Why I Refused the White Ribbon Against Pornography

For the first time in the last four years, I refused to wear the white ribbon. In the previous years I’ve been proud to wear the white ribbon against pornography that was graciously offered by the Catholic Women’s League of my parish. I wore it strait through the week on my suit at work as a testimony to the real problem of pornography in our society. This year however, I was not offered a white ribbon against pornography, but a white ribbon against internet bullying.

“Internet Bullying?“ I asked, “I thought the white ribbon was against pornography?” “Oh it’s the same thing if you think about it” came the quick response of an aging hipster at the door. At this point I became so frustrated and enraged that I broke with my usual decorum in Church and actually blurted out “what kind of feminist nonsense is that?” But being a man of faith, I at least when to know when not to push my extra-religious ideological views on others and took my pew.

Yet this incident has continued to bother me. And it really is an extension of a previous blog I’ve posted regarding the Feminist misandry against male sexuality in the Catholic Church at the moment ( http://durstonia.blogspot.com/2011/06/man-bashing-as-catholic-mainstay.html). In fairness I do not know if this new association regarding the white ribbon is actual or the personal tack on of that particular woman. However that’s not the point.

The point is that at the door of the church, each and every man was presented with a ribbon that said if he was struggling with a sex addiction or struggling with internet pornography, he was not just struggling with unrestrained sexuality, but he was somehow being violent toward women. For let’s be honest; when one says bullying, one’s immediate mental picture is of violence. And contrary to feminist belief, Men are almost exclusively the primary consumers of pornography. So now men, whose natural sexuality is inclined to gain sexual attraction and excitement visually is not only the sin of  promiscuity, but violence as well. This is a hateful demonizing of male sexuality that permeates our society.

This incredibly mean spirited and vicious attack against men who come to Christ with their struggles is reprehensible and inappropriate. I proudly wore the white ribbon against pornography because pornography negatively effects everyone who participates in it, regardless of sex or relation. It’s a protest against those that are exploited by pornography, and those who exploit it. But the fussing of internet bullying to pornography now excludes the main victims of pornography and emphasizes the minority victims. That is to say, it creates a female privileged position in the campaign that moves the issue from universal victimization of pornography, to the users of pornography being violent victimizers themselves.

Only a complete moron would suggest I am supporting or excusing the viewing of pornography. However, if one looks rationally at the relationships within pornography we will see that men are the most negatively effected; not women. Women are paid to make pornography. Except for a small number in production, men pay for pornography. Men become addicted to pornography, and men demonized for it. Pornography is marketed and targeted at men with a ruthlessness that women cannot even come close to conceptualizing. And when a man succumbs to this barrage of psychological marketing, and his natural sexuality, he is to be presented as an internet bully for slapping his pork sausage alone in a dark room with a glowing computer monitor? Really? That is how the Catholic Women’s League is to deal with the issue? To say pornography victimizes women by breaking up marriages and negatively effecting the self image of women is simply to ignore that the other half of those scenarios are intrinsically linked to the exploited men involved and only supports the point I'm making. Men suffer proportionally more than women by the victimizing of pornography.

Is it any surprise male participation in Catholic observance is diminishing when they are intentionally singled out and psychologically victimized for an attack they have supposedly committed, simply by being exploited themselves. It’s ironic that if I were to say a woman was raped because of what she wore; I’d be strung up as a bigot and misogynist. Yet if a man is sexually exploited by a well organized and efficient pornography industry, he’s said to be an internet bully… and there is no outrage at this.

If I appear to be defensive about this issue it is because I am. I, like many if not most men my age, struggle with the temptation and pervasiveness of internet pornography and sex addiction. And to be told my failing in the execution of the resisting of sexual sin is also an act of violence is demeaning and insulting to the magnitude of the struggle I, and many others, grapple with every day. Pornography is a blight and evil. Those that are a victim of it are to be supported and helped, not vilified and condemned by politically driven feminist opportunists trying to win cheap political points at the Church's expense.


