Image hosted by Photobucket.com

Monday, May 08, 2006

Yowzer, Talk About Empowerment

No one who stumbles across this site comes here for the talk of USC. Still, this professor at USC stirring up debate with her near virulent feminism got my attention.
So if a few bad eggs don't respect women's right to decide if to have sex with them, why should I hold the whole football team accountable? Because I do. Because I hold every single male on this campus responsible. Because every single male on this campus has the responsibility for stopping rape. Every fraternity brother, every science major, every professor, every one of them. Because they all rape? Of course not. But because only men rape and only men can stop other men from raping.
Well, there are always examples like this.

Beyond the technical accuracy of the claims it is obvious how I, and the great majority of men and women feel about this (we don't need to pay a polling service). I don't want to give the idea too much credit by breaking down the different reasons why it could be stirring up a little resentment on the USC campus. Basically, we need only to realize it as faulty logic. It is this kind've fuzzy almost emotional feminist rhetoric. It doesn't need to stand up to critical dissection, only to tug at a sense of guilt by mysteriously balancing victimhood with a commanding call for others to act.

There should be more feminist trial lawyers. It is a complete rhetoric they present. What I mean is that it is one of persuasion, not of debate or compromise. This isn't philosophy in the traditional sense of the search for the truth. Not only can extreme feminism not claim to be preaching the truth, but they can't even claim to be searching for it for their lack of use critical reasoning. They are playing with the psychology of persuasion, not with any Socratic skills.

Really, the argument above hasn't been thought through logically. To be fair for its intention, as I laid out above, it didn't need to be. However, for the same we can't take this kind've composition as more than an advertisement.

The implications of Dr. Blaine's idea are unreasonable. A sin of omission is not a sin of commission. That is what this idea of this kind've responsibility for one's sex proports. If every man is jointly responsible for every rape because he doesn't act to stop the violence in a general sense, then every dollar that Dr. Blaine spends on a latte while children starve in Africa is comparable to taking food from their mouth.

Even if proponents of omission/commission equality are willing to admit to such an interpretation it leaves them with no moral base on which to judge others as almost everyone, except perhaps aid workers living on the bare necessities and working towards equality for all, become identical sinners. Either way Dr. Blaine's quote above doesn't hold up.

On a lighter note, despite giving her such respect so far, I am a little offset by her prominent title. Its true, she's earned it with her PhD, but go around telling people in public you're a "Doctor" and see how many ask you, "Of what?"

She just seems like the type of person with "Dr." printed on her personal checks. Just kidding (who uses personal checks these days?)


I know how egotistical that sounds, reserving the everyday use of the title to healers, and I know how absolutely stunning it is to find a (future) physician with an ego. Ah, just a pet peeve.

Man, it is late, there are more typos and grammatical errors in this post than when President Bush fired all his speech writers.

1 Comments:

Anonymous Cardinal Martini said...

Good post.

12:00 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home