Posted on 12/17/2014 6:43:55 AM PST by C19fan
Atticus Finch is a monster. Sure, he’s one of history’s most beloved literary characters (he was even played by Gregory Peck in a film adaptation) but he’s also, to use the parlance of our time, history’s greatest rape apologist.
Glenn Reynolds, a law professor at the University of Tennessee and pundit, first observed Finch’s new standing in the world on Twitter in early December:
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonexaminer.com ...
There is no apology for rape but it is an evolutionary biological reality. Much actual human procreation has resulted from this act and some degree of rape is probably responsible for the existence of the majority of today’s humans rather than the voluntary mutually agreed copulations that are now favored.
Harper Lee hates women!
I’ve read it every year with my juniors, but now with Common Core it’s considered an eighth grade novel. It’s actually an extremely conservative book. Perhaps the left is just now catching on.
Lol! I just thought of that. I wonder how many progs don’t know HL is female? The group that claims we can’t label and generalize ASSumes Harper is a male name!
It’s pretty much the default mode of reproduction in the animal world. If you can catch it long enough to mount up, your genes may survive, if not, you are out of luck. Weeds the weaker males, who cannot subdue a female, right out of the gene pool.
I move we remove To Kill A Mockingbird from classrooms immediately!
(sarc/off)
The real author Truman Capote sure wasn’t into them.
And did you know that Truman Capote was Lee’s friend as a child is is the model for the character, Dill, in the book.
His black client didn’t rape anyone. The rapist was a white trash guy who then tried to murder Atticus’ children..............This ‘professor’ obviously hasn’t read the book...................
The story is set in SW Alabama, not far from here in NW Florida Panhandle. The scenes are very familiar to me since I grew up in a very small town in Mississippi during the late 50’s early 60’s. It was almost like reading a story about where I grew up................
In an evolutionary world view there is no basis for condemnation of it either.
Cordially,
Apologist? What a foolish thing to say.
I don't deny there may be rape in everybody's family tree if they go back far enough, but "society" is needed for human survival, and "society" does not persist when the mating doesn't make a mate, but makes an enemy instead.
As long as there have been humans, there have been stern codes, conventions and customs --- plus, as far back as we can reach via historic records, commandments --- about whom you may approach for intercourse, and whom you may not.
And generally not only "whom," but where, how, and why.
Violators were considered just that: violators. In many tribes they'd be dealt with by recognized legal avengers: the violated girl's father or brothers or betrothed.
A femme sage with poison. Or a priest with a sword.
As opposed to an outside male lion that comes in and kills the current crop of offspring to bring the female into heat.
Actually, if you read the article she definitely has read the book.
What she’s saying is that Fitch had the gall to disbelieve and then challenge the rape story. Which per current standards (rape “victims” must always be believed, without question) makes him a rape apologist.
It’s a real keeper of an article, she makes her point very, very well.
Your sarcasm and irony meters are broken, please have them checked, pronto!
Is she a lawyer?
A lawyer is supposed to protect his/her client from injustice. That’s their job.................
The Liberal’s dilemma: which aggrieved social group takes precedence over the other and how is it to be determined? Downtrodden Blacks or perpetually abused women?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.