by Jennifer Roback Morse
This article was first posted October 26, 2017, at Crisis Magazine.
The Media-Entertainment Complex claims to be “shocked, shocked, I tell you,” to learn that powerful Hollywood men like Harvey Weinstein
engage in a systematic pattern of sexual assault. Those of us outside Hollywood are not the slightest bit shocked. In fact, a lot of us in Fly-Over
Country are just waiting for other powerful men to be implicated. This situation gives us an opportunity to unmask the ideology that enable predators
like Weinstein.
One of the most revolutionary ideas of our time is that a good and decent society ought to separate sex and childbearing from each other. The Grand Narrative
goes something like this:
Caring for unwanted children is an unjust demand on women. Sexual activity without a live baby is an entitlement for men and women alike. People need and
are entitled to sexual activity. A life without sex is scarcely worth living.
Do I exaggerate? Perhaps a bit. But the United Nations makes a claim that is very nearly that stark. On its “Frequently Asked Questions” page, the United
Nations Population Fund answers the question “What is Reproductive Health?”
Reproductive health can be defined as a state of well-being related to one’s sexual and reproductive life. It implies, according to the ICPD Programme of Action,
“that people are able to have a satisfying and safe sex life and that they have the capability to reproduce and the freedom to decide if, when and
how often to do so.” (para. 7.2)
The United Nations never quite explains who has the responsibility to provide us with a “safe and satisfying sex life.” As for having the “capability to
reproduce the freedom to decide if, when and how often to do so”: that should not be rocket science, requiring a whole “Programme of Action.” A person
who judges that the time is not right for a baby, has the option of not having sex. Pretty simple.
Evidently, it is not that simple. Somehow, the United Nations does not expect people to go without sex, even temporarily and even for serious reasons.
Hence my initial claim: these people believe sex is an entitlement.
So here’s a question for the ordinary people, not employees of the United Nations, or Hollywood: who believes people are “entitled” to sex?
The rapist, that’s who:
I am entitled to sex. I am entitled to have only and precisely the consequences of sex that I choose to bear. I am not required to have responsibility
for a child. I am not required to be committed to my sex partner. I can use people. I can do anything I can get away with.
Add to this mentality, the “pro-woman,” “feminist” position that men and women are identical in their sexual desires, that a hip modern woman craves sex
without attachment, that only prudes and uncool losers even consider saving sex for marriage, and what do you get? A whole lot of women ideologically
delivered over to predators.
Abortion is a “woman’s right to choose.” But how often are women pressured into having abortions by powerful men in their lives, employers, teachers, clergymen,
even their fathers, to have abortions in order to cover up the evidence of predation? We don’t really know. No one seems to think this question is
worth asking.
What does this have to do with Harvey Weinstein and his string of victims? Just this. Weinstein was a “bundler” for the Democratic Party. That means he
raised a lot of money for the party that just happens to be completely committed to abortion on demand for any reason at any point during pregnancy.
According to Business Insider, he contributed
over $2 million to Democratic candidates, between his personal gifts and his activities as a “bundler.” He thought he was entitled. He had the power
and money to get away with it. He used some of that power and money to keep the legal, political, and social climate favorable to that belief system.
It is quite true that the Republican Party has its share of predators. It is also true that many powerful Republicans wish the social issues and social
conservatives would all go away. These people view the pro-life wing of the party as an embarrassment.
In all times and places, powerful men have abused their power, raped and assaulted women. It would be foolish to deny this. The difference today is that
the moral structures that used to limit powerful men have been systematically dismantled.
“‘Right’ and ‘Wrong’ are social constructs.”
Who benefits from that? The already-powerful.
“Sex is an entitlement.”
Who benefits from that? Those with the power to cash in on their entitlement.
The Democratic Party is distancing itself from
Weinstein by making a big show of giving his contributions to “charity.” But when you drill down, you see the DNC gave away only 10 percent of the money Weinstein gave them. They gave to vehicles for getting women involved in pro-Sexual Revolutionary politics: Emily’s List, Emerge America,
and Higher Heights. Please. Meanwhile, Weinstein spent much of his career making Catholic-bashing
films, thus undermining his ideological
opposition.
Alpha Males in both parties, in business, law and academia, like the Sexual Revolution, just the way it is. Their concern for victims of sexual assault
is strictly for show, will quickly fade. They like an ideological system that presents them with a steady flow of willing sex partners. They like a
legal system that permits them to wipe out pregnancies, and hence excuse them from the responsibilities of fatherhood. They like a Media Entertainment
Complex that covers for predators, and marginalizes their victims and opponents. They are quite willing to invest their own millions of dollars to
keep the political system firmly in the hands of those who keep this system chugging along.
That should be the real wake-up call from the Harvey Weinstein scandals.
