lyore | The batshittery is strong with this one

Current Mood: surprised

Entry tags:

random,
wtf?

The batshittery is strong with this one

Orson Scott Card is at it again.

Most of it is just the usual all-women-should-be-barefoot-and-pregnant-TEH-GAY-is-destroying-life-as-we-know-it-Jim bullshit, but there are a few gems that are just too batshit to ignore.

Because when government is the enemy of marriage, then the people who are actually creating successful marriages have no choice but to change governments, by whatever means is made possible or necessary. ... How long before married people answer the dictators thus: Regardless of law, marriage has only one definition, and any government that attempts to change it is my mortal enemy. I will act to destroy that government and bring it down, so it can be replaced with a government that will respect and support marriage, and help me raise my children in a society where they will expect to marry in their turn.

Biological imperatives trump laws. American government cannot fight against marriage and hope to endure. If the Constitution is defined in such a way as to destroy the privileged position of marriage, it is that insane Constitution, not marriage, that will die.

Um...

I'm really, really glad I never bought any of his books. I'd hate to think I financed this crazy in any way.

Threaded | Top-Level Comments Only

Uh, what?

I do not understand his reasoning.

Also, why do people feel the need to impose their beliefs onto others. Are they so insecure about them that they need everyone to believe it with them?

What, reasoning? That's like logic, right? We don't do that shit.

Also, why do people feel the need to impose their beliefs onto others. Are they so insecure about them that they need everyone to believe it with them?

I have no idea :(

Wow. Totally batshit insane. How is that possible?

He's just really creepy.

I don't know. Every time I think I've gotten a handle on the crazy, someone surprises me.

I have one of his how to write science fiction and fantasy books, though I never read any of his actual fiction.

I still feel dirty.

Um...surely two people who love each other (heterosexual or otherwise) and want to celebrate their union through marriage can only strengthen the institution? Maybe if people like this stopped with all the hate they would realise that it's not all some big gay conspiracy against them, and that homosexual people want to be married for the same reasons as straight people.

Never read any of his books - never plan to!

Wow. I mean, wow.

I come from a background where I heard this kind of thing pretty frequently, to be honest. But never with such vehemence, and never with such explicit overtones of violence (and revolution, apparently?). I just...

Seriously, how is the fact of homosexual love and marriage actually going to destroy or harm your own marriage in any way? How is it going to prevent you from raising your kids? Heck, it wouldn't even prevent you from raising your kids to be homophobic!

and help me raise my children in a society where they will expect to marry in their turn.

As a non-romantic asexual, this part creeps me out the most. It sounds as if, in Orson's Perfect World, everyone would be in a heterosexual marriage. Regardless of their own sexual preferences, or lack thereof. I...that's just truly chilling.

Did he include 'make sure everyone - EVERYONE - gets married at the end, regardless of how the characters might feel about it'?

Actually, I'd probably still be interested in reading his 'how to' books, to see if the crazy is as noticeable when he's writing about a neutral topic.

Pst. Your earth logic is showing.

It's even more ironic, cause a large part of his rant is directed at those evil heterosexuals who cohabitate before (or even worse, without) marriage. So not only does he hate all the gay people for wanting to get married and have all of those pesky legal rights and things, he hates all the people who chose, for whatever reason, NOT to get married.

Presumably he doesn't mind single people, because they may one day see the light and get married.

His books were on my 'I should read those someday' pile, but no longer.

Heck, it wouldn't even prevent you from raising your kids to be homophobic!

As much as I wish that putting kids raised with these beliefs into schools with open, honest and tolerant attitudes would change their minds, I doubt it will happen.

Regardless of their own sexual preferences, or lack thereof. I...that's just truly chilling.

Yes. No matter what else you do with your life, unless you marry (and procreate), everything you have done is worthless. There are no words for how much this idea dismays me.

(You've mentioned your background a little in your journal - can I just say how inspiring I find it that you overcame the prejudice you were raised with, through your own (and other's) intellectual honesty? I admire your faith, and your reason, so much more for it. And please feel free to tell me if I am out of line here.)

WTF? I actually own many of his books and have read many others. I'm not even a Christian (I'm an atheist--a pretty firm one), and I even enjoyed his books about women from the Bible or whatever that series was called.

He was one of my favorite authors for a while many years ago. I've also got two of his books about writing, and I never read *anything* like what you're saying above. *cries* I think I liked it better when I knew nothing about him, because that is batshit insane. :-( Now I'm embarrassed to have his books on my shelf, and I almost *never* allow someone's personal beliefs to influence me in that way, because, to me, that's like when everyone trashed the Dixie Chicks for their beliefs and for being honest about what they think. It goes both ways.

But still... I hate to be in any way associated with thinking like that. :-(

If the majority of America decided to vote him into the Mariana Trench, would he go along with that or suddenly remember that the US government is also supposed to protect individuals and minorities even if the majority doesn't want them to? This is why those laws against interracial marriage got struck down. The majority didn't vote for that.