I hope to wear the white ribbon against pornography next year, assuming it is a ribbon against pornography and not the exploited victims of it.

Prolife Gender Privilege: How Feminism Poisons Everything

There seems to be a tacit surrender to feminist argumentation amongst many female Prolife advocates. Or perhaps it is intellectual desperation to get Feminists on board the Prolife side. Either way, it is a betrayal of the dignity of the human person to engage or validate a slogan such as the one above. Although Prolifers are generally very pro family, it becomes very apparent how many female Prolifers will close ranks with the feminist "Sisterhood" when it comes to a man's input in the discussion of the reproductive act. The misandry imbibed by Prolife women in the Postfeminist culture is clearly evident in the discourse I had just recently of Facebook regarding the posting of this image. Indeed, push come to shove, they will take our money, celebrate our attendance at protests and protection against intimidation at those protests; but when it gets down to who really calls the shots in reproduction... men can keep their mouths shut! Now I have to make the obligatory caveat that "not all Prolife women are like that", but enough are to have me post this discourse. I understand that this person is sincere and arguing based on what a Feminist would say, but look at the quick allegiance to what sex is a priority in all of the discourse. The intrinsic value of boys or the input of men is not even affirmed in passing. Only the importance of Women and the privilege of their position in the discourse is asserted. i leave you to make your own observations from the discourse bellow.



Kyle- I think I find this offensive because it buys into the feminist idea that somehow females are of more value than males... that is to say, unborn girls deserve priority over unborn boys...

Kristi- ‎Kyle, the reason why such a saying exists is because all the pro-choicers believe in "Women's Rights"!! So, this statement is saying: What about the rights of the UNBORN women?

Kyle- I understand, however it still buys into the feminist conception of female privilege. If anything, aborting children is the only issue that feminists really do believe in gender equality... either way, this sets up a priority list for who shall be saved from abortion and boys are at the bottom of that list. Abortion is human rights issue, not a gender issue. This slogan is a big step in the wrong direction!

Kristi- ‎Kyle, I disagree with you because abortion is never viewed as a "Man's Right". Men can never have children. It's all about the women, in this case.

Kyle- I beg your pardon? Men have children all the time. In fact I have two myself. Again, abortion is a HUMAN RIGHTS issue, not a gender issue. This splitting of the child bearing act is what got abortion legalized to begin with. This is why Mens Rights Activists are now demanding that men be able to legally FORCE women to abort children Men don't want because the child is half theirs! BOTH these positions are erronious and false because it is irrelevant who is bearing the child, who made the child and or who wants the child. The HUMAN Child is the Subject of discussion, not gender privilige.

Kristi- ‎Kyle, my mistake, sorry. I mean to say that men cannot conceive children and carry them for 9 months. Only women can.

Kyle- Even if that is true, this does not validate the argument, nor does it pay to buy into the ideological framework that forms it. For it still presumes "unborn women" are of primary importance in the antiabortion issue. What if girls were not the majority of aborted children? Are we to now accept the argument that we must reduce the number of female abortions so as to stop the fetal oppression of women? you see, we are no longer discussing the dignity of Human Life, but on which sex is more more worthy of consideration and concern. This is the nature of Feminist argumentation and why we must not even rhetorically buy into it to score cheap points in abortion exchanges.

JUDGE DEFENDS INFANTICIDE BY COMPARING IT TO ABORTION

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/canadian-mother-strangles-newborn-gets-no-jail-time-and-judge-defends-infanticide-by-comparing-it-to-abortion/

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/edmonton/story/2011/09/09/edmonton-effert-infanticide-suspended-sentence.html

Well it seems as though the inevitable logic of violating the dignity of the human person by way of state sanctioned murder is finally working it’s way out in the Canadian legal system. That is to say, none is safe from being liquidated due to inconvenience or lack of interest. There are several issues that are of concern here.

