am gay.  I am bi-sexual.  I am trans-sexual.  I am trans-gendered.”  This is sufficiently widespread that Facebook has had to “create” fifty gender and sexual categories to provide sufficient choices for people to proclaim their self-identity.  Those who dare criticise, let alone condemn as immoral, the self-identity of the new human being-ness represent what is the true evil. Not “sickness”, mind, but evil.

Sin initially was parsed as “sickness”; then it morphed from “sickness” into self-identity; but the concept of “sin” did not depart the lexicon.  Rather, sin was imputed to anyone who did not accept and support one’s new self-identity.  The cardinal sin has now become bigotry–if one dares maintain a critical rejection of another’s self-identity, true evil has become unmasked.  Both the bigot and his perverse “identity” require execration and rejection and judgment, and, ultimately, punishment.

What will be the consequences of all this?  More self-loathing.  More true moral guilt.  More hopelessness.  More lashing out.  More ceaseless threshing.

Mowrer again:

Recovery (constructive change, redemption) is most assuredly attained, not by helping a person reject and rise above his sins, but by helping him accept them.  This is the paradox which we have not at all understood and which is the very crux of the problem.  Just so long as a person lives under the shadow of real, unacknowledged, and unexpiated guilt, he cannot (if he has any character at all) “accept himself”; and all our efforts to reassure and accept him will avail nothing.  He will continue to hate himself and to suffer the inevitable consequences of self-hatred.  But the moment he (with or without “assistance”) begins to accept his guilt and sinfulness, the possibility of radical reformation opens up; and with this, the individual may legitimately, though not without pain and effort, pass from deep, pervasive self-rejection and self-torture to a new freedom, of self-respect and peace. [Ibid.]

The strategy of the Church need not change.  Fifty years ago when perversions were rebranded as “sicknesses” faithful Christians and churches demurred, and continued to call such things sinful and evil, using the scriptural lexicon, not pop-psychology’s inanity-du-jour.  The message was: stop sinning.  Repent.  God has promised not just to cleanse, but to forgive and make whole. 

Now pop-psychology has moved on from “sickness” to “identity”.  Now not to accept and champion the self-identity of another is to commit grave harm.  But the Christian response has not changed.  No matter what evasive labels are given to sin and its perversions, sins and perversions they remain.  The only possibility of escape is to accept the judgement of God, return to Him, and plead His loving forgiveness through Christ.  Only under the gentle yoke of Christ will the deep, pervasive self-rejection and self-torture cease, to be overtaken by a new freedom, new self-respect and wholesome peace. 

Back in the day, pop-psychology slammed Christianity as stupid fundamentalist ignorance.  Now that the diagnosis of “sickness” has been upstaged by “identity”, pop-psychology indicts Christianity not just with ignorance, but with hateful bigotry, worth punishment.  But the abiding truth has not changed one iota.  We will continue to proclaim the eternal message: stop sinning; turn to Christ; be cleansed and made whole.  Nothing less will suffice.

Worthy Heirs

Integrating Into Folly

Self-destruction is always lurking at the edges of Unbelief.  Then, unexpectedly, it can capture the whole shooting box and what seemed so influential, so compelling slips away “not with a bang, but a whimper”.  Here are a couple of prosaic examples.  The first is the soon-to-be-elected Mayor of New York City. 

Now we all know that NY City weighs in heavily at the “progressive”, left-wing end of the spectrum.  What is known as the “loony left” has always found plenty of kindred spirits in that place.  How else could Nanny Bloomberg have been tolerated for so long?  Now he is about to be replaced by someone much more loony.  Robert Wargas, writing in The Telegraph, profiles the city’s next mayor.

New York voters, in all their wisdom, are on the verge of electing a Left-wing extremist named Bill de Blasio. Recent polls by the firm Penn Schoen Berland show that de Blasio maintains a commanding lead, which he’s enjoyed for quite some time. What a shame. New York City is one of the most important economies in the United States, and it will certainly suffer under this man’s vague and childish populism. . . .

