Michelle Malkin today relates and comments on the serious antics of one Sally Jacobsen, a professor of English at Northern Kentucky University. Apparently, Jacobsen was so outraged by a pro-life display of crosses on campus that she took her class to the site and strongly suggested that they trash it. They did. You may find the story here.We don't even have to wonder what the reaction of somebody like Jacobsen would be if a Christian (as distinct, natch, from a Muslim) group on campus were to destroy advertising for, say, The Vagina Monologues. Only the politically correct may express themselves through destruction of property, you see. Here's how the thought process—not to be dignified by the name of 'reasoning'—goes: "If I, a defender of women's rights, am confronted with a public expression of religiously motivated opposition to abortion, then violence is being done to me and I have the right to defend myself with violence. If, on the other hand, a religiously motivated group is confronted with a public expression of feminism and uses violence to eliminate that expression, then violence is being done to me and to all women, and we have the right to defend ourselves by suppressing it." Conceited though it may be, this sort of thing is no mere academic conceit.
Essentially the same ideological irrationality is played out every day in domestic-violence cases. In most states, a woman can get a DV "protective order" merely by saying that she fears the possibility of violence or has been verbally abused. By such means, and many times per day across this country, husbands and fathers who have committed no crime are ejected from their homes and lose the right to contact their children as well as their wives. Because it gives the mother an overwhelming advantage when custody is considered in the ensuing divorce, the DVPO is becoming a common tactic for ending marriages. Though the laws are written in gender-neutral fashion, men de facto rarely have such recourse—and if they try to have it, they are usually laughed out of court. Similarly, when police get a DV call, the man can be arrested merely on the woman's word that he threatened her, whereas the reverse does not hold. Worse, the man can be and often is arrested for defending himself from physical violence he hasn't initiated, whereas the woman will only be arrested if it is unmistakably clear that she has committed such violence without any being committed against her. I don't need to document such assertions: any police officer would tell you essentially the same thing. I know their truth firsthand. This is not to deny that domestic violence is a serious matter; people who physically harm those they live with should be punished—when there is clear evidence that they have done so. It is simply to criticize the ludicrous double standard beloved of feminism and the courts.
Feminism is crucifying the family in this country: from the most innocent, i.e., unborn children, to the least innocent, i.e., abusive husbands as distinct, of course, from abusive wives. In crucifying the family, it is crucifying the Lord. If we let it continue to crucify reason as well, our society has no future.