1) The horrific murder of a new born infant by his mother is expunged because there “is no abortion law in Canada”. Obviously we are not discussing an abortion as the child has been born… but that is irrelevant if it is not the dignity of the child that is of concern, but the dubious thinking of the Mother. Indeed, in this case we are far beyond the “glob of tissue rape product” argumentation. This is a child consciously brought to term and then murdered. But that is irrelevant under the feminist rationale of a judge not bound by law, but ideology alone. For the fact that there is no abortion law for a child in the womb does not somehow remove the law of murdering a child outside of it. We are to believe that after nine months this woman suddenly decided she didn’t want a baby in a country with no law or stigma against abortion on demand? Following this logic when can a Mother not commit infanticide… or outright murder of her children?

2) This ruling is a back handed attack on men by creating two laws; one for women and one for men. Within the Western Tradition of Law, at least following the “Enlightenment”, all equally must be subject to the Rule of Law and be Equal before the Law. This judge offends this principle based on nothing more than ideology. For, although a woman can murder a child due to some dubious claim of stress, depression, or whatever excuse can be plucked from the top beak Mount Improbable, a man cannot. So a man who does not want a baby and strangles it with a pair of underwear is a murderer; but a woman who does the same act, under the same circumstances, is legally blameless. This seems to be a replaying of the Handmaid’s Tale in a Star Trekian alternate universe; AKA the Dominion of Canada. A little known legal maxim that has existed for some time goes like this: Murder is Murder no matter who commits it. But I belabour the point.

3) The Judiciary as the revelatory voice of the People. Nowhere in the Constitution of the Dominion of Canada does it say that the Judiciary’s responsibility is to speak for the people of Canada or to express their will. I know because I have actually read it! The Judges comment that “while many Canadians undoubtedly view abortion as a less than ideal solution to unprotected sex and unwanted pregnancy, they generally understand, accept and sympathize with the onerous demands pregnancy and childbirth exact from mothers, especially mothers without support” is fine. Many Canadians also prefer vanilla ice cream to chocolate; yet that really doesn’t resolve the issue of if it’s lawful to suffocate ones child in a 2 gallon bucket of ice cream. However, problematically the judge transitions into what ALL Canadians believe when she goes on to state: “Naturally, Canadians are grieved by an infant’s death, especially at the hands of the infant’s mother, but Canadians also grieve for the mother.” Do they? ALL Canadians grieve for a mother who “chooses” to strangle her newborn with her panties?! Apparently judges have a mystical connection to the emotional and moral sensibilities of every Canadian citizen. Because if that is not the case, she would be going far beyond her finite caporal duties as stated in the Canadian Constitution and the laws of the observable universe and basically acting as though she was omnipresent. But this "legislating from the bench" is a recurring problem in Canada. Gay marriage, so called Child Abuse via spanking, so called Hate Crimes, and a host of other infractions against the Natural Law politicians won’t touch with a ten foot pole have been foisted on the Canadian public without their consent… oh wait, judges clearly DO know what Canadians consent to by virtue of the occult nature of their office. I’d forgotten.

Just these three issues are enough to cause any thinking person concern for their own safety and the very nature of the judiciary that is supposed to protect and uphold the Rule of Law. If the judiciary can drop laws it is supposed to uphold due to the sex of the offender, none is safe… except baby killing women of course. The only redeeming quality I can see from this sad sully into madness is that there is now a public recognition of the correlation between abortion and infanticide that must now be publicly and legally resolved. At least,although this does not validate abortion, laws governing that murderous act most probably will now come due to this horrendous situation.

