Part-Time Pundit

Column: You are More than Your Vagina

(Note: Published in Daily Illini as guest column)

Throughout history one of the main dynamics that has influenced relationships between men and women is what can be called the “vagina monopoly.” Men want them and only women have them. In fact, the world’s oldest profession was one that was originally only capable of being performed by women. That profession was the “renting” of women to men for sex. Most of the pathological aspects in male-female relationships revolve around the objectification of women as objects of sexual gratification.

Originally, feminism was about changing attitudes, particularly that women are of equal dignity as men. Women can be just as capable to become doctors, lawyers, CEOs or politicians. Far from being merely sperm receptacles, they are people entitled to the full balance of human dignity. The rallying call of these feminists was “love me for my mind, not just my body.”

Those days are long gone. Enter groups such as the Feminist Majority at the University of Illinois. The motto of this group and those like it can be described as “love me for my body … PLEASE!” The slogans they chose to put on their T-shirts revolve around sex toys and genitalia. In psychology this would be called a “fixation.”

Women traditionally have been looked upon as sexual objects. So what do these neofeminists do? Celebrate and proclaim liberation in being a sex object, of course. Frat boys on campus look at these poor girls as a vagina on two legs and they want to slap that idea on a T-shirt and sell it. They’ve gone one step further from the prostitution of women to preaching harlotry. The difference between a prostitute and a harlot is that the prostitute at least has enough self respect to demand payment for services rendered.

What the “patriarchy” has tried to establish for centuries is whole-heartedly embraced and celebrated, ironically, by self-styled icons of feminism. The results of such puerile notions have been nothing short of tragic.

Every study on the subject has shown that women who buy into the inner-slut mentality of neofeminism are devastated. They suffer from depression, low self-esteem, STDs, single motherhood and they generally feel rejected in life. They grow into jaded women who think that the path to fulfillment is in imitating the worst men among us.

College-aged women can entertain notions of promiscuity-as-fulfillment because society has always lusted after the young woman. However, as they age they find fewer and fewer partners. They’ve become “cold product” and are discarded in favor of “younger models.”

It has lead to the rejection of the biggest trait distinctive of women - motherhood. The senseless slaughter of children for the sake of sexual convenience (about 99 95 percent of all abortions according to the Guttmacher Institute) ranks first among the horrors in the history of humanity. More children have been murdered through abortion than any other genocide in human history. Abortion makes the Holocaust look like a petty crime in comparison.

It is time for a thorough re-evaluation of neofeminism in the light of the human wreckage strewn in its wake. Luckily there are women out there who are discovering that the path to fulfillment does not lie in the inner-slut myth.

Books such as Dawn Eden’s “Thrill of the Chaste,” Wendy Shalit’s “A Return to Modesty,” and others are reexamining the role of sexuality in a woman’s life and are finding that a sequence of unfulfilling anonymous sexual encounters are not at all empowering.

The case for sexual fidelity has never been stronger. Women are finding that sexual fulfillment isn’t found in anonymous sexual encounters or relationships that generate only from physically satisfying sexual escapades, but is found from the lifelong, permanent and complete union of marriage.

Being free from the Friday-night quests to the local syphilis buffet for Mr. Right Now means that women are free to pursue being doctors, lawyers, and being all-around great women. You know … all those opportunities that feminism was supposed to create.

UPDATE: Because so many people wanted sources here are a few.

From Guttmacher, the research arm of Planned Parenthood, you can read that rape is less than .5% of the most important causes for abortion, health of the mother is 4%. Now I don’t regard “health” of the mother as particularly indicative of anything because pregnancy is, by definition, a HUGE factor for the health of the mother and comes with no small share of risk. It’s used flippantly in debates and I have no reason to see the same crowd doesn’t use it flippantly in research. However, even assuming those are serious health considerations (a statement that no one is in any position to say one way or the other), that means 95.5% of abortions are for reasons of convenience. Ok, so here’s your correct, it’s not 99% (I was using old data), it’s 95%. I’m man enough to post corrections, are my critics?

As far as links to say depression on sex (particularly teen sex), see here, here, here, and there is plenty of good ones coming out of the hopper for adults as we speak. That was from a quick web search, I can find more. In fact, there was some interesting studyins on depression and anal sex, depression and gay sex, and so forth. But there are studies, including one that was in the very paper I was writing for not more than a month before.

November 30th, 2006 Posted by John Bambenek | DailyIllini, Politics, Religion, Sex | 7 comments

Follow-Up: Rape Victims and the Champaign County Court

As a follow-up to this post there was a letter to the editor in the News-Gazette today (by me).

The Clerk’s office called me to get some more information. The previous Chief Presiding Judge had a policy when records went online in 1994 that no rape victim’s name and address would be published. When Chief Judge DiFanis took over, the policy either got forgotten or otherwise missed in the transition (I’m guessing in 2004) and the judge’s clerks (who are supervised by the judges and not Linda Frank) started putting in those victims name and addresses as they would in every case of a judicial protection order. Basically, the specific exception of rape victims got lost.

