« 113312987717512088 | Main | 113335878138201738 »
Vox Day is one Sick Ass Motherfucker
By Jeff Fecke | November 27, 2005
Ah, Hindrocket, never despair. So long as breath passes over Vox Day’s slimy lips, you will never be the most reviled blogger in Minnesota.Vox, for those of you who’ve forgotten, is a Christian Dominionist Libertarian. Yes, all three. No, he doesn’t see a contradiction in his belief that government should force you to believe in Christ with a political theory that argues all people should be left alone by the government. Why do you ask?
Of course, Vox really shows his greatest antipathy toward women. He hates women. Hates ‘em. Hates ‘em with the white-hot burning passion that can only come from long-term abuse. I assume. That, or he’s just a sociopath.
At any rate, thanks to PZ, I ended up reading Vox’s latest insanity. It–oh, hell, I can’t summarize. Let’s go to the tape:
From the Telegraph:
Twice this week the rape laws have been called into question. First, Amnesty International expressed its shock at the findings of a poll suggesting that many people believe that if a woman flirts, fails to say no clearly, wears sexy clothes or drinks too much, she is partly or totally responsible if she is raped.
I’m shocked too, mostly because it demonstrates that the duplicitous equalitarian ethic is disintegrating faster than I’d hoped. The reason many people believe a woman is at least partly responsible for her own victimization is because in many cases that is demonstrably true. In no other circumstance is it argued that a victim of a crime is must be considered wholly innocent of responsibility regardless of his actions – just ask your insurance company if you don’t believe me. As Camille Paglia pointed out, a woman who gets drunk and goes to a man’s bedroom deserves no more sympathy or understanding from society than the man who leaves his unlocked car running with the key in the ignition or the woman who leaves her purse unattended on a public park bench.
Well, isn’t that crazy.
Actually, your insurance company might raise your rates if you left your car running and it was stollen, but they’d probably have to pay, and the police would have to investigate, and if they found the guy who stole your car, they wouldn’t ask a whole bunch of questions about whether you were “asking for it” for owning a car and driving it in the first place, because everyone would keep their focus on the main thing, which is that someone stole your car.
Hit me with the crazy:
Now, this responsibility doesn’t make the thief any less a thief, or a genuine rapist any less a rapist. (I use the term “genuine rape” because most so-called “date rape” is not rape nor a crime of any kind, because he said-she said is no basis for a system of justice. If sex without written permission is a crime, then all sex is rape and all men are unrepentant criminals.) Responsibility is not a zero-sum game.
Ah, but it is, at least in the justice system. Either you raped someone, or you didn’t. Either you stole my car, or you didn’t.
Oh, and let me say again: if you’re not sure that the person you’re with wants to have sex with you, here’s a thought: don’t have sex. I can honestly say I’ve never been confused about the matter. I doubt Vox could say the same.
Anyhoo, continue:
Women have demanded freedom from paternalistic protection they enjoyed/endured in the past. Now they’ve got it, and many of them are finding that they don’t like it and thus have, as usual, turned to the State in search of the security they crave so badly.
I have to confess that I don’t understand this ceaseless quest for victimhood. Being raped doesn’t confer some mystical moral superiority on a woman, it just makes her a victim. And unfortunately, in all too many cases, it just makes her a stupid one.
Yeah, damn victims. I know when my friend was mugged, I attacked him. “Damn it, Don!” I said. “You know that part of Des Moines is dangerous! Going out drinking you were asking to be mugged!”
Oh, wait–no, I didn’t do that. Instead, I talked to him about it, sympathized, was glad that all he got assaulted with was a flashed gun from a crackhead, that Don handed over the wallet and didn’t get hurt. That was good.
He was a victim of crime. Put himself in a bad situation? Maybe, but it didn’t cross my mind. And frankly, he’s not “stupid,” even if he did.
You see, when people are “attacked” by “someone,” whether they were “asking for it” or “not,” they are “victims.” And most people would say that these “victims of violent crimes” are, I don’t know, “deserving of our sympathy and support.” Not Vox though. You rascal! You’re my kind of guy.
All right, nutjob, big finish:
I’m just curious what basis the moral relativists have for condemning rape in the first place. If I deem the slaking of my desire for lust – or violence, if you prefer that theory of rape – to be an intrinsic good, who are you to condemn it? Certainly, one could argue that it is a violation of private property rights, but then, what of those moral relativists who reject the notion of private property. If all property is held in common, then how can a woman object if I decide to make use of that which belongs to me?
Yeah! That’s just batshit insane right there, the kind of babbling, rambling tripe one doesn’t usually see outside of mental wards and Little Green Footballs.
Vox, being a “libertarian,” knows that since person A’s good (getting his jollies) comes at the expense of person B’s good (the right to be secure in their personhood), then Person A would be committing a crime against Person B’s right to property of themselves. In this case, that crime would be rape. I think, oh, 100% of sentient humans would agree with that.
But building the biggest strawman since Burning Man ’04, Vox declares that since some liberals think that taxes are okay, why shouldn’t rape be, too?
You’ve put me in a box, Vox, and all I have to say is that PZ is right.
You are totally asking to be raped.