What will happen then? As the city’s current mayor, Michael Bloomberg, has aptly pointed out, de Blasio has no ideas beyond identity politics, whether of class or race. His entire campaign has been one long exercise in emotionalism and abstraction. His answer to every question is to harangue a vague income category known as “the rich”. The only thing a socialist hates more than poverty is affluence.

His only concrete policy ideas are tax raises on those making over $500,000 per year and universal pre-kindergarten for children. The tax raise would have to be approved by Albany, the seat of the New York State government. This is unlikely; poll respondents know this. They believe, 49 percent to 38 percent, that he won’t succeed in this initiative.

The rest of de Blasio’s platform is vagueness about making things “equal” and “affordable.” He might as well say he wants everything to be “good”. Indeed, if he’ll probably fail in one of his few actual ideas, why support him? Voters don’t seem to know what they’re getting themselves into. According to Newsday, “70 percent thought it was time for a change from Mayor Michael Bloomberg’s policies, even as 60 percent approved of the job he’s done”. Equally confusing is a quote from a political scientist explaining these numbers: “To some degree, they admire what Bloomberg has done, but at the same time, they’re tired of it.” In other words, no one knows anything.

Bloomberg has reflected the asinine world view of the majority of New York voters for a long time.  Now he has to go.  Who will replace him?  Someone who is more asinine still.  The alleged great promise of progressive government is going to become more laughable, more ironic, more mocked. 

A second example of being given enough rope so as to hang is found here in New Zealand.  The left-wing Labour Party, according to the NZ Herald,  is about to introduce diversity quotas in its candidate selection: homosexuals, as well as Maori, gender (males, females, trans-sexuals), ethnic groups, people with disabilities, age and youth are all going to fill quotas, to ensure that the Party is “representative”.  This is madness, but entirely predictable.  For decades the Left has fixated over identity politics: it has purpported that opinions and views are a conditioned product of one’s identity, not one’s mind or heart.  So there is an alleged “woman’s point of view”, a “Maori view”, a “homosexual view”, a “youth view” and “aged view”.  Marx began it all, of course, with his theory that political opinions were conditioned by one’s socio-economic class.  But Marxism has moved on.  There is gender conditioning, sexuality conditioning, racial conditioning and so forth. 

To be representative the party’s candidates have to mirror the diversity in the population.  How infantile.  But, one thing is sure.  Labour Party candidates will no longer be selected on merit, but on identity criteria.  Let’s see now.  We are short on Maori candidates.  Let’s put more of them in.  Oh, wait on.  None of the Maori candidates are very suitable, gifted, or qualified.  No matter.  They must have preference. 

The outcomes are entirely predictable.  The Labour Party will become more and more synonymous with incompetence.  Meanwhile those who are competent within its rank and file will move elsewhere.  One struggles to find a more sure formula for self-destructive irrelevance than this.  

When one’s ideology is false, one’s practice will be cock-eyed.  Self-destruction always lurks around the edges of Unbelief. 

Letter From America (About College Hate Crimes)

The Coddling of College Hate-Crime Hoaxers

 

 

By Michelle Malkin

March 6, 2013National Review Online

American college campuses are the most fertile grounds for fake hate. They’re marinated in identity politics and packed with self-indulgent, tenured radicals suspended in the 1960s. In the name of enlightenment and tolerance, these institutions of higher learning breed a corrosive culture of left-wing self-victimization. Take my alma mater, Oberlin College. Please.

This week, the famously “progressive” college in Ohio made international headlines when it shut down classes after a series of purported hate crimes. According to the Oberlin Review (a student newspaper I once wrote for), anti-black and anti-gay vandalism/“hate speech” have plagued the campus since February 9.

“‘Whites Only’ was written above a water fountain, ‘N****r Oven’ was written inside the elevator, and ‘No N****rs’ was written on a bathroom door” at one dormitory, according to the publication.