A Reflection On the Claims of the “Community”

                                                 
Many claims and demands are founded on this non-descript group. The X community needs this, the community must protect Y, this is the responsibility of the community to do Z. The main problem with this idea is that it is regularly used by politically interested and invested in the outcome (Z) to emotionally shame and brow beat large and divers groups with competing and conflicting interests into the idea that there is a cohesive group that is “the community”. In small cases, parishes and villages, this may be possible. However, in large polities this works out in practice to mean government coercion through FORCE of law. Thus those that are do not agree with X,Y, or Z are portrayed as outside the community. The fact that this community is an artificial construct is lost on most politically indifferent people. Moreover, it is irrelevant if the suddenly “outside” group is the majority or not; let alone if they are right. For the community is always fluid. It may be steel workers, children, homosexuals etc. The point is that the community, and inclusion in it, are what is really important. Certainly not individual

thought, critical thinking, debate or tolerance. Ironically, Diversity is the opposite of tolerance as it is a movement onto itself. Although Diversity would suggest tolerance, and is the main battle cry of these tactics, yet they always seem to push laws that suppress the individual authority, sovereignty and free speech of others. “Others” being those they disagree with and not ensconced in the “community”.  And all the while this group is always more and more subtly oppressed and needs more “community” action in it’s defence. This is because the “community is being created by a group that has a financial interest in the creation, propagation and execution of the very government programs that are to be instituted to address these issues. Issues that may or may not have been issues to begin with.

Thus the “community” is code for special interest groups seeking financial gain. But this is always obscured and justified by pictures of battered women, drug addicted teens, pregnant rape victims and impoverished children. For only Monsters are critical of groups promoting the redress of such ills. Therefore individuals are discouraged from pointing out legitimate moral issues regarding the financially interested groups political agenda and ideology. What is most dangerous is that this cycle ends and festers in government control and legislation. Most honest people can only practice political activism part time because they have to work in

the private sector and raise families. But the Group described above creates for itself the ability to be politically active all the time and paid by the political system for the pleasure at the same time. Thus honest families are pushed out of the political process by sheer economic pressure. Therefore a claim for “community” action is really a call for publicly funded political activists, unaccountable to that very public, to institutionalize it’s ideology.  A call for “community” is therefore a call for the destruction of any pretence of community at all.

What's the difference? Catholics Don't Count

 On the left are things that are repellent and condemned as hateful and completely inappropriate.

On the right are the apparel and activities I see at school and resteraunts and have to see the confused hurt and fear in the eyes of my children. But that's OK, the Human Rights Tribunal in Canada said Christians aren't a threatened group so we're safe from hatred...

Would you be allowed to wear this patch to school? Jut add a cross and its "freedom of expression". Only irrational superstitious people can't handle a little criticism...

Defacing this sign is clearly hateful and terrorizing. But if they're Christians with a sign saying "Marriage is 1 man + 1 woman" you can feel free to deface it with impunity. It's OK, they don't live or act like you do...


Just remember, CATHOLICS ARE NOT AN ETHNIC GROUP; THEY DO NOT HAVE COMMON CULTURAL PRACTICES, TRADITIONS, MORALS AND RELIGION THAT MAKES THEM NOTICEABLY DIFFERENT AS A SEGMENT OF THE REST OF THE POPULATION... LIKE JEWS!

This Is What Goes For Religious "Tolerance" In A "Pluralistic" Society?

 “UCC should be at the forefront of promoting religious tolerance in a pluralist society. Those in charge of UCC should reconsider whether or not it is appropriate to permit this exhibition to take place on its campus without affording others the opportunity to present an alternative and balanced point of view.”


http://www.corkstudentnews.com/news/controversial-exhibit-to-open-in-ucc-tomorrow-21261

The saying "noting is sacred" really does apply. Whereas reasonable people say this as a lament, cultural revolutionaries see it as a badge of honour justifying any action as "progressive". We Catholics are supposed to be tolerant and accepting of homosexuals, radical feminists and pornographers; yet this is what we are to tolerate and accept as expressions of diversity.

You see, we are not to express our deep and fundamental objections to the immoral and counter-cultural activities and beliefs of the above mentioned with sarcasm or disgust. Those values and activities are considered sacrosanct and too deeply personal to offend. However, our most sacred and deeply held beliefs are to be "deconstructed", "reinvisioned" and "subverted" in the name of diversity and sexual "equity". Which basically means social degeneracy. These are all things we know already. But I just figured I'd share what I feel is a relevant, extended, quote from Joseph Addison's contribution to the 18th century 'Spectator'.

