Let’s Go One Step Further

From John C. Wright:

And those of you who have resisted the sexual revolution and its lies, or who even now are beginning to question the layered system of uproarious falsehoods on which it is built, if you have wondered why feminists and modern young women in general are so crazy, let pity replace condemnation.

The evil fantasy world in which they live is actually the world in which they live.

This is how their fellow Leftists treat them. The division of the world into powerful exploiters and weak victims, a world without heroines able to slap a cad, a world without men willing to punch or knife a cad, a world with all cads and no men, that is the world of the Left.

She merely cannot say who the oppressor is. She cannot name the disease. So she blames the doctor. She cannot name the arsonist. She blames the fireman.

Ignore anything coming out her mouth as nonsense. Let her be silent. But treat the wound she bears as real and as serious. If you are in the Last Crusade, your mission is to save the damsel, not to condemn her, even when the damsel is a termagant.

Did you think this business would be easy?

Why, this is not far enough. Why stop at condemning the damsel? Why are we condemning the oppressor? Did they not grow up after the sexual revolution? Did they not come from broken homes and a godless society? Were they not placed in situations where their worldview was warped and their morality twisted?

Why condemn the murderous drug-addicted junkie who killed a man for a hit? Did you know his wife divorced him (took all his money too after cheating on him, that bitch!)? His daddy beat him? Of COURSE he got involved in drugs. Can you blame him? Are we really going to condemn a drug addicted murderer?

Why condemn the rapist? Look, I’ll show you a brain scan. It’s weird, right? He had a sex addiction. He grew up in a home with religious fanatics as parents who taught him to hate his sexuality. No wonder he needed some form of release. Considering his background, what were his options?

No, this is too far, I say. Do not condemn the damsel*, drug junkie murderer, rapist, or Harvey Weinstein (but I repeat myself).

No, I say we condemn none of this. Compassion for all!

Because after all, dialing back on condemnation of sinners for their sins has worked so far, right?

Forgive my sarcasm. This attitude is not healthy.

*A thought experiment: Replace the word “damsel” with the more accurate “whore”, then re-read that section and see how it sounds.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

10 Responses to Let’s Go One Step Further

  1. I think the word condemn can trip people up; it brings up images of souls being thrown into hell. I think convict is a better word; either they are guilty of the crimes with which they are charged, and should be punished for our good and their own good, or they are insane in which case they belong in an asylum, for their protection as well as ours.

    The idea that we can save them by letting them off the hook is ridiculous, as you point out.

    • I mentioned it to John and he replied that this wasn’t about making excuses, just diagnosing the problem.

      But the idea that we shouldn’t “condemn” a whore for her sins strikes me as a big mistake.

  2. Crude says:

    Trying to give John the benefit of the doubt here: I think his issue may be that he rejects the idea of female equality so thoroughly, that the idea of holding women accountable for their crimes as fully as we would a man is unthinkable. It’d be like holding a child responsible for an adult’s duties. (I think Scott Adams once said, there are three kinds of people you don’t argue with: crazy people, children and women.)

    Personally, I’m fine with that. The problem is when the damsel is to be blameless, an object of pity who is forever a victim and nothing more – but also women are equal to men, and we can trust them to be presidents and generals and CEOs and more, and to question their competence due to their gender is unthinkable, bigoted and wrong.

    We can’t have it both ways.

    • The idea that we are not to condemn such women, however, is still wrong. If Adam tells Eve she’s committing a sin, and holds her accountable, we have no Fall.

      More, the idea that prostitutes are so dumb and helpless that they don’t realize they’re sinning – if that is what he is saying – is a point I don’t accept anyway.

    • If they don’t realize, or are easily fooled, into thinking they are doing nothing wrong, why all the anger at Harvey Weinstein?

      • Crude says:

        More, the idea that prostitutes are so dumb and helpless that they don’t realize they’re sinning – if that is what he is saying – is a point I don’t accept anyway.

        I get that, and I sympathize with your view. I’m just trying to ferret out if I get what John’s view may be, and how it may differ from the standard view.

        Christ did say ‘Go and sin no more’. That’s pretty direct evidence that yes, women can sin, and they are accountable for it. Even if they are somehow less culpable than men, in a way that would make feminists fume.

        If they don’t realize, or are easily fooled, into thinking they are doing nothing wrong, why all the anger at Harvey Weinstein?

        I don’t quite get where you’re going there. Explain? I will say, I was intrigued at seeing some backlash against the women who were silent with Weinstein. I think many people have the view that ‘They all knew what Weinstein was like, and they tolerated it. Hypocrites.’

      • If they are doing nothing wrong, neither is Weinstein.

        If Weinstein is doing something wrong by getting girls to blow him for roles, then the women blowing him are also doing something wrong.

  3. Cane Caldo says:

    This period should go down as The Whore Rebellion of 2017.

    • John’s article is actually quite good, and to be fair he did describe his comments to me as descriptive more than prescriptive – identifying the problem more than the solution.

      Something about this section still reads very “wrong” to me. One thing to point out – and you mostly know this, since I know you participated a lot in the threads of Dalrock’s chivalry series – is that in the original Le Morte D’Arthur, when Arthur describes the sort of women he wants the knights to be aiding, they are all moral women – maidens, widows, and high class ladies who could be expected to keep their legs shut. He never says anything about an obligation to aid whores.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s