One consequence of rejecting the protection of good men is that you are opening yourself up to the predations of bad men. I fully acknowledge that this is not what such women think they are doing. They think they are rejecting the patriarchy, or some other icky thing, but when they have walked away from the protections of fathers and brothers, what it amounts to is a tacit (implicit, in principle, not overt) acceptance of the propriety of rape.
Douglas Wilson
3 Comments
Comments are closed.
This is not a duplicate post. It’s his justification for this: “the propriety of rape”
Seriously, I never in my life thought that printed words would make me want to vomit. I’ve read “Ender’s Game” and “Blood Meridian” and even “American Psycho” without so much as a twinge, but Doug Wilson’s utter amorality is stomach wrenching.
I’ve been around this kind of umbrella of protection teaching before, and I understand it, and even agree with aspects of it in principle under this thought process that, “in the multitude of counselors there is safety,” and rejecting everybody that is supposed to be in our life to protect us without replacing them with others who can and will look out for OUR interests can leave us more vulnerable than we were before to any number of things, but this . . . . I mean, I could see him saying “Those women who reject the protection of good men will be preyed upon by men with ill intentions” and I would not agree with him, but whatever. This is just vile. “Rejecting our teaching means you assent to rape being a good and natural consequence and you want that.” It’s a sick manipulation of anybody that might be thinking there is something wrong here that needs to be rejected.