As I've written about before, I am a (not very successful) user of online dating sites, particularly one that caters to graduates of Ivy-like institutions.
The palpable fear and loathing of religion that many of these well-educated women express is just phenomenal. (My background is moderate Roman Catholic, and though neither an atheist nor even an agnostic, I do not attend church.)
They seem to think Christians are going to burn them at the stake or something.
If only we could get them to see the far more realistic threat they face from islam.
The hostility expressed is just incredible and widespread.
The new trendiness these days seems to be Buddhism.
I never used to see much of that, but now there are all these anglo-type women professing to be Buddhists, which always makes me howl with laughter.
no one has complained, but I want to explain why I think that's funny. I'm not complaining about Buddhism per se, but I simply find it amusing that these women feel they can call themselves Buddhists with a straight face when culturally they are surely nothing at all like real Buddhists. Did they formally convert? How does one do that? What do they even mean by the term? You see how silly the designation is?)
I guess they got tired of the old "spiritual but not religious" category.
I just noticed one listing that specified,
seeking atheist (unless Buddhist).
Isn't that funny? And another one is seeking
a compassionate man who does not believe in God, or who maintains a cordial but distant relationship with Him/him/it.
Isn't that just a scream? Their neuroses are so transparent.
I've lost all patience with them and their demands for non-conservative men. One prospect, in her section on political views, stated:
I am pretty far to the left--not super crunchy but solidly pro-choice. I believe legislation and public policy should be based on sound evidence.
I thought that was just too delicious to pass up.
So maybe it was beneath me, but I decided to needle her by sending a bubbly e-mail but slipping in there the statement:
I also find it interesting that you desire, you know, "evidence" for public policy! One usually associates pure emotion and the self-contradictory absurdities of political correctness to be the basis of policy for the left...What a refreshing exception you are! :-)
I mean, her profile also said she liked to "argue about politics", so I figured I'd oblige her.
That actually got her to reply! She responded with:
I am trying to decide whether to take offense about your characterization of the left :) In fact I think a very strong argument can be made that policies on the left are much more likely to be based on science (and that is certainly true with this administration that seems unable to even entertain the idea of basing social policy like sex education on years of research and experience). I take it you may have voted for George Bush?
Oh, that's rich!
Leftist policies based on science? Uh, Marxism, hello!
And notice the voting-record litmus test! Rather odd thing to ask about, one would think, at such an early get-to-know-yout stage. But not in this polarized day and age.
I responded (for my profile lists me as an Independent, which is true):
Gosh, it used to be you'd expect prospective daters to maybe run down your sexual history, maybe do a credit check...now it's come to checking voting history! :)
If I did, would that be a deal-breaker? I'm actually seeing lots of profiles (not saying you're doing this) these days that begin, "If you voted for W, read no further; other than that, I'm rather open-minded." Or, "Seeking a nice, intelligent, non-Republican man." The irony of the intolerance is quite amusing. It rolls so easily off the tongue: "Other than you being an evil baby-eating troglodyte, of course, I'm very open-minded!"
Well she wouldn't let me side-step the question.
Her Inquisition continued, as she replied:
Re George Bush and would it be a deal breaker, well my sister voted for him and I have not disowned her, but I would have to say it raises serious issues for me. I do research on women's reproductive health in the US and internationally and as you can imagine, much of what George Bush stands for offends me and makes my work a hell of a lot harder. So, out with it--did you vote for him? If yes I would certainly be curious why.
"Out with it"?
Can't you just feel her horror at the prospect of speaking to a Bush voter?
So, I told her that yes, I did vote for him, at least in 04 (but not in 00).
And since she asked why, I also explained it to her in the following way, as she had sweetly set herself up, by referring her ultimately to Wretchard's Three Conjectures
Even if W packs the Supreme Court with Constitutional Constructionists -- which I actually hope he will, which is one reason I voted for him -- and even if they overturn Roe v. Wade, that won't have as much impact as some imagine: it won't oulaw abortion, it will just make it a matter for the States to decide, which perhaps is where they ought to. I can hardly believe that more than a handful of States would enact restrictions worse than the situation today.
