Archive for Feminism

Walsh Provides Frank Assessment of “Marital Market Value”

May 17, 2013 Feminism, Game, Game/SMP

HT to Susan Walsh. I definitely prefer MMV (marital market value) over SMV (sexual market value). I cannot say I have an issue with most of what she has written.

As for her pointers to the ladies to “Up Your Girl Game”:

1. Achieve and maintain physical fitness.
2. Dress to flatter your body shape and use makeup to enhance your features.
3. Aim for a vibe in your appearance that says “girlfriend” rather than hookup.
4. Cultivate a friendly demeanor and pleasant personality.
5. Recognize that guys will care about your sexual history, and behave accordingly.
6. Indicate interest in a relationship to filter out cads and attract like-minded guys.

The only one I would take slight issue with is #2. I would recommend that a gal dresses casually to professionally. If she has “features”, trust me: the guys are going to notice no matter how suggestively–or not–that she dresses. We’ll notice because, well, that’s what guys do.

To her credit, Walsh does balance #2 with #3. I would summarize it like this: while it is okay to dress attractively, there is also a fine line between that and dressing like a slut. I recommend taking good care of yourself, dressing modestly–but not trashily–and being affable (#4).

#5 and 6 are huge. Listen up, ladies: Any woman–no matter her attractiveness–can get laid. Go to any frat party, and–without much effort–you’ll have at least one ride.

But here’s the thing: the men–even the good guys among us–don’t have it quite as easy. (Even the most successful PUAs–think Roissy–strike out about 70% of the time.) A good guy has to work very hard just to get a woman who is interested in him for anything.

We also know that, if you have had a substantial number of partners–the studies I’ve seen indicate that more than 5 is where things start getting bad–your chances of being good marriage material start dropping like a paratrooper with a faulty chute and no reserve.

The men know this.

This is why Christian guys–generally a forgiving lot–aren’t going to be enamored with the prospect of dating a Sigma Chi Gangbang Champion. While everyone–even a virgin–is going to have some sexual baggage (in our pornified society, it’s darn-near impossible NOT to), the guys are looking for a “keeper”.

Call me what you want to call me, but a high number of partners does not say “keeper”.

So ladies, in this marathon called life, please think twice before you drink of the sex-positive cup that the feministas are handing you.

The naked truth is this: they are a pathetic, miserable herd of rabid jackals who wish to make you as miserable as they are.

5 comments

Hypergamy Leading to Misery of Chinese Women

May 15, 2013 Feminism, Game

Well Hell’s Bells!

(HT: Vox Day at Alpha Game)

BEIJING — Feminists are concerned that some Chinese women in their late 20s who are doing well in their careers but are labeled “leftover women” for not having married yet, may be their own worst enemies.

Yep.

“They are still living in a traditional mindset and values, even though there’s no way that those can solve their problem,” said Feng Yuan, a feminist and head of Beijing’s Anti-Domestic Violence Network, in a telephone interview. Other feminists agreed with her.

What is missing is a stronger awareness of the dynamics of gender, said Ms. Feng. “If they don’t gain gender consciousness then they can only rely on luck to solve their problem,” she said, meaning they can only hope to solve the problem if they meet a man who earns more than they do.

The other side of the coin is this: in China, thanks to the stupid “one child per family” law–compounded by the emphasis on having a male over a female, which incentivizes abortion–there are far more available men than there are available women. This is probably also contributing to the extra choosiness by the women, which–in turn–works against them as well as the men.

MrsLarijani and I noticed the same thing at her alma mater (Covenant College). A couple days before we got married, her college had a singles forum. Both sexes were well-represented (very much unlike my alma mater). Almost all of them were between ages 18-22. Almost all the women were at least moderately attractive. Every one of them wanted to be married. And yet there was little or no intentional pursuit going on.

I’ll bet I could have randomly paired each guy with a gal–tearing a page from Sun Myung Moon–and everyone who wanted to be married could have been married, and this would have resolved some of the anxiety on both sides.

One of the moderators–a graduate who was himself in extended singleness–did, to his credit, point out that the male students had a unique opportunity that they could not reasonably expect outside of college: a deluge of women. I gave him an earful afterward and told him to keep telling the guys that: it won’t get any easier.

“Shengnu,” or “leftover woman,” a term applied to China’s well-educated, unmarried women, has long been hurtful for those labeled in that way.

Recently, some have started to push back by swapping it for another word that is pronounced identically but is written differently in Chinese, and has a far more positive meaning: “shengnu,” or “victorious woman,” as I write in my Female Factor Letter today. (Some prefer to render that as “successful.”)

Yet despite the hurt, some women seem unaware that wanting a man to earn more, even when they themselves are equally well-educated and capable, may be working against them.

Zhou Wen, 27 and unmarried, is a secretary at an American marketing company in Beijing. She explained that it’s widely thought a man should earn more than a woman for the match to be right.

“Why aren’t girls prepared to marry a man who earns less? Because income represents your ability,” she said in a telephone interview.

“If you earn less it means you have less ability and no one wants to marry someone with less ability,” she said.

Why not be financially equal, sharing the rent and other living expenses?

“Most people think that equality isn’t just a question of 50-50 on bills,” she said.

“Male-female equality is about making men and women equal and if I contribute 50 percent of everything that doesn’t mean I’m equal,” she said. “Men should respect women, respect their ideas and ways of thinking, and not be the kind of person who says ‘everything a woman says is nonsense,’” she said. That said, she added: “I’m not opposed to going 50-50.”

I would not be so hard on the Chinese women in this case. While hypergamy is nothing new, there’s a lot more cultural emphasis on it over there. Compounding matters, these women are doing exactly what they have been pressed to do by their parents and society. Combine that with the poverty from which many families are now emerging, it’s easy to see how the women over there can get sucked into a proverbial death spiral.

Having said that, parents–on both sides of the Pacific–need to look long and hard at what they are teaching their children.

The fertility clock is not something invented by men. It is biological and it is what it is. Fact is, it peaks at about age 28.

If you graduate from college at age 22, your optimal fertility window is 6 years.

If you have not met your husband, that means you now have 6 optimal years during which to find a man, date, get serious about getting married, get hitched, and start working on having children.

During that time, if you date a guy and it doesn’t work out, you are back to square one.

After that 6-year period, you enter the sub-optimal phase, during which your best childbearing years are over, and your biological clock is in the 2-minute warning. Making matters worse, if you’re not careful, your peak attractiveness might also start slipping, and this could be a problem when you are competing with younger women for the same pool of men.

(Don’t start hating on me for saying that, because I didn’t create the reality; I’m just reporting it.)

Oh, and hypergamy doesn’t make this any easier.

Now I realize that a feminist can read this and conclude that I am against women getting an education and a career. In fact I have said nothing of the sort.

At the same time, going that route is going to require a level of prudence, planning, and purposeful action that cannot be taken for granted.

And society is behind the curve dealing with this problem.

China has the problem in spades, but it’s not exactly rosy over here either.

5 comments

The Gay “Marriage” Revolution, and the Future of American Christianity

May 11, 2013 Christian Life, Fascism, Feminism, Politics, Pro-Life, Theology

Almost 30 years ago, in 11th grade health class, we all had a very substantial discussion of homosexuality. (The health class included a sex-ed component, and it was in this context that the discussion took place.)

The teacher–RR, who was also my tennis coach–was quite liberal, but, to his credit, was fair in his presentation to the class. He was a secular Jew who, while not Christian, grudgingly appreciated the benefits that Christians brought to the table. Neither myself, nor any other Christians in the class, ever had a problem with him.

In fact, get this, folks: RR referred to anal sex as “sodomy” and, while conceding to conventional wisdom–which, at the time, dictated that one in ten people were gay–he seemed to think of that lifestyle as an aberration. (In fact, most of the teachers–even the most liberal, tolerant folks who were high up in the local teacher union–were of that mindset. While they harbored no hatred of gays, they did not look at the lifestyle as one to be embraced or promoted, either.)

The year was 1983, and the United States was a different country. Reagan was President; the Cold War was hot; the Moral Majority had its high water mark of relevance; and, while Americans were not on board with Jerry Falwell, the American people had no desire to ditch the Judeo-Christian consensus that made America–and Western Civilization–exceptional. Americans weren’t all Bible-believing Christians; they did, however–sometimes grudgingly–accept that the Christian consensus that informed our understanding of law and justice, even with its faults in execution, was a good thing.

Back then, gay “marriage” was on no one’s radar.

Sadly, the year was 1983, and the decline–while under the radar–was already in progress.

The same decline that has destroyed Europe had not quite come full-circle in the United States. But the wheels were turning.

Abortion had been legal for ten years; the process that led to its legalization had been in play for longer than that. The Kinsey reports of the 1940s were a culmination of the synthesis of Darwinian thought presented as science, Nihilist rejection of objective truth, academic hatred of all things Christian, and outright fraud.

But, over time, Kinsey’s key mantras were absorbed into the mainstream: the academy, the justice system, the news media, the entertainment sector, and–before long–most sectors of government.

Making matters worse, key sectors of the Church were already in the process of succumbing to European skepticism. This process began in Europe with the Enlightenment, then accelerated with the advent of Biblical liberalism, whose adherents promoted “Higher Criticism”. By the mid-1940s, the same Germany and France that gave us Luther and Calvin, and the same England that had given us Wilberforce, Spurgeon, Tyndale, and Edwards, was all but dead.

While the Europeanization of America had been going on since the late 1800s, this process accelerated after World War II. American seminaries welcomed European scholars, and sent their best students to study in European seminaries. Those great students would go on to become pastors, scholars, authors, and professors who would pass on that liberalism to their students.

This is why mainline Protestants in the 1960s, sadly, were making “care packages” for Communist soldiers in North Vietnam, all while our men were fighting valiantly–and dying–to liberate people from a brutality that was rooted in the godlessness of Communism.

This is why the Church was caught flat-footed by the onslaught of feminism and the ensuing Sexual Revolution.

This is why the response of the Church has been largely reactionary: opposition to agendas rather than a promotion of a better agenda rooted in Creation and Redemption. If the Church teaches a sexuality that consists of, “Don’t have sex until you get married; it’s better when you wait…” or “If you wait until marriage, you will be a better flower in the garden…” or “The men will appreciate you better if you wait until marriage…”, then that is proof-positive that they are being reactionary.

Otherwise well-intentioned efforts–such as the True Love Waits initiatives–reflect a Church that is in reactionary mode. As a result, the Church is failing in its role of salt and light. They first are caught flat-footed, and their response is proving to be years late and many dollars short.

Hugh Hefner started Playboy in 1953; he called himself Kinsey’s pamphleteer. This marked the advent of modern pornography, which added rocket fuel to the fire of the Sexual Revolution. A pornography industry that was once relegated to the seedy sectors of American society is now part of our mainstream. While I have never seen their movies, I know who Jenna Jameson and Ron Jeremy are. But they wouldn’t be mainstream without Linda Lovelace and Harry Reems. (That Bob Woodward would use the title of their signature movie as a code name for a Watergate informant speaks volumes to the impact that pornography was already having on our mainstream.)

During this time, the sexual revolution was in full swing, and homosexuals were gaining an unprecedented level of acceptance. The Church’s response: the liberals began the process of blessing homosexuality; the conservative response was mostly reactionary, providing Biblical exposition as to why homosexuality is a sin.

On abortion, the Church was sleeping at the wheel. While the Catholics were fighting it–even as they were decimated by the Griswold v. Connecticut decision–the Protestant world was all over the map, and didn’t have a clue what they were up against. When Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton came down in 1973, even the Southern Baptist Convention was ambivalent if not supportive of it. In fact, it would not be until after 1993 that The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary would bring in an ethics professor who opposed abortion.

During that time, conservatives embarked on campaigns against gay rights. In spite of these efforts, court decisions and corporate-political-academic tides have not only ramrodded homosexuality down our throats, they have managed to capture public opinion by pointing to social and economic inequities–that our liberal establishment has spent decades creating–in order to promote the cause of gay “marriage”.

On pornography, the reaction was similar: the Church mounted spirited campaigns against pornography. The Supreme Court punted on the issue of obscenity and established a “community standard”. That led to a plethora of anti-porn efforts in local circles. All of that was rendered moot with the advent of the World Wide Web.

When public schools began promoting promiscuity-based sex education, the reaction of conservatives was to bring in abstinence-based sex education. (Again, reactionary.)

While I have no qualms with the conservative viewpoints regarding pornography, homosexuality, and abortion–I oppose abortion, sodomy, and pornography–the problem is not the viewpoints, but rather the reactionary presentation of sexuality as a whole. (On sex education, I oppose all government involvement in this. That is the responsibility of parents.)

What Christians have failed to grasp is that the Sexual Revolution is not simply about sex. If it were just that, the “revolution” would have been over as soon as AIDS came to fruition in the 1980s. Roe v. Wade would have fallen during the Reagan years.

No, the Sexual Revolution was–and still is–merely one front in the larger attack against God’s created order. It is rooted in a denial of a God who Created everything; it is rooted in the denial of the primacy of Man over other created things; it is rooted in the denial of Man’s fallenness; it is rooted in the denial of Man’s need for a Messiah.

While Jerry Falwell was absolutely correct about the sinfulness of homosexuality, I think he missed it when he categorized it as one of our great “National Sins”. Ditto for pornography.

While we must rightly call homosexuality for what it is–just as we must call adultery for what it is, just as we must call lustful intent for what it is, just as we must rightly call covetousness for what it is–the societal recognition of these things is not the problem; it is a symptom.

Rejection of God’s Natural Law–and the implications of that–has led us to where we are today.

From here, it will get worse before it gets better. The Christian consensus that made America exceptional is eroding, and that erosion has accelerated from a slow, arduous process to a very rapid process.

Will we go the way of Europe, or will we experience a reclamation? Will we face the hard truths about our failings and act diligently on that truth, or will we continue to live in denial, providing–at best–reactionary answers to problems that require addressing the ugly roots?

I am not hopeful for the short-term. I believe we will probably see at least one post-Christian generation, during which we will witness an era of barbarism that would make the worst of our atrocities against the Indians pale in comparison. Legalized abortion is the tip of the iceberg, and that is fomenting a culture of death that has yet to come to full fruition. But it will, and the results will be ugly.

In the long-term, I am hopeful. Jesus said that not even the gates of Hell would prevail against the Church. Not even all the blunders of the Vatican of old could extinguish the Gospel; God raised up reformers like Luther, Calvin, and their contemporaries. Fallen men they were, but they were instruments of deliverance nonetheless.

Every dog has its day, and that is true of the godless. They will revel in their short-term victories, just as their predecessors–from Nero to Stalin–did.

And yet the Church–bloodied as She may be–is still in the fight. And while Her enemy will make that path ugly and nasty and dark, Her light will overcome that darkness.

But just as Jesus–when confronted by the Pharisees on various matters–responded by pointing to the roots (in some cases Natural Law), the Church must be forceful in doing this.

Whether you are a young earth Creationist or someone who accepts that the earth and universe could be much older, Creation is a big deal. Connecting sexuality with marriage, rooted in Creation–as Scripture does–is a big deal.

That’s because it never was “all about sex,” but rather about a God who makes and keeps His promises.

16 comments

Susan Walsh Nails It

April 22, 2013 Family, Feminism, Game/SMP

Every college-age gal–and every female college grad–needs to read this.

5 comments

Why She’s Single

April 3, 2013 Feminism

A FB friend of mine–who is from the same hometown, and is VERY feminist–added the following comments to a Facebook post about marital status:

I’d like to also add the check box: “Single, but if you cannot intellectually match/best me…I’m not interested no matter what you say, how hot you are, or how much you compliment me”.

Well…I hate to say it, but, while she’s not bad-looking–and I know someone who is otherwise interested in her but for her attitude–she has pretty much summed up why she will remain single.

While women are attracted to intellect and accomplishments in men, the men don’t give a hairy rat’s ass for women who lead with those qualities.

It’s not that men want women who are dumb–they don’t–but rather about the presentation. A woman who presents her intellect as her primary quality is going to come off like an obese feminist in a butch haircut.

Calling me names won’t change that reality, because I didn’t create it.

11 comments

God Bless Vox Day

March 30, 2013 Feminism

…as we drink to the demise of feminism. This is a classic.

No comments

MIT Economist Gets it Wrong

March 22, 2013 Economics, Feminism

Dr. Helen has this piece.

I think the greatest, most astonishing fact that I am aware of in social science right now is that women have been able to hear the labor market screaming out ‘You need more education’ and have been able to respond to that, and men have not,” said Michael Greenstone, an M.I.T. economics professor who was not involved in Professor Autor’s work. “And it’s very, very scary for economists because people should be responding to price signals. And men are not. It’s a fact in need of an explanation.” …

Perhaps the men HAVE, Dr. Greenstone. The women are heading to college in droves. In and of itself, that would be no big deal, but here’s the problem: THEY ARE GRADUATING COLLEGE WITH HIGH LEVELS OF STUDENT LOAN DEBT. In doing this, they are damaging their marriageability.

The men aren’t heading to college at the same rates, and that is not a bad thing. If the men seek to learn trades at tech schools and 2-year institutions–taking on little or no debt–they are going to be better-prepared for the volatile economy that is going to shed the fluffy corporate jobs when the money runs out.

Instead of making marriage more attractive, he said, it might be better for society to help make men more attractive.

If women are piling on the student loan debt, then they are damaging their attractiveness. What we need is a larger discussion about what attracts the sexes. The women are being sold a certain bill of goods, and so are the men. And both sexes are getting screwed.

One of the woman commenters of the NY Times article had this to say:

As the mother of a teenaged girl and a teenaged boy I see the differences between the two of them and between their friends. The modern world and the modern economy agrees with the girls: they see that the glass ceiling is diminishing, they see that their attention to detail and adaptability are valued, they see the world as open before them. The boys? A little less so — generally they are less mature as they leave HS, they sense that the 20th century order, which gave them an instant leg-up, is vanishing.

All the encouragement the baby boom heaped on their daughters is paying off. But we didn’t mean for it to come off the backs of our sons. I think the shift in the economy is reinforcing/ exaggerating the result. It’s in popular culture everywhere, the new woman so strong and smart, the new man so backward and foolish.

Sadly, she is correct. Encouraging women was not the problem; doing this while attacking masculinity was the problem. We have sowed, and we are reaping.

Another observer noticed:

Males are now being given a “boot on the neck” and so this has nothing to do with any sort of level playing field. Males are expected to build, repair, transport, and defend everything…while women are free from any such expectations.

This is an economic reality that Badger or Dalrock or Keoni Galt–not sure which one–alluded to last week: the difference between men and women in the economy is that, whereas a woman is not expected to produce more than she consumes, the same is not true of the man. Economically, the men are expected to produce more.

So denigrating the men–and re-engineering the economy in a way that rewards services rather than production–is disastrous to men on a grand scale. And when that service-oriented economy eventually tanks, the misery is going to be across the board.

Dr. Helen nails it:

Boys and men right now are off to a bad start from day one and those who don’t go along with the female -privileged society are stuck on the sidelines. A boy’s typical day might be one with a single mom, mostly female teachers who rarely give him a break, a culture that tells him he is a pervert, TV shows, bulletin boards and news shows portraying him as a rapist and domestic violence abuser and all around bad guy. It’s no wonder men have opted out of an economy and culture that values them so little.

We’re due for the mother of all re-adjustments.

One comment

My $0.02 on The Steubenville Rape Case

March 22, 2013 Criminals, Feminism, News/Opinion, Sex Offenders

While it is true that “boys will be boys”, there are some things–whether you are Christian or not–that you just don’t freaking do. Ever.

There are some lines–particularly when it comes to sex, whether you are Christian or not–that you don’t freaking cross. Ever.

The two Steubenville football players crossed those lines. The community–seeking to mitigate the incident in deference to the two football players–nearly denied justice to the 16-year-old girl–I shall call her JD (for Jane Doe)–who was raped.

While JD was wrong for getting drunk, she did not deserve to be raped. That she compromised herself by being stupid did not give others the right to her body.

I fully support the prosecution in this case, and those two guys deserved what they got. While I would be hesitant to beat them down the way I would an adult offender, they need to feel some pain here. They need some valuable training in boundaries. They need to apologize to the victim–and offer some restitution–not just for violating her but also for employing digital media in the process.

With that out of the way, we have this screed by Marthe Weyandte.

Photos and videos were circulated among acquaintances, making light of the incident. There were witnesses, although nobody stepped in to stop the attack from happening.

This is nothing new. It is not uncommon, for example, for public assaults–not just those against women–to go uncontested. There is a predisposition among Americans not to mess with other people’s businesses. That is both a good and a bad thing. Complicating matters, the larger question is what kinds of people are going to be present at those kinds of parties? When I was in high school, I almost never went to parties. The few I did attend had no alcohol and were chaperoned by coaches who were of good repute. We had none of this type of mayhem.

OTOH, I knew of other parties–hosted by others of less repute–where the drugs (including cocaine and pot) and alcohol were plenteous. And yes, there were hookups, although that was mostly on the fringes. The types of folks who went to those parties were not the kinds of folks who would have intervened if there was an assault going on.

Now let’s look at Weyandte’s take on why this happened:

1.) We live in a misogynist society. It is improving, albeit slowly.

Bullhockey. We live in a FEMINIST society. We have a system that PEDESTALS women. Our education system is DESIGNED around girls and PUNISHES masculinity.

None of that, however, explains why these boys did what they did.

My take: they were party animals, veterans of the hookup culture, and were having fun. In doing so, they totally crossed boundaries that no one should ever cross. Sadly, JD will pay a terrible price. The boys will also have to face the reality that they did a very bad thing that cannot be undone.

2.) We trust our politicians and our scions of industry and our entertainment execs and our friends to teach our kids right from wrong. This is ludicrous.

Who teaches American kids values like empathy, respect, patience and compassion? Television execs? Violent video game distributors? Jersey Shore? Maybe politicians like Todd “Legitimate Rape” Akin with his Dark ages stance on gender relations?

Parents and concerned citizens, do you think most of these people really care what happens to your kids beyond a healthy bottom line?

Power corrupts. Absolute power corrupts absolutely.

CNN can go to hell, in my opinion. The victim had a ‘promising’ future too. Nobody seemed to mention that. But we can only blame CNN so much. Major news networks almost always follow the status quo anyway.

If those boys lived the straight life as former Rep. Todd Akin (R-MO) has, they would not have committed rape.

Having said that, it would be nice to know what kind of parental instruction these kids had regarding how to treat a woman. If a child grows up seeing his parents respect each other, he will learn to do this. If a child grows up in a home where parents are actively teaching them to respect other people’s bodies, they’ll learn to do that. Some will still do horrible things, but those occurrences will be less likely.

3.) Social networks are detaching us from reality.

We live in a culture that promotes disconnection from others through entertainment, media and social networking. People are pixels and bytes and status updates, not hardly human. We are more self-involved and more narcissistic.

One of the most striking features of the Steubenville rape was an almost-sociopathic sense of detachment from the victim coupled with over-developed sense of entitlement displayed toward the victim. This young woman became a toy, an object to her attackers who carried her, like prey, from location to location. This sort of depersonalization is characteristic of wartime atrocities. It has made its way onto violent video games.

I’m not biting on that. It’s easy to blame these acts on the vices of the day–today it’s social media and video games whereas 30 years ago it was various brands of rock music, combined with movies.

In fact, I could make the case that, but for social media, those boys would not have been prosecuted.

4.) Hook-up culture is rampant in our society, but that old double standard still holds true in many places.

There is a sort of cognitive dissonance. Guys who have sex are studs. Girls who have sex are sluts. The double standard isn’t right and it isn’t fair, but it is very, very prevalent in the American subconscious. Nobody wants to touch that one. Not with a thousand-foot pole. Parents remain mum on the topic. High school sex ed programs, who either hand out condoms like candies or promote abstinence.

Television networks feature hook-up heavy reality shows like Jersey Shore. Self-respect and emotional maturity are in short supply. Men demonstrate their prowess with endless sexual conquests. Women who do not fit conventional standards of beauty are referred to as ‘grenades.’

The double-standard exists in no small part because women are the gatekeepers for sex. It is quite easy for a woman–even one who is not attractive–to get sex. The same is not true for a man: even an Alpha is only successful about 30% of the time.

This is why women who have many partners are viewed negatively by men whereas men who have many partners are viewed positively by women.

Calling me names will not change that reality, because I didn’t create it.

Oh, and you can thank feminism and their ardent supporters–including Bill Clinton–for the hookup culture. As President, he insisted that oral sex doesn’t count. After that, the percentage of teens engaging in that skyrocketed…

5.)Where is the love?

We live in a throwaway society at times. We pitch everything from Starbucks cups to sexual partners without a second glance. We need to talk with our kids about the emotional complexity of relationships. Respect and concern for another’s needs is an integral part of any consensual relationship. Respect can not be a two-way street when one of the parties is pressured or forced or obliterated out of his or her mind. This isn’t rocket science, but then maybe rocket science is easier to learn!

Yes, where is the love? We live in a throwaway society, where women are allowed the throw away their babies if they don’t want them. We live in a throwaway society, where people can throw away their marriages with near-impunity, two-thirds of such dissolutions pursued by the women.

Please don’t lecture us about how horrible this society is, because you have the society you asked for.

You wanted the prerogative to be as promiscuous as the men, and you got it.

You wanted to be able to end a marriage at will, and you got it.

You wanted to be able to kill your babies in utero, and you got it.

You wanted a government that pedestals women and attacks masculinity, and you got it.

You wanted unwed motherhood destigmatized–even pedestaled–and you got that.

So don’t sit here and complain about the unintended consequences.

Having said that, it would be a stretch to blame the Steubenville rape on these factors.

We must hold individuals responsible for their actions, and–while society has issues–what those boys did was nothing new, and we are doing ourselves a disservice by pretending otherwise.

2 comments

Gen. Newbold: Frank Discussion Needed on Women in the Infantry

March 18, 2013 Feminism, Military

HT to Michael Yon. This is gold.

2 comments

The Law of Sowing and Reaping

March 8, 2013 Christian Life, Feminism, Game

shall not be up for repeal.

THAT is one of the most important things a person can learn. The Scriptures also tell us, “Your sin will find you out.”

My corollary to that: your character ALWAYS catches up to you. ALWAYS.

This may not always be a public revelation, although we often associate such reckonings with that. Everyone reading this has heard of prominent ministers (Jim Bakker, Ted Haggard) or athletes (Eugene Robinson, Julius Erving) or entertainers (Bob Hope, Bill Cosby) or politician (don’t even get me started naming them) who has been forced to admit to having one or more affairs. In the Scriptures, the sins of the Patriarchs led to disasters that continue today. Think of that every time the defecation hits the fan in the Middle East.

For most of us, the consequences are not so dire, but still humbling nonetheless. For many, that might include some “Aha” moments, where we realize the implications of our past choices. In the process, we suck it up, put on our grownup pants, accept the lessons learned, and thank God that things weren’t worse than they could have been.

King David committed adultery and murder. While he was allowed to live, the consequences were nasty: the child from the affair died; there was persistent strife in his house–including rape and murder–and David even experienced an insurrection from one of his own sons, which included his son publicly having sex with David’s wives and even the death of that son. After David died, Israel would remain united for one more generation before dividing. It was the beginning of the end of Israel.

Even today, the consequences of private affairs are fatal at times.

Steve McNair–a retired NFL quarterback and prominent Christian, as well as a married father of four–was shot to death by his mistress (Sahel Kazemi), who then killed herself. Had he kept it in the marriage bed, ceteris paribus, he’d be alive right now.

More recently, aspiring photographer a married mother of two, Sarai Sierra–lured by some contacts in Turkey–traveled there for a little extramarital adventure and wound up being beaten to death. Her children must now grow up without their mother and–worse–the reality that she died doing a very bad thing.

What bothered me about the two latter cases was (a) the media treatment of them and (b) the reactions among the men.

The media was actually pretty hard on Steve McNair. Sportscasters–who generally turn and look the other way at sexual indiscretions–suddenly became moralizers over the activities of McNair. To be fair, though, McNair was catastrophically unfaithful to his wife, and his conduct was not befitting his professed Christianity. I blasted his choices, while expressing sadness for how his life ended. The only thing worse than this would be if Tim Tebow had had an affair and then paid for an abortion.

But Sarai Sierra was a different case. The fact that she was married–and was on vacation to pursue some sexual liaisons with people she friended online–was not made prominent. Her death was viewed as more tragic among the media. The moralizers–who distanced themselves from Steve McNair–were out to lunch over Sarai Sierra.

But the manosphere did not miss a beat: they hammered Sierra over her choices.

Ultimately, we need to call it fair: Sierra and McNair are dead because they each made some very bad decisions.

In both cases, they have children who will now grow up with the stigma that their mother or father acted in very dishonorable ways. Sierra’s kids will grow up knowing their mom–who should have been faithful–slutted herself, having sex with a foreigner in a bathroom stall, before being beaten to death by a homeless man. McNair’s kids will grow up knowing their father–who should have been in bed with their mom at 1AM–was instead out on the town, chillaxing with his mistress.

But we also need to take these cases as a warning: if you court your lusts, that can be you.

One comment
« Older Entries