John C. Wright and gender relationships

[Darth Richard II]

if there's no hive mind, why defend JCW's position on the basis that criticism thereof offends all adherents?

Because he's a troll, cmon. You should have figured that out by now.

[ChillyPolly]

if there's no hive mind, why defend JCW's position on the basis that criticism thereof offends all adherents?

I don't know what you're talking about. I referred to people who subscribe to Roman Catholic doctrine.

Many people who call themselves "Roman Catholic" do not in fact subscribe to Roman Catholic doctrines. Others, like GRRM, leave the Church entirely. So, evidently, there is no hive mind. i merely made reference to those who DO subscribe to such doctrines.

[sologdin]

I don't know what you're talking about.

ORLY?

Roman Catholics do believe that homosexual conduct is a sin, and that homosexual nature is a variation from the proper order of nature

[ChillyPolly]

I don't know what you're talking about.

ORLY?

Note that I did not say "all Roman Catholics." Still, generally speaking, Roman Catholics tend to subscribe to Roman Catholic doctrine. Otherwise, the phrase "Roman Catholic" starts to become meaningless. Roman Catholicism is, after all, defined primarily as a religion with a set of teachings and not merely as a culture club. People of Roman Catholic cultural heritage, such as GRRM, who do not subscribe to Roman Catholic doctrine, tend to acknowledge this by referring to themselves as "lapsed Catholics".

[all swedes are racist]

So all true Scotsmen are Catholics?

[alguien]

So all true Scotsmen are Catholics?

Exactly.

[Wicked Woodpecker of West]

the proposition is therefore classified as intrinsic, equal to the homoousios or the hypostasis, rather than incidental?

Homosexuality is basically treated as one of many wounds on human nature aquirred during the Fall of Mankind.
Definitely neither Bible nor Tradition leaves any place for excluding homosexual acts as a sinful ones.
But I don't think it's so important part of theology as old cool philosophical stuff about nature of God.

So all true Scotsmen are Catholics?

Nah, you need more than that. ;)

[sologdin]

But I don't think it's so important part of theology as old cool philosophical stuff about nature of God.

exactly the point. the arguments at nicaea and chalcedon had theological consequences that go to the core of the the ecclesia, regarding the definition of the subject of creation and the object of worship. questions of sex and gender are by contrast categories of alleged defects in the object of creation and the subject of worship. it reverses the theo-grammatical relationships; instead of a theology of god, focus on the sin and thereby sinner makes a theology of humanity. it is as though nietzsche's famous dismissal has been incorporated into the preferences of theistic heteronormative exclusivists. it is as though they agree that god is dead and what remains for theology is merely the examination of sin. good job theistic heteronormative exclusivists!

[Lily Valley]

no one gets a free pass just because 'it's my religion.' human sacrificers are scum. slaveowners are scum. imperialists are scum. these things don't become defensible if they are core components of religious doctrine; by contrast, any ecclesia that claims these items as part of its core doctrine should be stricken from the earth. nothing distinguishes from the slaveowners and imperialists and sacrificers those ecclesia that claim fictive and discriminatory propositions on sex & gender as part of their core doctrine.

You are on fire today. I am printing this out and framing it.

The best take away from all the blogs, commentaries etc. was the one comment where "Rainbow of Tolerance" appeared. I am totally appropriating that one.

I'm also thinking Wright's entry on women and sexuality could be really good when read aloud, on the Tube, just Chaldanya and I (et al) did with "Romancing the Crown".

:rofl: Lyanna, please do it and post it on youtube for us. Please Please Please. Tie it in with a drinking game if you have to in order to get through it.

It must have been really hard for all those poor people having to sit around freezing for millennia waiting for Jesus to be born so they could invent fire.

:rofl:

And I don't remember who linked the article with this quote:

"(yes, he’s wearing a fedora, because of course he is)"

But Thank You. I haven't laughed this hard in WEEKS.

[ChillyPolly]

Wow. Too bad Chillypolly has refused to look in this thread to see the tangible examples of the vitriol Wright has spewed.

I looked at it long ago.

I looked at his blog and read some of his writings. He is apparently a former right-wing atheist libertarian (and fan of the likes of Ayn Rand and Robert Heinlein) who has in recent years turned Catholic. Since I a Catholic myself, I consider this an improvement, but I don't feel bound to agree with everything he says or (in some cases) the way he has said it. And I don't think I will ever share much of his sympathy for Rand or Heinlein.

From his online essays I get the impression he is channeling, or trying to channel, G.K. Chesterton. I agree with much of what he says for much the same reason I agree with much that G.K. Chesterton said. However, I I think I would rather read, and recommend, G.K. Chesterton.

I read one of his Hugo-nominated stories: "One Bright Start to Guide Them", and got the impression he was channeling C.S. Lewis (one of the people to whom it is dedicated). I thought it was okay, as a Lewis-homage, but was not enthusiastic. I thought the world-building was weak, and the dialog clunky, and would definitely rather read (and recommend) Lewis himself. Still, I remain willing to try some of his other works.

