Yale proves sexual revolution a disaster for women
It’s true. Check out this link for the audio.
Yes, Yale University has proven the sexual revolution to be a disaster for women. Chuck Colson tells us how:
For some time now, I’ve been telling you that the Christian worldview is the only worldview that provides us with a rational way to live in the world. It’s the only worldview that we can live with.
We simply can’t live with the logical outcomes of other worldviews like secular naturalism, new age-ism, or Freudianism.
And thanks to the daily news, I’m never short of material to prove it. A group of mostly female students is suing Yale University for allowing a “sexually hostile environment” to exist on campus.
The women, of course, have a point. After all, when frat boys are allowed to parade around the old campus chanting “No Means Yes,” or to hold up signs that read “We Love Yale Sluts,” I guess you could say that’s a sexually hostile environment.
But may I ask a question? What did you expect?
The disgusting, intimidating behavior at Yale — and on many college campuses — is a classic example of the post-modern impasse. For nearly 50 years, academia, the feminist movement, and post-modern society have embraced sexual freedom as the ultimate good.
And the feminists led the way. They wanted to control their bodies; to be free from any consequences of sexual license.
Well, guess what. If you promote sexual license — especially on campuses — what do you get? That’s right. Sexual license. You approve and encourage immoral behavior, and then you’re surprised when young men don’t behave like gentlemen? Are you kidding me?
And as for Yale…What else would you expect at a university when every year its hosts a campus-wide event called “Sex week,” where students get to attend seminars on sexual practices, presentations by sex workers, and plenty of porn films?
As an aside: Parents, before you send your daughter off to college, do some homework about life on campus. Why send your daughter to a school that promotes such promiscuity? [FAB comment: We believe in equality at FAB, so why would you send your son there, either?]
But back to my point: The women of Yale have discovered that they can’t live with the post-modern, sexually licentious Freudian worldview. It doesn’t work. It leads to moral chaos.
Where might you think such students would find a safer, more congenial environment? Perhaps at an institution that still clings to the Judeo-Christian worldview and the ethical principles that shaped Western Civilization. Does the Christian view of sex promote intimidation, harassment, and brutish behavior like we’re seeing at Yale, or does it promote moral and ethical virtue?
Well, it ought to be obvious. All worldviews are not equal. But that’s a controversial thing to say in this relativistic age. But examine any particular worldview, follow it to its logical conclusions, and you’ll discover whether we can live with the consequences.
Today on my “Two-Minute Warning,” which you can watch at ColsonCenter.org, I talk about our new six-part video series, “Doing the Right Thing.” It is a fabulous series, and it makes a compelling argument for rejecting the relativistic, “anything goes” mentality that has led to the kind of unethical behavior we’re seeing on college campuses — and in corporate board rooms and city halls.
“Doing the Right Thing” is impassioned plea — and a roadmap — for restoring a culture of responsibility. At Yale and everywhere else. Please, come to ColsonCenter.org, watch my “Two Minute Warning,” and learn more about “Doing the Right Thing.”
Tags: campus, Chuck Colson, teen sex, Yale University
This entry was posted on Monday, April 18th, 2011 at 5:28 pm and is filed under Sex Education. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
9 Responses to “Yale proves sexual revolution a disaster for women”
Leave a Reply
April 20th, 2011 at 11:50 am
Didn’t George Bush go to Yale?
April 20th, 2011 at 8:49 pm
Fletcher, I both agree and disagree here (big shock, I know). I agree that with sexual freedom come consequences that are often not fully or appropriately explained. Let’s face it, we send young adults (who really are not adults at all but rather adolescents) into a sexually permissive environment where promescuity runs rampant. At that stage of neural development, they are not fully capable of understanding the long term ramifications of their behaviors. If young women get pregnant, they abort without knowing or understanding the mental and emotional ramifications, they opt for adoption again not understanding the heartache and emotional rollercoaster that lasts a lifetime, or they choose to keep their child because babies are cute. But babies have financial, emotional, and mental needs that are difficult to meet for an unwed mother. Point being, regardless of their choices, they don’t understand the full impact of the consequences at that age. And quite frankly, I have no idea how to teach them.
Boys, who also don’t have that understanding, have similar issues, but not the same (obviously). They seem to be under the impression that the only concern they should have is for pregnancy. They seem to have lost the concern of STDs that was brought about during the early stages of the AIDS epidemic. They are invincible in their own minds, not realizing that there are a great many things antibiotics won’t fix.
All that being said, I, as a mother, woman, and as a feminist refuse to accept the blame for the inability of parents to educate their children. I can tell you that silence surely doesn’t educate children on sex issues. Neither does abstinence only education. Nor does “safer” sex education. There must be a combination of the two latter for sex education to be adequate, although I personally strive for more than just adequate.
