Kristen Walker Hatten

Louis C.K. and the death of the modern gentleman

Kristen Walker Hatten
By Kristen Walker Hatten
Image

October 3, 2012 (LiveActionNews.org) - Who doesn’t love Louis C.K.?

The FX show of which he is the writer, director, editor, and star, “Louie,” is critically acclaimed and frequently appears on top-ten lists and “best ofs.” C.K. has been nominated twice for an Emmy for his performance, and he won the Emmy for Best Comedy Writing this year. I know a few young men who idolize C.K. and record every episode of his show, watching them over and over.

Louis C.K. and his character, Louie, have entered pop culture as a kind of everyman anti-hero. He is positively dripping with post-modernity: bitter, sarcastic, and adorably self-loathing, yet bewildered by his inability to relate to other people or attract a woman.

I have watched two or three episodes of the show, which is autobiographical in that it’s about a 40-something New York comedian named Louie who is divorced with two daughters and lives in a crappy apartment.

Gone are the days in which popular media shows us man as he ought to be. Instead we are shown, for our own good, man as he “really is,” except if a man I met in real life said anything half as despicable as what Louis C.K. says, he would get face smacked like a cad in an old black-and-white movie. And he would deserve it.

In March, Louis C.K. was slated to headline the Radio and Television Correspondents’ Dinner, but he ended up bowing out due to public backlash, fueled by Fox News correspondent Greta Van Susteren’s promise to boycott the dinner if C.K. hosted.

Why did she – and many others – threaten a boycott? Because Louis C.K., every young liberal male’s hero, referred to Sarah Palin’s ”f**king retard-making c**t” during an appearance on the Opie and Anthony radio show. During that same exchange, he added thoughtfully, “I hate her more than anybody.” He also tweeted the following to @SarahPalinUSA: “kudos to your dirty hole, you f**king ja**off c**t-face jazzy wondergirl.”

Rush Limbaugh suggested that wanting people to pay for you to have sex (i.e., provide free birth control) might make you a slut, and everybody shouted for his immediate censure, termination, and in some cases probably beheading. He had to publicly apologize, and President Obama called the object of his scorn to ask her how she was holding up.

Bill Maher and Louis C.K. called Sarah Palin a c-word and refused to apologize, and they got nominated for Emmys and invited to host things. And I doubt the president called Sarah Palin to see if she was okay.

Go into your local hipster watering hole and bring up Louis C.K. Watch young men line up with their Stella Artois glasses to praise his holy name. I have a close male relative who hero-worships the guy, and he is not the only one in his peer group. Louis C.K. is so “real,” so “honest,” so “smart.”

Google “Louis C.K. Sarah Palin” and try to count the number of publications, bloggers, and commentators who cannot write about the c-word incident (or his disgusting drunk tweets) without smirking or outright guffawing at C.K.’s comments.

This is America. Louis C.K. can say what he wants. But the fact that he chooses to say this, and that young men continue to look up to him and praise him, is troubling, to say the least.

I have said before that abortion does not exist in a vacuum. I have pointed out that misogynists like Hugh Hefner and Tucker Max are champions for abortion and birth control because it lets them use women’s bodies while not having to be held accountable for the natural outcomes of that usage. Louis C.K. hates not only Sarah Palin, but everything that comes out of her, including her “retard” baby, of which he said, “Stick your t*t in its mouth and shut up.”

He has also compared Palin to Hitler, which leads me to believe he does not have a particularly sophisticated grasp of politics or history. (It always makes me chuckle when conservative Christians are compared to Hitler, considering Hitler was neither a conservative nor a Christian, but rather an atheist socialist like many of the politicians these same people idolize.)

It’s bad enough to say horrifying things about a woman and her baby with Down syndrome. It’s even worse to do it publicly and then refuse to apologize for it.

You can believe this guy is funny, but it’s sort of hard to deny he’s a misogynist if you listen to his stand-up. It’s not all Sarah Palin-related vitriol. He really doesn’t like women. Listen to this tidbit:

A man will cut your arm off and throw it in a river, but he’ll leave you as a human being intact. He won’t f**k with who you are. Women are non-violent but they will s**t inside of your heart.

Louis C.K. is smart (to a point) and funny. I love comedy, and I admit I see the humor in some of what he says. But I don’t watch his show or listen to his stand-up because he disgusts me. He trashes religion, fears and loathes women, and is just generally dark, bitter, and hateful.

And he is a modern-day hero.

He’s a hero because he seems smart, espousing the kinds of ideas that sound intelligent to someone with only surface-level knowledge of religion, politics, and history. He says evolution is obvious and Christianity is stupid; he’s so über-sophisticated that he can call his young daughter an “a**hole” and make it funny. He’s sarcastic and death-obsessed, and he has all the right opinions about Republicans. He must be smart.