I'm not sure what you think Wright has said that I should find particularly shocking. Perhaps you are more offended by some of the things he has said more shocking than I do (you and I probably have different values); or perhaps you have taken some of the untruths told about him in this thread at face value.

As for this thread, what can I say? I think it is a mean-spirited hate thread, filled with pettiness and slander; as one-sided and unfair (if not more-so) than the worst exchanges on certain GRRM detractor sites. I am disappointed to see the moderators of this forum joining as active cheerleaders for this sort of thing; and on other threads referring people here with the implication that this is a source of accurate information about Wright.

From this thread I have found out the following things said about Wright (and apparently believed by other posters): (1) he things women are stupid and/or does not respect their intelligence; (2) he thinks a woman's only worth is in her hymen; (3) he thinks there are only 2 ways to treat women, rape them or imprison them in the home; (4) he believes women are incapable of deciding what they want for themselves or are scientifically incapable of making choices; (5) he advocates taking away women's rights; (6) he believes it is unacceptable for a whore to reject a man; (7) he believes that he (Wright) can easily seduce any supermodel; (8) he believes that homosexuality is the same as pedophilia.

But as far as I can tell, all of the above things are false. It is difficult to be 100% sure (for I have not read absolutely everything by Wright) but based on what I have read, it is very difficult to distinguish them form slanders and outright lies. Nerdanel, who started this thread, seems to be one of the main culprits.

It's nice that a2t tried to politely point out that Wright was not actually saying many of the things he was accused of. But he has now fallen silent and is being ignored by the chorus. It is nice that Ran raised a half-hearted protest when people began calling for physical violence against Wright. Nonetheless, this is a hate-thread, and I don't think much of it.

[mormont]

The moderators of this forum, as in every forum, are also members of the forum with personal opinions about many topics which they are perfectly free to express. I don't know where this idea comes from that somehow we're not supposed to criticise or say negative things. It's usually expressed by people who, to be quite blunt, have never actually done the job.

[Lightysnake88]

Yeah, no. Most of us have been criticizing things Wright has actually said. And frankly, there's a ton of sexism, racism and homophobia in there. You don't get to brush that aside with "well, I don't agree with everything he says or how he says it." Such as you know, referring to a caring, loving relationship between two women as 'perversion.'

He is also a liar or a complete dunce in regards to history as well, as he has made enormous errors regarding it. His commentary on the Civil Rights act for one.

[ChillyPolly]

I don't know where this idea comes from that somehow we're not supposed to criticise or say negative things.

I don't know where it comes from either. No such idea was expressed by me.

[sologdin]

(1) he things women are stupid and/or does not respect their intelligence; (2) he thinks a woman's only worth is in her hymen; (3) he thinks there are only 2 ways to treat women, rape them or imprison them in the home; (4) he believes women are incapable of deciding what they want for themselves or are scientifically incapable of making choices; (5) he advocates taking away women's rights; (6) he believes it is unacceptable for a whore to reject a man; (7) he believes that he (Wright) can easily seduce any supermodel; (8) he believes that homosexuality is the same as pedophilia.

i'd be a bit more rigorous and actually cite the text of the language alleged. am not certain if he said any of that stuff, but he says all kindsa abominable things on his website. my current favorite:

h, yes, I know the Leftroids define the term Right to include fascists and absolute monarchies and military dictators, and they call conservative whoever is in power no matter his political philosophy, but this is an unconvincing lie I will not pause to refute, any more than I would refute that noon is midnight.

NB: the confluence of self-oriented entitlement, casual dismissiveness contra adversaries, a hearty resistance to the basic facts of history and politics, and a healthy appreciation of the strawperson fallacy. like i said: worthless waste of space.

from the same 'article'--

ook at the Occupy Wallstreet movement. Look at the freakshow of a gay pride parade. Look at the pile of corpses in the mass graves of China. That is leftwing economics, ethics, and legal theory in action. Look at the screaming insanity found in a modern art museum. That is leftwing aesthetics. Look at the corpse of a nine-month old baby dismembered during late-term abortion. That is the face of Political Correctness.

the aggressive heteronormativity is hard to evade. it's obnoxious beyond measure. (i love the identity of his position on the arts and the NSDAP. good stuff, JCW!)

[ChillyPolly]

And frankly, there's a ton of sexism, racism and homophobia in there. You don't get to brush that aside with "well, I don't agree with everything he says or how he says it."

If you want me to address something specific, I will do so. Vague allegations of sexism, racism and homophobia, I can and will brush aside. I'd prefer to avoid the "homophobia" issue, for reasons already stated.

I see no basis for allegations of "racism" against Wright; but that of course depends on how it is defined, and it is often defined very strangely, particularly by the most intolerant of the"politically correct". If mere reference to the different results of different IQ tests among different races makes him a "racist", then I guess I'm a racist too, because now, I, too, have mentioned it.