"No. 23
Tuesday, March 27 (1711)

There is nothing that more betrays a base ungenerous Spirit than the giving of secret Stabs to a Man's Reputation. Lampoons and Satyrs, that are written with Wit and Spirit, are like poisoned Darts, which not only inflict a Wound, but but make it incurable. For this reason I am very much troubled when I see Talents of Humour and Ridicule in the Possession of an ill-natured Man. There cannot be a greater Gratification to a barbarous and inhuman Wit, than to stir up Sorrow in the Heart of a private Person, to raise Uneasiness among near Relations, and to expose whole Families to Derision, at the same time that he remains unseen and undiscovered. If, besides being witty and ill-natured, a Man is vicious into the bargain, he is one of the most mischievous Creatures that can enter Civil Society. His Satyr will then chiefly fall upon those who ought to be the most exempt from it. Virtue, Merit, and every thing that is Praiseworthy, will be made the Subject of Ridicule and Buffoonry. It is impossible to enumerate the Evils which arise from these Arrows that fly in the dark, and I know no other Excuse that is or can be made for them, than the Wounds they give are only imaginary, and produce nothing more than a secret Shame or Sorrow in the Mind of the Suffering Person. It must indeed be confess'd, that a Lampoon or Satyr do not carry in them Robbery or Murder; but at the same time, how many are there that would not rather lose a considerable Sum of Mony, or even Life it self, than be set up as a Mark of Infamy and Derision? And in this Case a Man should consider, that an Injury is not to be measured by the Notions of him that gives, but him that receives it." (the Spectator reprinted 1964, p. 69-70)

Granted, he was decrying the theatre of his day, but I feel the sentiment can be applied to all derogatory art that is expressed to insult rather than inspire.What more and apt commentary is needed. The contribution of this image is supposedly considered "promoting religious tolerance in a pluralist society" and "an alternative and balanced point of view"? Does anyone of good will really see this image as a genuinely reasonable reflection of those words over those of Mr. Addison above?

The image of the Immaculate Mother of Christ, known as our Lady of Guadeloupe, is the model of Chastity, Modesty and Virginity is here maliciously turned into an image of perversity, licentiousness and lust that is designed to illicit a sexual response from any man who looks upon it. In any other instance this would be decried as unacceptable and mean-spirited. This can only be seen as an attack upon another's deeply held religious and cultural beliefs; AKA the OPPOSITE of religious tolerance and BALANCE! But as with all Ethnic Cleansing, the victims are deemed unfit for the dignity of public respect for their cherished cultural beliefs.
Yet if one even respectfully criticizes the actions of the very people that make this kind of cultural terrorism, there is a visceral outcry. I submit the following video commentary upon the immediate action taken by such victimized cultural vanguard. The question is... Why is our Catholic outrage completely dismissed under the same regime of pluralism and tolerance? To simply ask the question is to answer it...

http://www.youtube.com/user/pinegrove33#p/u/1/zD_R9sFmfc8

Feminist Lunacy on the Sexulization of Children and a Christian Response

I have finally seen a rational and obvious assessment of the sexualization of Children on public television by Peter Hitchens. It follows a fantasy riddled, post modern, anti male Feminist interpretation of the issue. What is more likely, a father kissing his daughter goodnight is a sexual act that creates the psychological necrosis of Girls wanting to be found sexually desirable and interacted with during their childhood; or the institutional sex "education" and media (film, t.v. music etc.) constantly and incessantly promoting a girls value and power through sexuality alone? I always find it amusing how feminists will one moment say everything is behavioral and due to social pressure, then suddenly when it's an issue of their revolution causing the exploitation of children, children suddenly have the superior moral intellect to understand and decide being sexually exploited isn't "cool" anymore. The response of the mob, there is no other word for a mindless mass of irrational rabble, is reminiscent of the response I get when I challenge Homosexualists based on data. No response to evidence, just boos and hisses because it makes one feel morally superior.