The Clerk’s office is currently working on removing the records out there and clarifying the policy.

November 29th, 2006 Posted by John Bambenek | Chambana, Law / Legal Issues, Politics | no comments

City of Chicago: “Christianity is a Cancer on the Soul of the City and We Will Have it Out!”

The Associated Press is reporting that the City of Chicago has threatened the organizers of an annual German festival, Christkindlmarket, over one of their sponsors. This sponsor, according to the City of Chicago, would be “insensitive to the many people of different faiths… [and] contrary to acceptable advertising standards…”

Was this sponsor the KKK? The World Church of the Creator? No. The sponsor was a movie studio, New Line Cinema. New Line Cinema sponsored the event (until their money was turned down because of the threats of the City of Chicago) with advertisements of the movie, “The Nativity Story”.

Predictably, the City tried to hide behind the “separation of church and state” doctrine. Skipping past the fact that the First Amendment requires institutional separation, not the purging of all things religious, the characterization of New Line Cinema as a religious institution is somewhat contrived.

Some of the movies New Line has put out include such religious classics as “The Texas Chainsaw Massacre”, “Snakes on a Plane”, the Austin Powers series, and “Blow.” New Line is a thoroughly secular company that produces movies that range from the pornographic, to the flippant gore, to children’s movies. They’ve decided to make a movie about the Nativity, an event that is indisputably consequential in the history of mankind no matter what you believe.

The City of Chicago could have had a problem sponsoring a festival called “Christkindlmarket” but they don’t. They could have a problem with the nativity scenes that take place in this festival, but they don’t because they include celebrations of other faiths. They had a problem that the included a small ad from New Line, who paid for it, for the movie “The Nativity Story”.

There is no outright religious imagery at all in that ad. No crosses, no mention of religion, only the name of a film the references the same event celebrated by Christkindlmarket.

There is no War on Christmas, the War is on Christians. Organizations such as the ACLU and the City of Chicago hold that they do not have the right to exist, to live their lives as they see fit, nor speak their mind in anyway where someone might overhear them. As was put on Captain’s Quarters blog, “they reject on culture in order to keep from offending others.” Diversity and multiculturalism means a certain culture needs to be purged from public view in the City of Chicago.

Even when Christians choose to create their own cities and live by their own rules, the ACLU brings out the big guns to stop it. If one in a hundred thousand pharmacists want to live by their conscience and not dispense pills to murder babies, Illinois issues “emergency laws” to stop them. It isn’t enough that 99,999 of 100,000 pharmacists would fill the script, it’s that there is one pharmacist out there who has values that need to be excised from society as if it were a cancer.

The City of Chicago’s decision has nothing, absolutely nothing, to do with separation of Church and State or multiculturalism. It is censorship, pure and simple. It’s yet another declaration of war on Christianity’s right to exist.

November 28th, 2006 Posted by John Bambenek | Corruption, Freedom of Speech, Law / Legal Issues, Politics, Religion, StoptheACLU | 2 comments

The Marriage Between Conservatives and Republicans is Over

During the past 6 years conservative and Republican have been used as interchangeable words. No more. The Republicans have abused the fact that conservatives have no one else to vote for as an excuse to abandon conservatism. They can no longer hide behind the specter of “8 years of Bill Clinton.” If Republicans wants our votes, they need to prove they’ll govern as conservatives, not as big government spendaholics.

Conservatives, for their part, can no longer take for granted the conservative credentials of someone just because there is an “(R)” after their name. If candidates and elected officeholders don’t deliver, then they need to be thrown out of office. If conservative voters will tolerate Republicans who support conservative policies 5% of the time, that is exactly what they’ll get.

The last election cycle shows that in at least some areas, Democrats can be impressed upon to be more conservative. The campaigns of Casey Jr., Ellsworth, Webb, and others, show that Democrats that are closer to the center are more likely to win. This shows, that if we keep the pressure up, we can move the political center of gravity to the right. Few people truly believe in a government-run life anymore.
We need to stop being a supporter of a party (or the opponent of a party) and start being the champions of ideas. We must demand that those who wish to have our vote are also champions of ideas. Those who can do nothing but spout attack ads must continue to be rejected. It’s not enough to be against Hillary, they must be “for something.”

Where possible, voters should seize the political initiative and put conservative referenda questions on the ballot. Even with a pathetic showing of the GOP this last season, conservatism won with referenda. This is where the future is, pushing policies around politicians. Where this is not possible, voters need to push for binding referenda.

Today marks the rebirth of the conservative movement. For too long it has been little more than Republican boosterism and this has fallen flat. It’s time to re-enter the battle of ideas where we have always had the upper-hand.

