lyore | 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.

Current Mood: surprised

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

From:

fialleril.livejournal.com

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.

From:

lyore.livejournal.com

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.)

From:

fialleril.livejournal.com

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.

From:

lyore.livejournal.com

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 :)

From:

fialleril.livejournal.com

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!

From:

lyore.livejournal.com

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*

From:

fialleril.livejournal.com

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

From:

lyore.livejournal.com

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 :)

From:

sunnyskywalker

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.

From:

lyore.livejournal.com

. 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.

From:

sunnyskywalker

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.