His opinions reflect those of too many young people who regurgitate what they hear in the media. And unfortunately, he and others like him add misogyny to the mix. A generation of young men has been sucked in by this garbage, believing that you no longer have to be respectful of women as long as you are “real” and “honest.” To many young men today, being a gentleman means offering to pay for the abortion.

Only those who harbor deep hatred and contempt for women need to be dishonest and “fake” to be respectful.

A culture corrupted by abandonment of traditional morality and an embrace of radical feminism has led to this: men are now told to treat women like “equals,” but because of the inescapable, natural fact that we are not the same as men, treating us the same as men doesn’t work. It leads to unhappy women and, as a result, confusion and anger on the part of men, as evidenced by Louis C.K.’s obvious bewilderment at the hurt done to him by women, which is reflected in his stand-up and in the desperate, sad, “single-and-looking” title character of “Louie.”

I have a fiancé. He is almost the same age as Louis, but he was raised in the South. Never in a million years would he ever call me – or any woman, no matter how much she “deserved” it – a name half as foul as what Louis C.K. called Sarah Palin on the radio. There was a time when virtually no man would do that, and certainly not where any woman could hear it.

There was also a time when other men would shun and possibly roundhouse punch any man who said that about a respectable woman and her disabled child. Apparently those times are gone, because dudes on the internet can’t get enough of it.

If these are the heroes we’re offering to young men, this generation is doomed.

Reprinted with permission from LiveActionNews.org

FREE pro-life news.

Stay up-to-date on the issues you care about the most. Subscribe today. 

Select Your Edition:


Share this article

Advertisement
Featured Image
Shutterstock.com
Dustin Siggins Dustin Siggins Follow Dustin

Two Congressmen confirm: National 20-week ban on abortion will come up for a vote shortly

Dustin Siggins Dustin Siggins Follow Dustin
By Dustin Siggins

WASHINGTON, D.C., April 17, 2015 (LifeSiteNews.com) – A bill to end abortion in the United States after 20 weeks will move forward, and it will have the strong support of two leading pro-life Congressmen, the two Republicans told LifeSiteNews.com at the eighth annual Susan B. Anthony List Campaign for Life Summit on Thursday.

Rep. Chris Smith, R-NJ, told LifeSiteNews and the National Catholic Register that ongoing House discussions on H.R. 36, the "Pain Capable Unborn Child Protection Act," will result in a pro-life bill moving forward.

"Very good language" is being put together, Smith told The Register. He told LifeSiteNews that he fully anticipated being able to support the final bill, because the House Republican caucus "wouldn't have something that would be unsupportable. Our leadership is genuinely pro-life."

In 2013, the "Pain Capable Unborn Child Protection Act" easily passed through the House of Representatives, only to be stalled by a Democratic-controlled Senate. This year, an identical bill was halted by Rep. Renee Ellmers, R-NC, and other Republicans -- surprising and angering pro-life leaders who thought its passage was assured. That bill, H.R. 36, is now being rewritten so it can be voted on by the full House, though its final wording remains uncertain.

Some fear that the House leadership will modify the bill to mollify Ellmers. She and others objected that the bill allows women to abort a child after 20 weeks in the case of rape – but only if they report that rape to the authorities.

Pro-life activists say removing the reporting requirement would take abortionists at their word that the women whose children they abort claimed to be raped. Congresswoman Ellmers has publicly stated the House leadership is considering such a proposal.

Jill Stanek, who was recently arrested on Capitol Hill as part of a protest to encourage Republicans to pass H.R. 36, said that would be "a loophole big enough for a Mack truck."

Click "like" if you are PRO-LIFE!

Congressman Smith said the bill will come to the floor shortly. "The commitment to this bill is ironclad; we just have to work out some details," Smith said.

He also noted that, while a vote on the 20-week ban has been delayed for nearly three months, "we did get the No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act passed, and that would have been in the queue now, so we just reversed" the order of the two bills.

Congressman Smith spoke to both outlets shortly after participating in a panel at the Summit.

Another speaker was Rep. Steve King, R-IA, who also supports the 20-week ban.

"I can't think of what” language that is actively under consideration could make him rethink his support for the bill, King said. He also told attendees that the nation was moving in a direction of supporting life.

The outspoken Congressman declined to answer further, noting "that's asking me to anticipate an unknown hypothetical."

