The batshittery is strong with this one

[lyore]

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.

Comments

[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 :)

[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!

[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*

[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

[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 :)

[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.

[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.