Secondly (as a point of disagreement), not all feminists want to keep the antiquated benefits women have attained over centuries. I do not want a door held for me simply because I’m a woman. As a person, it’s great, though. I teach mine to hold doors for anyone, regardless of sex. As such, I fully understand that my gentle woman sensibilities (insert sarcastic tone here) might be offended by young men in their jockey’s. I really don’t care. Men running around in their undwerwear on college campuses is certainly nothing new.
Last but not least, Freud has issues. Volumes and volumes of issues.
April 21st, 2011 at 1:35 am
I’m speaking for myself now, not CBR. I would like to make a few observations, but I would like to reserve the right to revise my comments if they are shown to be totally without merit! Here goes.
I’m honing in on your statement that as a feminist, you “refuse to accept blame” for the misdeeds of others (if I can paraphrase). May I suggest that we separate the three terms, (1) feminism, (2) feminist, and (3) sexual license.
Feminism, the doctrine advocating social, political, and all other rights of women equal to those of men. Most all of us would agree with the historical tenants of feminism: equality under the law, equal pay for equal work, etc. (For myself, I would add one caveat, however. I don’t want my wife to get equal pay; I want her to get double pay. There, I said it.)
Feminist, a person who advocates equal rights for women. I would like to think that I am one of those. (I can hear the howls of laughter in my left ear.) Historically, not all of them have been pro-abortion or pro-licensious. Susan B. Anthony and Elizabeth Cady Stanton were both pro-life, for example.
Sexual license, the doctrine that “anything goes.” (That’s my “on-the-fly” definition.)
Colson asserted that “academia, the feminist movement, and post-modern society have embraced sexual freedom as the ultimate good.” That’s a true statement, even though it would not obviously apply to every academician nor every feminist. As a feminist, you shouldn’t feel that the acusation was leveled at you, nor do I think you should you feel that you should accept that blame.
It is the doctrine of sexual license, not the doctrine of historical feminism, that is causing this huge problem in our society. What’s happening at Yale is just one manifestation of it. I have not studied the history of feminism; I’m just a guy that reads an article every now and then (through a pro-life lens, of course). But it seems to me that the doctrine of sexual license is one place where modern feminism has departed from historical feminism, with desasterous consequences.
That does not mean that feminism is bad nor that all feminists should accept blame. But it might be a good thing if the movement as a whole should do some soul searching. (Althought I’m not entirely sure that “movements” can “search.”)
April 21st, 2011 at 1:51 am
Regarding sex education, I don’t think anybody believes that silence is appropriate. And I don’t think “abstinence only” necesarily means what people think it means. I’m not an expert on this, but I’ve heard one “abstinence-only” teacher say that she talks about all the different methods of birth control, including the ways that those methods fail.
What the abstinence-only people object to is the horrifying stuff on the Planned Parenthood websites and other materials that fly under the banner of “comprehensive” sex education. What they call “comprehensive” is really just a course in the kind of sexual licensiousness that is apparently running rampant at Yale. (You can read my comments to the Knox County School Board in a previous post on this blog.)
Your statement, “There must be a combination of the two latter for sex education to be adequate, although I personally strive for more than just adequate” actually gives me hope that reasonable people can agree on a reasonable curriculum. I would guess that your starting point is a lot closer to “abstinence” than “comprehensive/licensiousness.” You I would trust. Planned Parenthood I would not.
April 21st, 2011 at 1:59 am
Lynn, the next time I am at EKU and we walk into the Student Center for a cup of coffee, I might just reach out and open the door for you.
You won’t know whether it’s because
(a) you’re a woman, or
(b) you’re a person, or
(c) I’m a little mischevious and I just want to see what you will say, or
(d) if I don’t, my grandmother will come out of her grave and smack me in the face.
Come to think of it, I won’t know which one, either!
April 21st, 2011 at 10:31 am
You would have to beat me to the door handle!
I know the door holding sounds like a silly argument, but I have (sadly more than once) run into situations is which men will balk at having the door held for them by a woman. It is one of the most bizarre manifestations of masculinity that I think I have personally witnessed.
April 21st, 2011 at 10:35 am
As for the abstinence…I am a realist. We live in a society of serial monogamy, but as you mentioned in previous discussion, people (in essence, and I am now parphrasing) share a bed with each previous partner. So yes, in that respect I certainly promote abstinence. That being said, I also understand (as again previously mentioned) that young people have no clue about long term ramifications of sexual promescuity. For that matter, I think many older adults tend to miss that boat as well.
April 21st, 2011 at 10:55 am
By the way, should you click the fabulous blue link above, you might find some interesting commentary on Feminism, Queer Theory, and social constructionism. (Shameless self promotion, here!)
April 21st, 2011 at 6:24 pm
Lynn, don’t worry, I’m not going to race you to the door! I’m laughing out loud about the guys who wouldn’t let you hold the door for them. I would be honored if you would like to hold the door open for me.
Not sure if it’s masculinity you witnessed or just upbringing. The things our mammas beat into us tend to stick.
But if I could offer one obeservation. We all have our idiosyncrasies, including you, me, and every one of those guys you mentioned. You’ll live with a lot less stress if you can just smile and nod.