|
|
|
|
Feminism’s
Aimlessly Spinning Moral Compass |
|
By
Mark Charalambous |
|
April 6, 2006 |
|
|
While mulling over the absurdity of
a mostly white, half female, and certainly
liberal, Academy Awards audience celebrating
the winning song, “It’s hard out here
for a pimp,” I was led to reflect on
two other recent manifestations of post-feminist
moral confusion.
The reaction to the dismissal of charges
against the beautiful middle school
teacher who shared her sexual appetite
with a 14-year-old student came immediately
to mind. Apparently, many media talking
heads and various legal experts are
outraged that there might be a double
standard at work. Perhaps the most amusing
reaction comes from men’s and father’s
rights advocates who, livid from the
conspiracy of silence that smothers
the perversions of justice that occur
daily in family courts across the nation,
were screaming for LeFave’s head over
the blogosphere.
Various and sundry experts claim that
the boy has been so traumatized by the
“sexual assaults” that he refused to
testify. Hello? Debra LaFave
is what we used to refer to as a “bombshell.”
Knowing none of the students involved,
I can guarantee that most, if not all
of the boys over twelve in that school
spent hours sexually fantasizing about
her. Until the therapists and grief
counselors got a hold of him, far from
being a victim, that boy lived a fantasy
schoolboys (and men) can only dream
of.
Yes, LaFave committed a crime and abused
her position of trust and authority,
and yes, she should suffer consequences.
But I find it nothing short of amazing
that people can watch with a straight
face as these psychological experts
discuss Debra LaFave’s mental state
to explain what is to them, apparently,
inexplicable behavior. Do they also
require a mental illness to explain
the boy’s behavior?
Psychologists and psychiatrists, the
new brahmins of our age, toil tirelessly
to discover new mental disorders on
their way to turning us into a nation
of emotional and psychological cripples.
Having normalized homosexuality, they
tried a few years ago to do the same
for pedophilia. Talk about moral confusion!
Whether or not LaFave suffers from “bipolar
disorder”—the psychological malady
du jour for women behaving badly—she
does indeed suffer from a feminist culture
which bombards women with the message
that they bear no responsibility for
any consequences of their sexual behavior.
Commenting on television about the Kobe
Bryant rape trial, self-styled women’s
victim attorney Wendy Murphy said that
she didn’t care if the ‘rape victim’
was naked doing cartwheels when she
came to his hotel door.
Later, during the Michael Jackson trial,
she contributed this gem in defense
of the mother of the boy allegedly assaulted
by Jackson, “I don’t care if she laid
him (her son) out naked for him on his
bed…”
With this kind of encouragement, why
are we now surprised by the sudden proliferation
of women committing sex crimes?
Perhaps this outcry of indignation over
LaFave escaping punishment is really
some kind of bizarre attempt by our
collective unconscious to deal with
the guilt of ignoring the widespread
destructive double standards employed
in child custody and domestic “abuse”/violence
law, otherwise known as “feminist jurisprudence.”
The reaction to the Roe v. Wade for
Men case provides an even more pointed
example. A young Michigan father is
suing to stop a child support order
for a child he not only didn’t want,
but was assured by the mother would
not be conceived. Matt Dubay’s suit
claims that a woman’s reproductive rights
of “choice” are fundamentally unfair
to men, who are left shouldering all
the responsibilities for a woman’s choices.
Of course, he’s absolutely right in
that regard. The only surprise here
is that it’s taken over 30 years for
it to come to someone’s attention that
men have a stake in the abortion debate.
Two people have consensual sex. If a
pregnancy results, the woman has the
choice to abort. She apparently also
has the choice to lie to the man and
intentionally get pregnant and then
have the state compel him to pay a third
of his present and future income to
her (for up to 23 years in Massachusetts!).
A typical child support order over time
can easily amount to the largest financial
outlay in a man’s entire life. In fact,
if LaFave became pregnant by her 14-year-old
student, regardless of the outcome of
a statutory rape charge, a typical family
court judge would slap a child support
order on the boy. (Believe it. This
and even worse horror stories abound.)
The degree to which men have been defined
out of their parental role is one of
feminism’s greatest triumphs, evidenced
by an iconic moment during the Senate
confirmation hearing of Supreme Court
judge Samuel Alito. Senator Dianne Feinstein
waxed indignant and incredulous as she
grilled Alito on his dissenting opinion
in Planned Parenthood v. Casey.
How could any sane person, she implied—let
alone someone being considered for a
seat on the nation’s highest court—actually
believe that a wife has an obligation
to tell her husband that she’s pregnant?
But rather than defending the moral,
ethical, commonsense, and fundamentally
correct position that he took on Casey,
Alito’s body language betrayed the only
allowable answer in post-feminist America:
an apology—albeit masked in complicated
legalese.
Feminists have got one thing right:
Men just don’t get it.
# # #
Mark Charalambous, a Leominster, MA resident, is the Spokesman for CPF/The Fatherhood Coalition, and an adjunct faculty in the state college system.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|