Nov 10, 2015

NYT Attacks Christian Arbitration

Is Afraid of Christians Escaping Absolute Secularist Control
"Objective" NYT reporters dog-whistle how double-plus ungood Christian arbitration is because the Christian program that used it occasioned a young man's repentance about his homosexual activities. Is there even a theory where this is relevant to the reporting of this story? Also, why did the reporters pass on some unsourced hearsay that the man's high school in Knoxville, which had nothing to do with the arbitration or his unfortunate death, "allowed teachers to question evolution"? If we have Christian arbitration, what's next? Teachers questioning climate change, single-sex showers? What does any of this have to do with the policies of private arbitration?

I am unmoved by the reporters' suggestion that secular courts act from some sort of consensus view in America about justice and fairness. Now that the Obergefell Court has held that orthodox Christians are all bigots whose values are outside the U.S. constitutional order, Christians reasonably are doing all they can to get decision-makers who lack an appearance of prejudice against them.

If secular U.S. courts want Christians not to opt out of their jurisdictions, perhaps they shouldn't express contempt for their beliefs so often.

Oct 31, 2015

Feminist Nancy Fraser: Feminism Furthered Female Exploitation -- [Updated] Factory Women Paid $1/Hour to Make $70 Feminist T-Shirts

Liberated II, by Making $70 "What A Feminist Looks Like" T-Shirts for $1 per hour
Here and here, Professor Nancy Fraser -- a leading uncrypto-Marxist feminist theoretician of the New School in N.Y. -- argues that contemporary radical feminists have been dupes for the anti-national, anti-family economies that have emerged with globalization and the rise of multinational corporations. 

According to Fraser, feminism did the work of justifying the destruction of the family order in the name of liberation of women, but it was really serving the agenda of power-hungry states and business interests. This is why the purportedly patriarchal legislators, courts and businesses "fell" so easily to the supposedly downtrodden feminist masses; pushing women into the workforce served the interests of government and business. Shockingly, feminists didn't win the day because of a massive moral conversion of evil patriarchs nor did the feminists' protests force these change. 

The feminist revolution imposed on Western societies, celebrated by the media and academy, simply served the interests of the powerful. Feminists thought that their rebellion against God's order would provide them with freedom, instead, according to Fraser, feminism provided "the justification for new forms of inequality and exploitation" of women, men and children. Rebelling against the familial bounds set by God, they succeeded only in setting the chains of the modern world more tightly around everyone's necks.

According to Fraser, feminists successfully attacked:
 the ideal of a male breadwinner-female homemaker family [but] Feminist criticism of that ideal now serves to legitimate [a] form of capitalism [that] relies heavily on women's waged labour, especially low-waged work in service and manufacturing, performed not only by young single women but also by married women and women with children; not by only racialised [sic] women, but by women of virtually all nationalities and ethnicities. As women have poured into labour markets around the globe, state-organised capitalism's ideal of the family wage is being replaced by the newer, more modern norm – apparently sanctioned by feminism – of the two-earner family. Never mind that the reality that underlies the new ideal is depressed wage levels, decreased job security, declining living standards, a steep rise in the number of hours worked for wages per household, exacerbation of the double shift – now often a triple or quadruple shift – and a rise in poverty, increasingly concentrated in female-headed households. Neoliberalism turns a sow's ear into a silk purse by elaborating a narrative of female empowerment. Invoking the feminist critique of the family wage to justify exploitation, it harnesses the dream of women's emancipation to the engine of capital accumulation.
In other words, feminists didn't win a fight for liberation. They became useful idiots -- to borrow from Fraser's Marxist jargon -- in the modern state's battle to destroy the solidarity of the family and to convert every member as soon as possible into a member of the atomized, lumpenproletariat workforce. Feminism is a covering ideology used by the economic and political elites to gain what they wanted, a larger workforce and a less cohesive civil society. With their false claim that the family was oppressive and that freedom meant becoming a wage drudge in the contemporary economic labor machine, feminists have not liberated women but have destroyed the central seminal institution of solidarity in all human societies. Alongside other radical egalitarians like the communists, the radical feminists desire to destroy God-ordered social hierarchies did not bring liberation but oppression. Fraser does not even mention the millions of babies killed to accomplish feminist "liberation" in the abortion mills of the world because she cares more about economic inequalities than dead babies and the violation of women's bodies inherent in abortion.

Like all revolutionaries in the face of their failures, Fraser's response is not to repent. She thinks that even more radical social changes are required. The failure of the revolution proves only that a greater and more egalitarian feminist revolution is required.

[Update] Nice story here on the utter hypocrisy of posing feminist radicals who destroy traditional familial communities and replace them with sweat-shop wage laborers.

Oct 15, 2015

"True and Pure Equality" Requires Drafting Young Women to Fight

Contemporary feminism is a form of radical egalitarianism, ignoring God's Word to recreate the world in the image of envious and sinful humanity. Radical egalitarianisms oppose and seek to force the overthrow of all providentially established differences in sex (feminism), property (communism), nation (cosmopolitans, internationalists, the open-borders movement) or any other kind of established social hierarchy. The blood of egalitarianism's victims from Robespierre through to Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot cries out with millions and millions of voices to testify against the murderous evil of these egalitarian movements.

Women will eventually have to register for the draft if "true and pure equality" is to be realized in the U.S. military, Army Secretary John McHugh said Monday. "If your objective is true and pure equality then you have to look at all aspects" of the roles of women in the military, McHugh said, and registration for the draft "will be one of those things. That will have to be considered." 
When did the U.S. military, the bulwark against communism, become an engine to enforce "true and pure" equality? True and pure equality always requires true and pure totalitarianism. To overcome the real created differences among humanity always requires more and more government control. Will pregnant young women also be drafted? Will young women be compelled to remain childless so that they can fight? Will they be forced to undergo hormone replacement so that they are stronger and faster? Will public schools be forced to reeducate America concerning the duties of men to die to protect women?

Will U.S. fathers and mothers fear enemies of their nation more or the nation that forces their daughters to the battlefield? How will men who, purportedly rejecting "truth and purity," want to protect their wives, sisters and daughters be able to organize their protection through their government if the government insists on drafting their wives, sisters and daughters? What will it mean to fight for home if your wife, sister and daughter have been also forced to fight?

These are heavy questions, which McHugh's replacement will have to face. Do you think they will be considered in a way that honors and respects Christian beliefs about human sexuality and the right moral relation between men and women? Obama is currently touting the progressiveness of his nomination of Eric Fanning, who will be the first openly gay military secretary as the replacement for McHugh. What an ideal way to assure the American people that the U.S. military will implement its policies with respect and tolerance for the moral values of America's Christian peoples!

Statement Calling for Constitutional Resistance to Obergefell v. Hodges 

Sixty brave and good U.S. legal scholars have raised a banner for constitutional resistance to the Obergefell decision. Here's the statement. Here's a brief description:
The legal scholars called on all state and federal officeholders: 
To refuse to accept Obergefell as binding precedent for all but the specific plaintiffs in that case. 
To recognize the authority of states to define marriage, and the right of federal and state officeholders to act in accordance with those definitions. 
To pledge full and mutual legal and political assistance to anyone who refuses to follow Obergefell for constitutionally protected reasons. 
To open forth with a broad and honest conversation on the means by which Americans may constitutionally resist and overturn the judicial usurpations evident in Obergefell.
This is very important. Good for the people at the American Principles Project.