Swastikas and epithets were drawn on posters around the school. Activists implied the incidents were tied to Black History Month. The final straw? A menacing presence on campus who allegedly donned a “KKK hood” and robe near the segregated black dormitory known as “Afrikan Heritage House.”

Oberlin president Marvin Krislov and three college deans ostentatiously published an “open letter” announcing the administration’s decision to “suspend formal classes and non-essential activities.” The campus body immediately jumped to conclusions and indulged in collective grievance-mongering. The New York Times, Black Entertainment Television, and the Associated Press all piled on with angst-ridden coverage of the puzzling crimes at one of the first U.S. colleges to admit blacks and women.

Oberlin alumna Lena Dunham, a cable-TV celebrity who starred in a pro-Obama ad likening her vote for him to losing her virginity, took to Twitter to rally her fellow “Obies.” The Associated Press dutifully reported Dunham’s plea as news: “Hey, Obies, remember the beautiful, inclusive and downright revolutionary history of the place you call home. Protect each other.”

But what the AP public-relations team for Dunham and the Oberlin mau-mau-ers didn’t report is the rest of the story. While Blame Righty propagandists bemoaned the frightening persistence of white supremacy in the tiny town of Oberlin, city police told a local reporter that eyewitnesses saw no one in KKK garb — but instead saw a pedestrian wearing a blanket. Yes, the dreaded Assault Blanket of Phantom Bias.

Moreover, after arresting two students involved in the spate of hate messages left around campus, police say “it is unclear if they were motivated by racial hatred or — as has been suggested — were attempting a commentary on free speech.”

Color me unsurprised. The truth is that Oberlin has been a hotbed of dubious hate-crime claims, dating back to the late 1980s and 1990s, when I was a student on campus. In 1988, giant signs reading “White Supremacy Rules (Kill All N****rs)” and “White Supremacy Rules, (F*** (slashed out and replaced with “Kill”) All Minorities)” were hung anonymously at the Student Union building. It has long been suspected that minority students themselves were responsible.

In 1993, a memorial arch on campus dedicated to Oberlin missionaries who died in the Boxer Rebellion was defaced with anti-Asian graffiti. The venomous messages — “Death to Ch***s Memorial” and “Dead ch***s, good ch***s” — led to a paroxysm of protests, administration self-flagellation, and sanctimonious resolutions condemning bigotry. But the hate crime was concocted by an Asian-American Oberlin student engaged in the twisted pursuit of raising awareness about hate by faking it, Tawana Brawley–style.

Segregated dorms, segregated graduations, and segregated academic departments foster paranoid and selective race-consciousness. While I was on campus, one Asian-American student accused a library worker of racism after the poor staffer asked the grievance-mongering student to lower the blinds where she was studying. Call the Department of Justice!

A black student accused an ice-cream-shop owner of racism after he told the student she was not allowed to sit at an outside table because she hadn’t purchased any items from his store. Alert the U.N. Commission on Human Rights!

In 2006, I went back to Oberlin to confront the campus with the hate-crime-hoax phenomenon. As I told students back then, liberals see racism where it doesn’t exist, fabricate it when they can’t find it, and ignore it within their own ranks. I documented case after case of phony racism by students and faculty, from Ole Miss to Arizona State to Claremont McKenna, and contrasted it with the vitriolic prejudice that tolerant lefties have for minorities who stray from the political plantation.

The response from “students of color”? They took offense, of course, and characterized my speech as self-hating hate. Just as their coddling faculty and college elders have taught them to do.

I repeat: Mix identity politics, multicultural studies, cowardly administrators, and biased media — and you’ve got a toxic recipe for opportunistic hate-crime hoaxes. Welcome to high-priced, higher mis-education, made and manufactured in the U.S.A.

— Michelle Malkin is the author of Culture of Corruption: Obama and His Team of Tax Cheats, Crooks & Cronies. © 2013 Creators.com