Hiding Behind The Myths

This Cap Fax bit about the backlash to the HPV vaccine being pushed in Illinois. One of the discussion points was Jill Stanek's "Debbie Does...??" a remarkable exploration as to why the social right is inherently incompatible with modern day living. My commentary is nicely summed here although, if you're interested in the funnier more foul mouthed version of the post you can visit my joint.You can also see Archie for a kinder, gentler take.

"Debbie Does...??" was silly. It was logically flawed - even if for some bizarre value oriented reason you were against the idea of giving the HPV vaccine to young women, you certainly aren't going to find worthy reasoning in the Stanek piece. It really came down to a very personal smear piece about Sen. Debbie Halvorson. Usually when the so-con right goes on such a tangent it's either extreme and directed at a straw man or it's more subtle and directed at a specific individual. Either way, it doesn't raise the pulse of anyone but the sensitive. In this case, Stanek's lust/anger whatever got the best of her, and she raised the specific individual smear to the highest caliber. Even her small cadre of wingers couldn't defend it.

Neither could she, as a few days later she let loose a follow up which contains the usual tactics that Social Cons depend on. Observe.

1. Vast corporate conspiracy.

Why? Halvorson is a director in a group called Women in Government, which is pushing mandated HPV vaccines across the U. S. Why? WiG receives funding (it won't say how much, so it must be a lot) from Merck, currently the sole FDA-approved manufacturer of the HPV vaccine.

I like business. I like healthy kids. I think this is a bold stance to take, but um....I'm proudly anti-cancer. As far as I'm concerned, this is a win win situation.

2. "What are you talking about? I am a feminist"

Their loud demand for ignorance can be interpreted only one of two ways. Either they hold a paternalistic view of women as being too weak to handle the truth or an exploitive view of women who should remain sex objects no matter the cost to their health. There is no other explanation for hysterical protests to shut up about the cause of HPV.

After spending a sizable number of keystrokes dedicated to a bald faced public stoning of a woman who dared fornicate and admit to it it's always good to do something like this just to make sure you won't lose your woman creds. Stanek goes back to her kitchen, turns on her stove,and cooks up this steaming hunk to somehow try to convince you that having sex without the benefit of protection (or, not having sex at all) is somehow empowering to women. Sure, she garnishes it with some sophomore year "woman's studies 215" logic - and she uses the big words like the real feminists do, but ultimately what's cooked ends up being undercooked chicken breast stuffed with mustard greens and smoked clams. It was a poorly conceived idea to begin with, the execution sucked, and the finished product is barely edible.

What scares the faux feminists out of their miserable little holes is the thought that there might be young women who are more bold than they ever were in terms of sexual empowerment. There's also probably something to be said for Rich's comment that boomers will always run everything through the prism of their own youth. To attempt to defend And if you're tempted to let this silliness fool you, note that she titled the post "Debbie does" after a popular series of pornographic film which illustrates that she's not critically attacking the idea, just trying to mock a woman who caught an STD.

Enough of that.

3. If you're really feeling the floor cave in, just lie.

If there is no quid pro quo, why doesn't WiG list even ONCE on its website the only real way to prevent HPV and cervical cancer: abstinence? Instead it says, "Cervical cancer is highly preventable - regular screening is key." Really, that's how you prevent it?

Actually, Jill, as you must be aware, since you did take the time to highlight and delete: the quote was:

Cervical cancer is highly preventable – screening and vaccination are key.

Naturally, if you're asking yourself how screening for a disease that somebody already has, by itself somehow prevents the individual from getting the disease, you've obvious put more thought into it than Stanek did.

Underlying here is the idea that, I guess, screening might alert an infected young woman that she in fact has HPV which might encourage her to not continue her sexual deviance and spread it some more. The nice byproduct for the slut shaming crowd, is that particular straw woman gets to stew in her own shame which is the entire point of Stanek's original post.

What's not said here, is that the threat of STD's is one of the few things that disables women from making their own decisions about sexual activity, thus is inherently contrary to the idea. It's a way for the So-Con crowd to scare young women into submission into their role as a virginal ideal. The So-Con's implicitly view the existence of STD's as one of God's little checks and balances to keep the little girls in line.

4. When in doubt, chalk it up to the other evils:

Why? Because sexually destructive behaviors are important financial and ideological cornerstones of liberalism. The abortion industry and homosexual lobby both funnel huge amounts of money to liberals, and both push the same agenda: complete sexual autonomy with no consequences.

"Come on!! Yall hate the LGBT's dontcha? Well, this vaccine is part of the gay conspiracy!!". Yeah. Sexual autonomy is a terrible thing, right folks?

It's easy to get people on board with all of this. The front and center of the argument is that somehow by enabling women to make their own choices about sexual activity the rates of sexual activity amongst teens will go up. Of course, as we all know that's completely impossible given that the average age for losing one's virginity is right around 16. But the so-con's understand that parents don't want to think about their kids having sex and they don't want to talk about their kids having sex, and that leaves parents who speak up in favor of the vaccine living in fear that their ability to parent will be questioned.


For more of Stanek's bizarre version of faux feminism, check out her bit in World Net Daily. You really have to read the whole article. Put your drink down before doing so, because if you know anything about anything it will make milk come out of your nose. A sample:

But the feminist in me says this mandated vaccine is patriarchal. After all, women already bear almost all the responsibility for sex-without-consequences. We're the ones who have to ingest birth control pills packed with female steroids, or transport that copper IUD with the weird vibes it sends throughout our uteruses and who knows where else, or insert that clumsy diaphragm, or wear those birth control patches that cause heart attacks. And then we end up pregnant anyway and have to get the abortions or raise the products of conception as single moms.

I hereby call on all feminists to resist mandated HPV vaccinations (well, at least the ones who won't get some sort of kickback) to join me and call instead for a Condom Nation!

Condom Nation? I suppose it's a step up from "Condemnation", which is what the Stanek Ilk has been hocking for some time.