Tag Archives: NYTimes

Catholic League discovers nuance just in time to defend abuser priests

11 Apr

Catholic League rape-apologist-in-chief Bill Donohue decided to take out a full page ad in the NYTimes to piss and moan about how the Catholic priests aren’t the only child sex abusers out there and thus could everyone please stop acting like this is a big deal?

The refrain that child rape is a reality in the Church is twice wrong: let’s get it straight—they weren’t children and they weren’t raped. We know from the John Jay study that most of the victims have been adolescents, and that the most common abuse has been inappropriate touching (inexcusable though this is, it is not rape).

Got that, everyone? It’s only half as bad in the eyes of God because they were adolescents (who, whoops, are legally still children) and they weren’t butt fucked or face fucked or eyesocket fucked, they just were just fondled a little bit. NOT SO BAD.

And, really, everyone else is doing it.

Why are priests being singled out when the sexual abuse of minors among other segments of the population is on-going today?

Easy question, Bill! It’s because of the insane hypocrisy of claiming God’s authority over your parishioners while you rub your peen all over the altar boy and use his tears as a lubricant.

Still not fair, says Bill.

We know from the work of Jenkins, and others, that there is no reason to believe that the rate of abuse is higher among Catholic priests than among the clergy of other religions. Moreover, there has been a slew of stories over the past few years detailing the extent of this problem in the Orthodox Jewish community; some rabbis still insist that sexual abuse cases should be handled internally.

THE JEWS DO IT TOO. This is the ultimate argument.

True to form, the response of a Real Catholic Apologist can never be framed with, “dude, we really fucked this one up.” It must always and infallibly be, “everyone else is also fucking this up, don’t look at us.”

And yet, Bill has one inadvertent moment of clarity.

What accounts for the relentless attacks on the Church? Let’s face it: if its teachings were pro-abortion, pro-gay marriage and pro-women clergy, the dogs would have been called off years ago.

Ding ding ding! You have exactly named why everyone hates you, why everyone thinks you’re a club of hypocritical, disingenuous pieces of shit unfit to lead anyone in any kind of spiritual journey because, while you see all sorts of mitigating nuance in sexual abuse cases, you see absolutely no nuance when it comes to abortion, contraception, or the human rights of gay people and women. And that’s fucking annoying.

See, Bill, you answered your own question!

Texas gang rape case provides chance for reporters to thoughtfully profile preteen victim

9 Mar

The NYTimes published  a story yesterday about an 11-year-old girl who was gang-raped in Cleveland, Texas. Besides being yet another advertisement for why no one should ever want to live in small town Texas, the story is infuriating the bejeesus out of a number of feminist blogs today for grafs such as the following:

Residents in the neighborhood where the abandoned trailer stands — known as the Quarters — said the victim had been visiting various friends there for months. They said she dressed older than her age, wearing makeup and fashions more appropriate to a woman in her 20s. She would hang out with teenage boys at a playground, some said.

Victim-blaming? Yes. It’s a lazy reporter including rote details that sound copied out of a 1920s-era stylebook for writing about gang rape cases. “She was known as a woman of loose morals” is a mandatory clause, or something.

Do I know he’s a lazy writer? Yes. I’m going to conclude that from the “some said” attribution he uses that is becoming as popular as the more familiar “according to some experts.” How many neighbors said this? Did they know the girl or her family personally? Why were they standing around watching children on a playground? Are they Grant Storms?

But what’s even more annoying about this wannabe gothic Faulkner tale that writer James C. McKinley crafts for us is that it’s constructed in the most formulaic framework possible. The whole “small town shocked by terrible events” one is kind of a go-to standby for when you want to write a story about something horrible but it’s hard to get actual information beyond a police report. So, you get statements from neighbors. Apparently this consisted of: “Eh, this one about how she kind of wore too much makeup and stuff will do the trick.” Boom.

The Times ran a similar small-town-disbelief story just last week about the Julie Schenecker case. This Texas article, however, is even worse in that it’s written with the least possible amount of care for the case itself and rather as though it’s some kind of generic horrible thing that happens in our ghostlike, abandoned-trailer-ridden post-apocalyptic America.

To see what McKinley skipped out on, just read some of the other articles about the case.

Continue reading

Nuance, sensitivity about ideal sex from sex god Ross Douthat

7 Mar

Today we have Ross Douthat from the NYTimes getting all conservative-orgasmy over the study that just came out saying American teenagers are fucking less than they used to.

Rather than examine this study, or even talk about it again in the column, Douthat skips over that task and just points back to the Mark Regnerus book about how pre-marital sex is ruining society. It’s so much easier! (Basically no one in the world is as good at selling books as Regnerus.) And it tells us what we have always known: slutty women are miserable.

Female emotional well-being seems to be tightly bound to sexual stability — which may help explain why overall female happiness has actually drifted downward since the sexual revolution.

Among the young people Regnerus and Uecker studied, the happiest women were those with a current sexual partner and only one or two partners in their lifetime. Virgins were almost as happy, though not quite, and then a young woman’s likelihood of depression rose steadily as her number of partners climbed and the present stability of her sex life diminished.

I did a takedown of the crap logic in the recent Slate article that Regnerus penned based on his research, and another one about his findings here. Basically Regnerus seeks to blame social breakdown on how women sleep around and supposedly make themselves miserable in the process since they can’t lock that husband shit down, etc. Anecdotal life evidence should also suggest to a sane person that he’s full of shit.

Douthat, like Regnerus, seems to want to locate the problems of modern sexuality with women’s choices. Why? I don’t know. Douthat has already written about his disgust at trying to have sex with a girl on birth control. Meanwhile, he was also in the room at the time.

Continue reading

Ladies, why won’t you return Wikipedia’s lonely booty calls?

31 Jan

Wikipedia has difficulty attracting women contributors, according to a recent piece in the NYTimes: “surveys suggest that less than 15 percent of its hundreds of thousands of contributors are women.”

What the hell, womyns?

Jane Margolis, co-author of a book on sexism in computer science, “Unlocking the Clubhouse,” argues that Wikipedia is experiencing the same problems of the offline world, where women are less willing to assert their opinions in public. “In almost every space, who are the authorities, the politicians, writers for op-ed pages?” said Ms. Margolis, a senior researcher at the Institute for Democracy, Education and Access at the University of California, Los Angeles.

What the hell? I always thought supposedly women can’t shut UP about their opinions. With women, it’s just opinions all day, every day.

Even the most famous fashion designers — Manolo Blahnik or Jimmy Choo — get but a handful of paragraphs.

Why aren’t women spending exhaustive lengths of time chronicling, researching and documenting their favorite shoe designers?

Here’s why, NYTimes writer: because that misses the point of fucking buying shoes. Besides, Blahnik and Choo’s labels I’m sure could get interns to beef up those pages if they really thought women consulted them when they were making decisions about shoe-buying. But they don’t. They’re just the kinds of pages reporters look up when they’re trying to write a piece about women and Wikipedia.

Continue reading