And the sheer ridiculousness of him claiming that marriage has always been a certain way is just... dude, WTF? I'm pretty sure your own church thought differently not that long ago, and I know you know enough history to know even more examples... What kind of twisted mind thinks that outright lying to people who know you're lying will do anything useful? If I had a little more optimism, I'd say it sounds like he's secretly trying to discredit the anti-gay arguments from within through sheer idiocy.

I did enjoy reading some of the commentary over at Femist SF: The Blog!, though. They did a good analysis of some of his earlier rants a while back.

That is seriously creepy. I'm so grateful my parents never told me my only true worth was as breeding stock, because I don't know that I'd have survived childhood. Ugh. I think if I had to live in Orsonlandia, I'd say to hell with humanity and destroy my uterus to spare future generations from the burden of existing.

As much as I wish that putting kids raised with these beliefs into schools with open, honest and tolerant attitudes would change their minds, I doubt it will happen.

On one I'd agree that sending kids to grade schools and high schools that are open and tolerant probably won't help the kid overcome prejudice, because they'll still be getting it at home and (likely) at church and probably in their social circles, as well.

On the other hand, I think college is a rather different story. At least it was with me. But it was a combination of things that helped me.

I really overcame my prejudice during college, and to be honest it took all four years to get there completely. I'm sure I still have things to learn. But I think one of the things that made college such a great time for growth was that I was surrounded by all sorts of people who were very different from me, and I was six hours away from my home town. Honestly, just getting out of that environment does a lot to change things. When you're thrust into a new environment, it takes a lot of work not to have an open mind, and to hold on to your prejudices. (It can be done, of course, but it's pretty difficult.) You're not surrounded by all sorts of people who all have the same opinions as you and raise their kids to believe the same things. You have to interact with people who think differently, and just seeing them as people rather than the faceless other does a lot to make you rethink your opinions.

Ironically, one of the other things that helped me in college was that I was lazy. :P So instead of driving to a church that preached the kind of rhetoric I was used to (and I did do that a couple of times), I mostly started going to Catholic Mass, because there was a Catholic church on campus so I could get up later. And since it was the campus church all the preaching was done by Jesuits. ;) They took issues of prejudice and injustice and put them in a religious context, which was a language I could understand. Only after that did I start thinking seriously about things and being honest with myself.

Eh, I don't know if that made any sense. But as for your last comment, you're not out of line at all. Actually I think that's one of the greatest things anyone has ever told me. :) Thank you.

Marriage is a biological imperative now?

If that's what they had to look forward to, I think I'd join you. *shudders*

Apparently so. No one sent me the memo.

Yeah, I know. I mean, dude, at least get the history of your own church right. You'll still be batshit, but at least you'll be accurate.

That commentary was brilliant.

Oh, I'm sorry. OSC's crazy has been fairly well known on the internet for a while now, it didn't occur to me that there would be a fan on my flist who didn't know. I hope this didn't ruin the books for you.

(My not owning his books is due purely to laziness - they were on the list of things to get for ages, I just never got around to it. And now, for obvious reasons, I've been discouraged, even though I'm generally pretty good about separating personal beliefs from my appreciation of authors (or actors) work. But it's difficult, especially when it's something you find pretty repulsive.)

College is excellent like that, especially if (like me) you are from a small, rural town.

That made lots of sense - thank you for sharing. And yay for laziness :)

Laziness can be a lifesaver. ;)

So because I'm a masochist, apparently, I hunted down some of Orson Scott Card's previous rants. Take a look at this gem:

Monogamy depends on the vast majority of society both openly and privately obeying the rules. Since the natural reproductive strategy for males is to mate with every likely female at every opportunity, males who are not restrained by social pressure and expectations will soon devolve into a sort of Clintonesque chaos, where every man takes what he can get.

It's the old it's-up-to-women-to-restrain-those-lusty-men argument, refurbished with a bit of Clinton-bashing, apparently for the lulz. I just... I really thought no one had believed this sort of thing since 1950. *weeps for humanity* Even my small town capital of homophobia and anti-Darwinism never believed something like this!

UGH. Just... GAH.

I hate this argument with a firey passion - and moreover, I HATE that people use this argument to push for restrictions on women (curfews, clothing restrictions, etc). Apart from being unjust, it's illogical - given that the behavioural problem which must be controlled lies with the guys, why aren't the controls being placed on their behaviour? Curfews on the guys, for instance?

One of the things I found extremely annoying in his most recent post was the assumption that males had the economic and physical power, and the only thing women brought to the table was the ability to be faithful and procreate. It's just... GAH.

*takes deep breaths and tries to calm down*

The other thing that gets me about that argument is that, in addition to being unjust and illogical, it also assumes that women are essentially asexual creatures. (Well, some of us are, but some men are too. :P) Desire and sexuality are male issues. Women are just the receptacles/objects for it, so naturally the object should be controlled. UGH.