The annual Campaign for Life Summit and its related gala drew other high-profile speakers, including presidential candidate Senator Rand Paul, potential presidential hopeful Senator Lindsay Graham, and Republican National Committee Chairman Reince Priebus.  

Advertisement
Featured Image
"Someone who doesn’t flinch at the dismemberment of babies is not going to flinch at the dismemberment of some evangelical baker’s conscience."
Jonathon van Maren Jonathon van Maren Follow Jonathon

Pro-lifers are winning. So now they’re coming for our cupcakes?

Jonathon van Maren Jonathon van Maren Follow Jonathon
By Jonathon van Maren

As I travel across Canada (and at times the United States) speaking on abortion and various facets of the Culture of Death, one of the things I hear often is a hopelessness, a despair that the West is being flattened by the juggernaut of the Sexual Revolution. There is a feeling among many people that the restriction of religious liberty, the continued legality of abortion, and the redefinition of marriage are inevitable.

This is, of course, one of the most prominent and successful strategies of the Sexual Revolutionaries—create an aura of inevitability while concurrently demonizing all those who oppose their new and mangled “progress” as Neanderthals on the cusp of being left behind by History. That inevitability becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy, because many people don’t realize that the various battles in the Sexual Revolution actually all correlate to one another—that what we are seeing now is the end game of an incredibly vast and well-planned cultural project.

It is because we miss many of these connections that we often cannot see, with clarity, how the culture wars are actually unfolding. I read with great interest a recent column by Rev. Douglas Wilson, eloquently titled “With stirrups raised to Molech.”

“We are now much occupied with the issues swirling around same sex mirage,” he writes, “but we need to take great care not to get distracted. Why have the homosexual activists gone all in on this issue? Why is their prosecutorial zeal so adamant? We went, in just a matter of months, from ‘let’s let individual states’ decide on this, to federal judges striking down state statutes, followed up hard by official harassment of florists, bakers, and photographers. Why the anger, and why the savage over-reach? And do they really think we couldn’t remember all the things they were assuring us of this time last year?”

Follow Jonathon van Maren on Facebook

It’s a compelling question, and one that I’ve heard many Christians puzzling over recently. Why do the advocates of the Sexual Revolution despise those who disagree with them so viciously? It is partly because their cultural project does not, as they claim, consist of “living and let live.” It is about compulsory acceptance of any and all sexual behaviors, with tax-payer funding for the rubbers and pills they need to ensure all such behaviors remain sterile, and extermination crews to suction, poison, and dismember any inconvenient fetuses that may come into being as the result of casual coitus.

The ancient mantra “the State has no business in the bedrooms of the nation” has long been abandoned—the emboldened Sexual Revolutionaries now demand that politicians show up at their exhibitionist parades of public indecency, force schools to impose their so-called “morally neutral” view of sexuality on children, and force into silence those who still hold to traditional values.

Rev. Wilson, however, thinks that this loud and vicious war on conscience may be about even more than that. The pro-life cause, he notes, has been very successful in the Unites States. The abortion rate is the lowest it has been since 1973. Hundreds of pro-life laws are passing on the state level. The abortion industry has been successfully stigmatized. True, the successes are, for pro-lifers, often too feeble and not nearly adequate enough in the face of such unrestrained bloodshed. Nevertheless, the momentum has turned against the Sexual Revolutionaries who have championed abortion for decades—their shock and anger at the strength of the pro-life movement evident in pro-abortion signs at rallies that read, “I can’t believe I still have to protest this s**t.”

It is because of the pro-life movement’s success, Wilson muses, that the Sexual Revolutionaries may be coming at us with such fury. “If a nation has slaughtered 50 million infants,” he writes, “they are not going to suddenly get a sense of decency over you and your cupcakes. Now this explains their lack of proportion, and their refusal to acknowledge the rights of florists. Someone who doesn’t flinch at the dismemberment of babies is not going to flinch at the dismemberment of some evangelical baker’s conscience. This reveals their distorted priorities, of course, but it also might be revealing a strategy. Is the homosexual lobby doing this because they are freaking out over their losses on the pro-life front? And are they doing so in a way intended to distract us away from an issue where we are slowly, gradually, inexorably, winning?”

It’s a fascinating perspective. It’s true—and has always been true historically—that when one group of human beings is classified as nonhuman by a society as nonhuman and subsequently butchered, the whole of society is degraded. No nation and no culture can collectively and systematically kill so many human beings without a correlating hardening of the conscience. But on the pro-life front, there has been decades of fierce resistance, hundreds of incremental victories, and a renewed energy among the upcoming generation of activists. For the Sexual Revolutionaries who thought the battle was over when Roe v. Wade was announced in 1973, this must be a bitter pill to swallow indeed.

