Ok, the title may be slightly misleading, because what we’re speaking of is really just an extreme form of self-centered blindness. Which is what sexism is a form of, I suppose.
A group of mostly female students is suing Yale University for allowing a “sexually hostile environment” to exist on campus.
The women, of course, have a point. After all, when frat boys are allowed to parade around the old campus chanting “No Means Yes,” or to hold up signs that read “We Love Yale Sluts,” I guess you could say that’s a sexually hostile environment.
But may I ask a question? What did you expect?
The point he’s making is that, unless his “worldview” is fully embraced by the culture and granted special rights, the sexual threatening and assault of women is inevitable. This, he explains, is because “for nearly 50 years, academia, the feminist movement, and post-modern society have embraced sexual freedom as the ultimate good.”
See what he did there? Sexual intimidation = Sexual freedom. Sexual freedom for who? Not, obviously, for the women and men who are on the receiving end of this predatory behavior. It’s only sexual freedom for the predators, and it doesn’t seem to occur to Colson that if it isn’t freedom for everyone, it isn’t freedom, period. Sexual freedom for everyone is the “ultimate good,” at least in that arena of human existence. We don’t have it yet. And he can’t really imagine wanting it, because he, from his self-centered perspective, already has “freedom.” He is free to intimidate women if he wants.
And the feminists led the way. They wanted to control their bodies; to be free from any consequences of sexual license.
They wanted to control their bodies. Only from the self-centered perspective of a being whose right to control over his own body is not questioned would such an idea be remarkable. And he seems to be saying that no circumstance could exist in which women could control their bodies. Again, “sexual license” for who?
Parents, before you send your daughter off to college, do some homework about life on campus. Why send your daughter to a school that promotes such promiscuity?
The problem he is describing (“..thanks to the daily news, I’m never short of material to prove it”) is the promotion of rape, not the promotion of promiscuity.
From the blinded, self-centered perspective of a being with the freedom to rape if he chose to, notwithstanding criminal penalties such as they are, he doesn’t see the difference. Stunning.
Is this the world view we want taught to prisoners? To anyone? Not with my tax dollars, I don’t.