Topics: Feminism, Hacktackular!, Sexual Assault, Ted 'Theodore' Beale | 2 Comments »
December 27th, 2007 at 3:01 pm
Wow, that last quote actually made me queasy to read it.
I can’t believe anyone would, could, believe bullshit like that. What a douche-helmet.
January 17th, 2009 at 9:17 pm
Although i do not know who Vox is, he will be pleased to know that he is actually a Christian Dominionist Libertarian (AND) Australian extremist muslim cleric sympathizer…
This article is already a few years old but when I read your Vox piece I was immediately reminded of the batty cleric in Australia … I post the article here:
Muslim leader blames women for sex attacks
Font Size:DecreaseIncreasePrint Page:Print
Richard Kerbaj | October 26, 2006
Article from: The Australian
THE nation’s most senior Muslim cleric has blamed immodestly dressed women who don’t wear Islamic headdress for being preyed on by men and likened them to abandoned “meat” that attracts voracious animals.
In a Ramadan sermon that has outraged Muslim women leaders, Sydney-based Sheik Taj Din al-Hilali also alluded to the infamous Sydney gang rapes, suggesting the attackers were not entirely to blame.
While not specifically referring to the rapes, brutal attacks on four women for which a group of young Lebanese men received long jail sentences, Sheik Hilali said there were women who “sway suggestively” and wore make-up and immodest dress … “and then you get a judge without mercy (rahma) and gives you 65 years”.
“But the problem, but the problem all began with who?” he asked.
The leader of the 2000 rapes in Sydney’s southwest, Bilal Skaf, a Muslim, was initially sentenced to 55 years’ jail, but later had the sentence reduced on appeal.
In the religious address on adultery to about 500 worshippers in Sydney last month, Sheik Hilali said: “If you take out uncovered meat and place it outside on the street, or in the garden or in the park, or in the backyard without a cover, and the cats come and eat it … whose fault is it, the cats or the uncovered meat?
“The uncovered meat is the problem.”
The sheik then said: “If she was in her room, in her home, in her hijab, no problem would have occurred.”
He said women were “weapons” used by “Satan” to control men.
“It is said in the state of zina (adultery), the responsibility falls 90 per cent of the time on the woman. Why? Because she possesses the weapon of enticement (igraa).”
Muslim community leaders were yesterday outraged and offended by Sheik Hilali’s remarks, insisting the cleric was no longer worthy of his title as Australia’s mufti.
Young Muslim adviser Iktimal Hage-Ali – who does not wear a hijab – said the Islamic headdress was not a “tool” worn to prevent rape and sexual harassment. “It’s a symbol that readily identifies you as being Muslim, but just because you don’t wear the headscarf doesn’t mean that you’re considered fresh meat for sale,” the former member of John Howard’s Muslim advisory board told The Australian. “The onus should not be on the female to not attract attention, it should be on males to learn how to control themselves.”
Australia’s most prominent female Muslim leader, Aziza Abdel-Halim, said the hijab did not “detract or add to a person’s moral standards”, while Islamic Council of Victoria spokesman Waleed Ali said it was “ignorant and naive” for anyone to believe that a hijab could stop sexual assault.
“Anyone who is foolish enough to believe that there is a relationship between rape or unwelcome sexual interference and the failure to wear a hijab, clearly has no understanding of the nature of sexual crime,” he said.
Ms Hage-Ali said she was “disgusted and offended” by Shiek Hilali’s comments. “I find it very offensive that a man who considers himself as a mufti, a leader of Australia’s Muslims, can give comment that lacks intelligence and common sense.”
Yesterday, the mufti defended the sermon about “adultery and theft”, a recorded copy of which has been obtained and translated by The Australian.
Sheik Hilali said he only meant to refer to prostitutes as “meat” and not any scantily dressed woman with no hijab, despite him not mentioning the word prostitute during the 17-minute talk.
He told The Australian the message he intended to convey was: “If a woman who shows herself off, she is to blame … but a man should be able to control himself”. He said if a woman is “covered and respectful” she “demands respect from a man”. “But when she is cheap, she throws herself at the man and cheapens herself.”
Sheik Hilali also insisted his references to the Sydney gang rapes were to illustrate that Skaf was guilty and worthy of receiving such a harsh sentence.
Waleed Ali said Sheik Hilali was “normalising immoral sexual behaviour” by comparing women to meat and men to animals and entirely blaming women for being victims.
“It’s basically saying that the immoral response of men to women who are not fully covered is as natural and as inevitable as the response of an animal tempted by food,” he said.
“But (unlike animals) men are people who have moral responsibilities and the capability in engaging in moral action.”
Revelation of the mufti’s comments comes after he criticised Mr Howard last month in The Australian for saying a minority of migrant men mistreated their women. Sheik Hilali said such a minority was found in all faiths. “Those who don’t respect their women are not true Muslims.”
“There’s a small percentage found among all religions, but we don’t recognise ours as Muslims.”
Aziza Abdel-Halim said Sheik Hilali’s remarks during Ramadan were inaccurate and upsetting to the Muslim community.
“They are below and beyond any comment (and) do not deserve any consideration.”