Follow Jonathon van Maren on Facebook

Share this article

Advertisement
Featured Image
Lisa Bourne

, ,

‘Prominent’ Catholics attacking Archbishop Cordileone are big donors to Pelosi and pro-abort Democrats

Lisa Bourne
By Lisa Bourne

Note: To sign a petition supporting Archbishop Cordileone, click here

SAN FRANCISCO, CA, April 17, 2015 (LifeSiteNews.com) -- Big donors to the Democrat Party and pro-abortion Nancy Pelosi are among those publicly harassing San Francisco Archbishop Salvatore Cordileone for protecting Catholic identity in the area’s Catholic high schools.

A big-ticket full-page ad ran April 16 in the San Francisco Chronicle attacking the archbishop and calling Pope Francis to oust him for his efforts to reinforce Catholic principles in the schools.

A number of prominent San Francisco-area residents identifying as Catholic are signatories of the ad, and several are wealthy donors to Democrat entities and pro-abortion politicians, Catholic Vote reports.

Federal Election Commission records indicate Charles Geschke, Adobe Systems chairman and previous head of the Board of Trustees at the University of San Francisco, gave more than $240,000 to Democrat groups, as well as $2,300 to Nancy Pelosi and $4,000 to John Kerry, both politicians who claim to be Catholic but support abortion and homosexual “marriage.”

Also on the list is political consultant and businessman Clint Reilly, who gave nearly $60,000 to Democrat organizations, along with $5,000 to Barack Obama, whose administration vehemently promotes abortion and homosexual “marriage” and has continually opposed religious liberty. Reilly gave $4,600 to Pelosi as well.

Another individual in the ad attacking the archbishop who also gave big campaign donations to California pro-abort Democrats was Lou Giraudo, a former city commissioner and business executive who contributed more than $24,000 to Nancy Pelosi, $6,000 to Dianne Feinstein and $4,300 to Barbara Boxer.

Nancy Pelosi herself challenged the archbishop for his stance on Catholic teaching last year when she tried to pressure him out of speaking at the March for Marriage in Washington D.C., claiming the event was “venom masquerading as virtue.”

The archbishop responded in a letter that he was obliged “as a bishop, to proclaim the truth—the whole truth—about the human person and God’s will for our flourishing ... especially the truth about marriage as the conjugal union of husband and wife.”

The April 16 ad attacking Archbishop Cordileone was the latest in an ongoing assault since the archbishop took steps in February to strengthen Catholic identity in the schools and clarify for faculty and staff in handbooks and contract language the long-standing expectation that they uphold Church principles. 

It said Archbishop Cordileone has “fostered an atmosphere of division and intolerance” and called on Pope Francis to remove him.

“Holy Father, Please Provide Us With a Leader True to Our Values and Your Namesake,” the ad said. “Please Replace Archbishop Cordileone.”

The Confraternity of Catholic Clergy (CCC), a national association for priests and deacons, condemned Archbishop Cordileone’s harassers in a statement, saying the archbishop “teaches in conformity to the Catechism of the Catholic Church.”

“The character assassination and uncharitable venom being cast upon a bishop merely defending the doctrines of his religion is appalling and repugnant,” the CCC said. 

Click "like" to support Catholics Restoring the Culture!

“It is totally inappropriate, improper and unjust for the media and others to vilify and brutally attack him when he is doing precisely what an ordained minister and pastor of souls is obligated to do,” the group stated, “namely, speak the truth in season and out of season.”

Those behind the attack ad said the proposed handbook language was mean-spirited, and that they were “committed Catholics inspired by Vatican II,” who “believe in the traditions of conscience, respect and inclusion upon which our Catholic faith was founded.”

The Archdiocese of San Francisco denounced the ad upon its release, saying it was a misrepresentation of Catholic teaching and the nature of the teacher contract, and a misrepresentation of the spirit of the Archbishop.

“The greatest misrepresentation of all is that the signers presume to speak for “the Catholic Community of San Francisco,” the archdiocese responded. “They do not.”

The CCC pointed out that just as physicians are expected to be faithful to the Hippocratic Oath, bishops, priests, and deacons are expected to be faithful to the Church, its teachings and its authority, “since their objective is the salvation of souls, not a popularity contest.” 

In openly declaring their support for Archbishop Cordileone, the group urged the media and others to show “prudence, civility, and fair-mindedness” toward those with whom they disagree.

“He took an oath to be faithful to the Gospel,” the Confraternity stated of Archbishop Cordileone, “and in the words of the disciples in the New Testament, ‘better to obey God than men.’”

Advertisement

Customize your experience.

Login with Facebook