But I don't believe in scientism. I don't believe in social darwinism. I don't believe that scientific tests are capable of determining morals, or the value of human life. I believe in judging people as individuals, and, where possible, in not pre-judging them according to "averages". I don't believe that might makes right, or even smart makes right. I have always been fond of, and somewhat loyal to, the Irish, particularly in the course of their struggles against oppression of the English, and low relative average results of certain IQ tests and studies, relative to the English, do not make me like the English better. I have no strong opinion that the results of these various IQ tests and studies are valid or accurate; but I have no strong ideological need to believe they are wrong either. I neither know nor care how much is nature and how much is nurture.

But if the mere mention of the mere existence of these scientific tests leads one to be called a "racist", then something is wrong.

[Liffguard]

If you want me to address something specific, I will do so. Vague allegations of sexism, racism and homophobia, I can and will brush aside. I'd prefer to avoid the "homophobia" issue, for reasons already stated.

John C Wright called the Avatar creators "lying, soulless sacks of filth" in response to the series' finale featuring two women holding hands and later confirming it was romantic. What is that if not blatant homophobia?

[Lightysnake88]

If you want me to address something specific, I will do so. Vague allegations of sexism, racism and homophobia, I can and will brush aside. I'd prefer to avoid the "homophobia" issue, for reasons already stated.

I see no basis for allegations of "racism" against Wright; but that of course depends on how it is defined, and it is often defined very strangely, particularly by the most intolerant of the"politically correct". If mere reference to the different results of different IQ tests among different races makes him a "racist", then I guess I'm a racist too, because now, I, too, have mentioned it.

But I don't believe in scientism. I don't believe in social darwinism. I don't believe that scientific tests are capable of determining morals, or the value of human life. I believe in judging people as individuals, and, where possible, in not pre-judging them according to "averages". I don't believe that might makes right, or even smart makes right. I have always been fond of, and somewhat loyal to, the Irish, particularly in the course of their struggles against oppression of the English, and low relative average results of certain IQ tests and studies, relative to the English, do not make me like the English better. I have no strong opinion that the results of these various IQ tests and studies are valid or accurate; but I have no strong ideological need to believe they are wrong either. I neither know nor care how much is nature and how much is nurture.

But if the mere mention of the mere existence of these scientific tests leads one to be called a "racist", then something is wrong.

I don't care what you 'prefer' to avoid. You don't get to just brush off the most unsavory aspects of the man if you're making a defense of him. The man is borderline incapable of referring to homosexuality without bringing up 'perversion'. http://s32.photobucket.com/user/starkeymonster/media-full//johncwright_gaypanic.jpg.html

“In any case, I have never heard of a group of women descended on a lesbian couple and beating them to death with axhandles and tire-irons, but that is the instinctive reaction of men towards fags.” Or that line from Mr. Wright. And when confronted on it, Wright responds: "

I did not delete it. What it means is that there is no homophobia, which all your side are always claiming makes men commit atrocity against homosexuals, against lesbians, which is why the cowardly writers sneaking their agitprop into a kids show I loved decided to make their token perverts into lesbians."

And then there's this charming quote: "Women are naturally attracted to men stronger than they are, because their maternal instinct tempts the female soul to treat an incompetent or weak man like a child"

Oh, and now I'm quoting the man exactly: I thought ‘Negro’ was a neutral and unexceptional term for the race. I will continue to use it, and if it offends you, shut up, stop whining, and please grow a spine."

I think I can rest my case.

[David Selig]

Feminists want women not only to be childless, but to kill their own helpless children in the womb with a bloodthirsty infanticidal mania difficult to understand and impossible to overestimate. Feminists feel about the unborn the way Nazis felt about Jews. They blame the unborn for everything and promise that the Final Solution of Planned Non-Parenthood will solve everything. It seems more like a brain disease than a sober philosophical or political posture.

Wright is such a reasonable individual...

[Lightysnake88]

Oh, and the man himself again:

But I do not hide my Christianity, which is much, much more unpopular than merely hating members of an unpopular minority.

I do not hide my support for the death penalty; for the Second Amendment; for border control; for a religious Crusade and Holy War to cripple or obliterate the Mohammedan power; I do not hide that I think activists judges are traitors to the Constitution and should be hanged by an angry mob from the nearest lamppost in a truly democratic display of zeal; I do not hide that I think wives should submit to their husbands and obey them and husbands should love their wives and die for them. I do not hide that I think abortionists are guilty of murder, that late term abortionists guilty of aggravated murder and ergo should be executed more quickly and painlessly than the lingering horror of dismemberment inflicted on an unborn victim.

These are unpopular beliefs. I do not hide them. I boast of them.

I do not hide the fact that homosexuals are perverts. I do not adopt your mealy-mouthed modern words to describe them, but I call them ‘sodomites’ just as the King James Bible and the Common Laws of England have done since the Elizabethan times. If I hated them and were trying to hide the fact that I hated them, would I use a term to describe them which I know without doubt will cause bigots and even undecided unwary folk to believe I mean to insult them? Would that not be the first thing I would hide is my language?"

[Darth Richard II]

What the fuck?