The "right" way to protect women's reproduction rights is to have a national debate and get an Amendment passed, then this whole unstable situation about worrying about the opinions of 5 judicial overlords will go away. That's no way to live! Imagine if women achieved voting rights by judicial fiat, they'd always worry those rights could be taken away. Instead, they got an Amendment passed, and the issue was DONE for good!
The danger of the Christian Right I believe is vastly overstated. No matter how sympathetic to them any official may be, they can never, ever get past the First Amendment. Never.
More important to me, in 04 (unlike 00), was the grave threat to civilization of nuclear-armed Islamic radicals, whose modern jihad against us began at least in 1979, but goes back in some sense to 1683 or earlier. The consequences are so terrible, that I had to choose the course of action that would lead down a decision tree with the smallest chance of jihadists achieving their atomic aspirations. See for example the "3 conjectures" described in this famous blogosphere essay, from which I will quote:
Conjecture 1: Terrorism has lowered the nuclear threshold
These obstacles to terrorist capability are the sole reason that the War on Terror has not yet crossed the nuclear theshold, the point at which enemies fight each other with weapons of mass destruction. The terrorist intent to destroy the United States, at whatever cost to themselves, has been a given since September 11. Only their capability is in doubt. This is an inversion of the Cold War situation when the capability of the Soviet Union to destroy America was given but their intent to do so, in the face of certain retaliation, was doubtful.
Conjecture 2: Attaining WMDs will destroy Islam
Because capability is the sole variable of interest in the war against terrorism, the greater the Islamic strike capability becomes, the stronger the response will be.
Due to the fixity of intent, attacks would continue for as long as capability remained. Under these circumstances, any American government would eventually be compelled by public desperation to finish the exchange: total retaliatory extermination.
Conjecture 3: The War on Terror is the 'Golden Hour' -- the final chance
It is supremely ironic that the survival of the Islamic world should hinge on an American victory in the War on Terror, the last chance to prevent that terrible day in which all the decisions will have already been made for us.
W is not my ideal war president by any means, but Kerry was far, far worse. His Willy Loman approach to international relations -- the desire to be well-liked -- would be disastrous as Iran races ahead to build its nuclear bombs. Libya would not have given up its secret nuclear program either had not Hussein been dragged out of a hole: Italian PM Berlusconi reported that right after that, Qadaffi called him and said he saw what happened, and was afraid, and wanted to come clean. This also unraveled the A.Q. Khan nuclear black market out of Pakistan. Iraq will also be a much greater success than the picture painted by the evening news.
Even if our "allies" were cooing nicer sounds in our ears due to a Kerry presidency, they would be no more effective in combatting jihad or deterring Iran as they are today.
Instead, we'd declare victory, come home, and everything would appear rosy until the mushroom cloud appeared.
This can still happen under W, but at least we have more of a chance, in my well-informed opinion...and based on the tangible progress made thusfar, with millions liberated.
This being such a divisive topic, I wouldn't be at all surprised if you ran screaming from such a warmonger as myself; but it is motivated by a desire to save the Islamic world from the total extermination we'd have to subject it to if it became clear they could attack us with atomic bombs in a sustained fashion -- or, we'd just have to surrender to Sharia law unconditionally, and women's rights would suffer far more than you'd even want to imagine.
In fact, as a women's rights advocate yourself, I'd think you'd be supporting W's program of bringing secular democracy to the barbaric world of honor-killing and genital mutilation in the traditional Arab world.
I might even turn the tables, and say a vote for a relativist like Kerry raises serious issues with me! :-) But I wouldn't attribute such a vote to malice, as many seem to imagine a vote for W entails.
That wasn't nice of me, I know.
But it sure felt good!
I haven't heard from her since.
What a surprise.