November 23rd, 2006 Posted by John Bambenek | Elections, Politics | 7 comments

Citizen Legislation: Returning Power to the People

Note: Originally written for America’s Victory

The Republican Party (with exceptions) has abandoned conservativism. Even beyond ideology, most politicians in Congress have embraced corruption and Beltway politics. This, more than anything else, was the reason that the GOP was delivered a stinging defeat in 2006. Many commentators have stated that the 2006 election was the demise of conservatism. This is hardly true.

Where conservatism succeeded was in ballot initiatives. Most notably, the Michigan Civil Rights Initiative which banned affirmative action was passed despite the opposition of almost every politician in Michigan. Gay marriage bans passed throughout the country. One of the main mechanisms that keeps California from being a runaway socialist Republic is the binding ballot initiative.

However, many states still do not have binding referenda. Illinois, for example, allows non-binding referenda complete with laws that even allow the entrenched elite to squash attempts to put questions on the ballot that run against the established groupthink. Binding referenda movements need to be established in every state to allow relatively easy ballot access for citizen-initiated referenda.

Where binding referenda exist already, conservatives need to engage in a full-court press to put conservative questions on the ballot and get them passed. For decades conservatives have complained about affirmative action and it wasn’t until citizens in Michigan got the job done until the policy changed. If it was up to the established elite, gay marriage would be a reality everywhere.

Some politicians may come along who take conservative values seriously and when they do they should be supported. Until then, it is time to practice politics without politicians. If we can’t have citizen legislators in office, we can at least practice citizen legislation with binding referenda.

November 23rd, 2006 Posted by John Bambenek | Elections, Politics | no comments

A Portrait of a Human Rights Tragedy

Watch this video and tell me you aren’t outraged by this. I’m not particularly surprised by the treatment in Russia; they haven’t precisely been a beacon of justice and light throughout history. However, the fact that the United Nations, the supposed guardian of Human Rights, has rejected her appeal for asylum speaks more to the ineptness and failure of the entire United Nations enterprise than many other scandals they’ve been involved in. This is what we have the UN for and they don’t want anything to do with it.

As a brief background, Nader Kamalfar and her two children have been living in a transit room at the Moscow Airport for about 75 days. She is an escaped political prisoner of the Iranian regime. When they escaped, they were heading for Germany via Russia and where held up. Originally they were allowed a hotel room in Moscow until, without explanation, they were told they had to stay in the public area of the airport without access to showers or baths. Iran has demanded their return and it appears the Russians may eventually comply. At present, it looks like they may be sent back to Iran as early as November 22nd.

Several organizations are working to try to secure her asylum status in any country that is willing to take her and her children. It’s an international disgrace that it takes this much effort, and that the effort may end up failing, to keep a mother and two children safe.

November 21st, 2006 Posted by John Bambenek | International, Iran, Law / Legal Issues, Politics | one comment

ACLU Against Free Speech if the Speech is Religious

As is typical for this time of year, the ACLU is shaking down towns and schools to keep them from acknowledging Christmas. Despite the fact that everyone gets off December 25th and the only holiday that is being celebrated is Christmas (sorry Kwanzaa is a joke), the Republic will crumble if that fact is acknowledged.

The latest battle took place in Berkley, Michigan where the ACLU threatened a lawsuit if the city did not remove a nativity display from public grounds. For the most part, the episode is exactly what has played out in most other fronts of the War on Christmas. One interesting anecdote, however, stands out.

One of the compromises that was suggested to the ACLU was the creation of a “free speech zone.” This would be an area outside most government control where citizens could put up holiday displays of their own choosing. The ACLU was dead set against this idea. Their rationale? Citizens would use their free expression to support Christmas. The “defenders” of the Bill of Rights stood against free speech.

The First Amendment is clear, while establishing a state religion is illegal, so is prohibiting free expression of religion. The First Amendment requires institutional separation, not public atheism.

If someone wants to put up a Hanukkah display, fine. If someone wants to put up a Kwanzaa display, they need to find a holiday that’s not a complete invention. A diverse and pluralistic society doesn’t seek to squelch cultures; it seeks to respect them all. The ACLU isn’t interested in a diverse and pluralistic society.

This nation celebrates the same holiday on December 25th, that holiday is called Christmas. As the name implies, it celebrates the birth of a person who did, in fact, exist in history. It is undeniable that this person has a profound impact on the world and history. Many people, even atheists, celebrate a secular version of this same holiday.

It is time for the ACLU to stop rewriting our institutions, our culture, our history, and our traditions. A free nation doesn’t need a band of elite lawyers to tell us how to behave in public. It certainly doesn’t need an aristocracy of lawyers and jurists using government power to keep us from exercising our freedom.

November 21st, 2006 Posted by John Bambenek | Law / Legal Issues, Politics, StoptheACLU | 4 comments