Tuesday, December 3, 2013

Enemy and idol

No matter how far Republicans go in shaming themselves and suing for peace on “social” issues, liberals repeat to themselves that what Senate candidate Todd Akin said about rape is what every Republican believes. (And why is that bad?)

Brian Beutler writes in Salon:

The Republican half of the “legitimate rape” pile-on was a desperate, but ultimately failed attempt to portray Akin’s comments about rape as an unfortunate case of bad-appleism. Much better to attack him for suggesting that some rapes might actually be righteous (which he didn’t do) than for clumsily expressing what many Republicans genuinely (and wrongly) believe: that some rapes are less morally reprehensible than others, and that when a man perpetrates a so-called “forcible” rape, it won’t result in a pregnancy.

That belief system didn’t disappear just because Republicans blackballed Akin. And the fact that religious Republicans learned from Akin’s experience that they’re better off keeping their mouths shut about a whole host of issues doesn’t mean that the GOP’s latent Akinism won’t flare up again.

Some “rapes” are less reprehensible, because sometimes rape doesn’t mean being threatened, coerced, or physically overpowered. According to intelligentsia who gather statistics on rape, sometimes rape means “using guilt,” “arguing,” or “pressuring” to have sex. Sometimes it means loosening a woman’s inhibitions by plying her with alcohol—short of penetrating her while she’s blacked out, which would be, to borrow from Akin, “legitimate rape.”

Getting pregnant is difficult enough. The physical and emotional tolls of rape don’t improve the odds. Half the time rapists fail to ejaculate inside their victims. Most of the time the victim is on birth control. These factors result in a low incidence of pregnancy from rape. Todd Akin was right.

Liberals like Beutler lie when they huff in condescension about the distinction Akin tried to make. They polarize the rape pregnancy issue to encourage a victimhood mentality in women, to unite them in the Democratic camp, champions of “reproductive rights,” against an imagined enemy.

It works, as Democrat Terry McAuliffe’s election in Virginia showed. Terence P. Jeffrey reports in CNS News:

[Ken] Cuccinelli defeated McAuliffe among married women 51 percent to 42 percent...[but] the Democrat was especially popular with unmarried women, defeating Cuccinelli among that group 67 percent to 25 percent.

Single women are more likely to vote Democratic than married women. They are more likely to be persuaded by the Democrats’ “war on women” meme. They are more likely to be resentful of their station in life as it pertains to their sex. Why?

Marriage does something to a woman. It changes her attitude about her womanhood. She doesn’t just make peace with men, or with her differences as a woman. Everyone is different, to a degree.

Rather, in marriage, generally she lives not unto herself, as she may have lived before. She recognizes greater virtue in partnership with her husband. Generally, she discards the idol of reproductive rights, whether she worshiped at that altar or not. That way, she decides when she promises herself to her beau, is not a life worth living.

No comments:

Post a Comment