Someone had a blog post a while back (and sadly I can't remember where now) about requirements and restrictions that should be placed on men in order to keep women from lusting after them. It was kind of a "see how you like it now" post, and it was pretty brilliant. One of the best parts was the guys in the comments who were completely shocked that girls actually think about things like that. :D

Mm, yes. And not just asexual, but passive, which bugs me just as much. We're really back at the whole 'virgin/whore' thing now, I think, where innocent/passivity = good and desire/activiness = bad. OK, so 'activeness' isn't a word, but you get what I mean.

(And this ties in nicely with a comment I just left over on your blog - our conversations are converging *g*)

I wish I had seen that post! Guys always do seem shocked when something like that comes up :)

Actually I read a good article that takes a stab at explaining this. Try Moral Psychology and the Misunderstanding of Religion by Jonathan Haidt.

Some thoughtful points- and some truly frightening ones there.

(I seem to be all about the links today...the force of Google is strong with this one!) (Now with better spelling.)

Edited 2008-07-31 14:25 (UTC)

*bookmarks to read*

Oh, don't worry about it! I didn't mean to make you feel bad. *g* You had absolutely nothing to do with his saying/writing/whatever these ridiculous things.

I know about the book he wrote somewhat recently and I've certainly heard rumblings about this sort of asshattery before (though only somewhat recently--in the last year or so, I think, never before that), though I wasn't aware of *all* of these views--this sort of extremism. lol Certainly *you* are not disillusioning me. *g* It's just pretty hard to ignore when he gets to *this* level of batshittery, as you put it.

Keeping it all separate is difficult (again, as you said *g*), but I certainly wouldn't say that the books of his that I loved now suck, because they are the same books, and I know exactly where the basis for a lot of his themes and plots came from (his religion), but I've always found that more interesting than alarming or off-putting.

I even read something a while back about how his misogyny and homophobia was in some of his books, but if it was there, I wasn't aware enough to notice it at the time I read them, I guess, and even then, I could look at it at least somewhat objectively--detached, I guess--the way one does when studying literature. (Not that I've "studied" his books. hehe)

I guess part of my point is that I never saw anything in his books that was worse than anything I've seen in other modern novels and/or on TV and in movies all the time. What's there is there, but nothing that set off my alarm bells, really--nothing that different from what's pretty prevalent out there. hehe It's entirely possible that I just missed it, though.

Ooh, the Stumbling Block Prevention Program? That was indeed brilliant. Wear blindfolds and be escorted by a female family member at all times, yes.

I suppose OSC would say all those studies showing that something like 10% of fathers are actually not the fathers of "their" kids (might be misquoting slightly - article was ages ago) are made-up. Because it's not like biologists have scads of evidence that shopping around for better sperm donors is an established tradition in both human and non-human mammal communities. Someone should tell him about that monkey species (rhesus? macaque?) that maintains community harmony with tons and tons of often female/female sex. Or the male/male sheep pairings out on the ranches. Or, you know, all the instances in history of marriage not meeting his definition, which HE OUGHT TO KNOW, the bald-faced liar.

I wonder if it comes with a "white dress and tux and flowers and tasteful flatware" imperative, too? I mean, the white dress has been traditional in a limited portion of the globe for what, a hundred and fifty years now? Surely that means it's the only possible way that has ever and can ever exist!

I'm starting to favor that "civil unions for everyone" proposal. Any two adults could get a partnership with tax benefits and whatnot, and if you want your particular church to declare it a legitimate religious union, then you could do that on your own. Let the churches bicker about the "true" definition of marriage amongst themselves.

Actually, I believe a white dress or robe was traditional in classical Roman weddings too.
See - it's an unchanging eternal institution! Any attempt to change the definition of marriage from it's traditional meaning; ie, a state-recognised property exchange between a father and husband of equal social rank, is doomed to failure! DOOMED! You change even one element of marriage, and next thing you know the Christians will be having their way and we'll be abandoning the Imperial Cult - and then you'll all be sorry when Jupiter is raining thunderbolts down on you!

Ah, Hurricane Katrina must have been Neptune's punishment for abandoning him! We had better bring back the sacrifices post-haste. Those darn atheist Christians and their not believing in the gods.

. Wear blindfolds and be escorted by a female family member at all times

Oh, that would have gone down well! I like it :)

all the instances in history of marriage not meeting his definition
As was pointed out upthread, this 'eternal and unchanging' definition of marriage argument is doubling amusing coming from a Mormon, given their historical polygamy.

I never saw anything in his books that was worse than anything I've seen in other modern novels and/or on TV and in movies all the time.

That's good - or alternatively, really depressing. But I'm in an optimistic mood, and am going for the positive belief that he managed to keep his more extreme beliefs out of his books (or perhaps they were written before his beliefs became this extreme? I don't know).

I'm glad this didn't spoil them for you.

Threaded | Top-Level Comments Only

The batshittery is strong with this one

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject