How I View and Treat Women

In a nutshell, I treat women like adults. As far as I am concerned, this is how “equality” works functionally.

That means, just as we hold men responsible for the outcomes of their choices, I believe in the same for women.

That means, in the workplace, the women are graded for their performance on the same scale as the men. If a man is required to maintain a certain level of productivity X, the same is true for his female colleague.

That means women are to be afforded the same human dignities as the men.

That means women are evaluated for their actual decisions, not merely on their stated intentions. Just like the men.

In terms of compensation, a women is a free market agent, just like a man. She is free to play as much hardball as she wishes, pursue any education path she wants, and sink or swim. I’m all for her reaping the benefits of success, and suffering the agony of defeat. Just like the men. If she can command a better salary than a man, then she gets her due.

That, however, means she must live with the consequences of the choices that she makes toward that end. If she expects that “success” to make her more attractive to the men, that will not compute.

In the home, she is entitled to the life she wants. If she wants to be a SAHM, that is her business. Ditto for the feminist who wishes for an egalitarian home marriage. If she wants to ride the carousel and remain single, or remain single and NOT ride the carousel, then that is her call.

That, however, means she must live with the consequences of the choices that she makes toward that end. If she wishes to live out the Eat, Pray, Love type of life, then that’s her call. At the same time, she should be forced to recognize the cost of that choice. Just as we ought to expect from a man who bolts on his wife and kids. If she chooses to be a single mom, she should be on her own, with no help from the taxpayer except via personal or religious or other private charity. (If her husband ditched her, he should be forced to recognize the cost of child support.)

Some may look at what I am writing and call me “harsh” and “insensitive”. In fact, I am articulating what “equality” looks like.

How does that play out in the Church?

That means a woman does not need a man–other than Jesus, who is our High Priest–in order to approach God. She has the same access to the King of Kings that any man has. She is as free to worship God, petition for her needs, confess sins, ask for forgiveness, give thanks, as any man is.

Even if she is hosting Aunt Flo for that one week of the month, she need not recuse herself from worship. When Aunt Flo leaves, she need not go through a special purification process.

While–due to Biblical issues–she is precluded from certain offices, she otherwise enjoys a degree of liberation that is foreign in either Judaism or Islam, or even Hinduism.

While she is required to submit to her husband as to the Lord, her husband is under compulsion to treat her gently, respecting her as the weaker vessel. He is required to love her as Christ loves the Church. In that dynamic they are to be subject to each other.

In terms of sin, women are as responsible for it as the men are. Admonitions against malice, gossip, sexual immorality, covetousness, lust…they apply across the board. Women aren’t graded on a lighter scale than the men.

The bottom line: treating women like adults affords them both the rewards and the responsibilities for the paths they choose, on the same scale as the men. In other words, if you earn it, you own it. And that works both ways.

What about instances where there is obvious inequality?

A good example of this is physical strength.

If a woman wishes to pursue a track that relies on physical abilities, then I say by all means let her. But equality means she gets graded on the same scale as the boys. If a 21-year-old man has to perform at least 42 pushups, then she should have to do the same. If she wishes to go to Ranger School–and can qualify to get in–then she has to perform at the same level as the men. No exceptions.

In such a scenario, women will be outnumbered by men. This is science: men ARE stronger, as a group–and at the endpoints–than the women. Go ahead and call me sexist for acknowledging that. Call me a misogynist. Call me a chauvinist. I’ve got big shoulders, I can handle it. But let’s be honest here: if what I am saying were not the case, there would be no separate leagues for men’s and women’s tennis; women would be as common in the NFL as the men (and no, Tony Romo and Jay Cutler don’t count); military Special Operations units would have binders full of women.

But equality, put simply, treating women like adults, subject to risks and rewards thereof.

Contrasting that with feminism:

This gets at the heart of the greater part of what is considered “sexism” today. And yet, who is the more truly sexist, those who simply acknowledge the readily observable or those who deny it, and in denying it, remove from women the responsibility for being accountable for their words and actions. Feminism isn’t about sexual equality. It isn’t even about female superiority, per se. It is, rather, primarily concerned with according women formal adult status and privileges without adult responsibilities.

Tangential Discussion

Let’s say we have two groups of people: A and B.

Let’s say group A has a set of rights: C and D, and are subject to two sets of risks: E and F.

Let’s say group B has a set of rights: C and D, but only subject to the set of risks E.

Let’s say that both groups–A and B–are given the same set of benefits: G.

Let’s also say that group A has to perform at a higher standard than B to get a minimum passing score.

Are we treating groups A and B equally?

Explain your answer.

On Equality, Part 1

In all the discussions over the merits–or non-merits–of feminism, someone always chimes in with the question, “What’s so wrong with the premise that men and women are equal?”

This, folks, is a classic case of intellectual dishonesty.

The more appropriate questions are,

(1) In what ways are men and women equal?

(2) In what ways are men and women not equal?

(3) How should that equality–or inequality–affect public policy and discourse?

Let’s take, for example, a recent issue of gender equity: men and women in the military.

Recently, our government has decided to go full-circle and lift the ban on women in combat. While it is true that women have already–in various forms–served in combat roles, with casualties to prove it, they have been precluded from specific combat assignments, including Special Operations roles.

Moreover, women have also been–due to the ban on their serving in combat roles–exempt from having to register for Selective Service. I.e., they have been exempt from any future draft.

Now, that’s in danger of being off the table. There are already plans to integrate women into some Special Operations roles, although they will have a tall order getting through said training. Women may soon be eligible to go to Ranger School, but their chances of graduating are going to be stiff, as the physical demands are extraordinary. Ditto for BUD/S, Basic Reconnaissance Course, and the Q Course (Special Forces).

As for draft eligibility, I say “equality” goes both ways. If we, as a society, demand that women and men be treated equally in military matters, then they should be subject to the same risks that the men are. That means they should be subject to Selective Service, just the men are.

(Note: I oppose Selective Service for everyone, but (a) if you’re going to have it, and (b) if you demand that men and women are ‘equal’ with respect to the military, then women should face the same risks. Period.)

But here’s the thing: does the military REALLY treat the sexes equally? Of course not.

Fact is, NONE of the branches of the military impose the same physical standards on both sexes. Even in the Marines, the women are permitted to do the flexed armhang in lieu of pullups, the latter required of men. In the Army, the minimum pushup requirements for men (42) is more than double the requirement for women (19). In fact, a 21-year-old woman who does 42 pushups will get a score of 100 whereas a man who does that many will only get a minimal score (60).

So who are we kidding here? In terms of physical strength, women and men are not equal. It is science. If that were not the case, the military would not have separate standards for the sexes.

At the same time, not only are men and women not equal, but women are getting preferential treatment at the expense of men.

Men have to register for Selective Service, which subjects them to the risk of being drafted in the event that our political class decides to embark on large-scale kinetic diplomacy. Women, OTOH, are free to join the military, and are not subject to combat assignments except by choice.

Still, it begs the question, within that sphere, is there ANY basis for equality of the sexes.

I can think of a couple:

(1) Each sex is afforded basic human dignity;
(2) Ceteris paribus, with respect to job performance, one’s sex should not count for or against their selection, evaluation, or promotion.

Let’s look, for example, at Ranger School.

If I’m a Ranger Instructor, that means Jane Doe is going to have to hold her own with the boys. Same rules. Same standards. She’s gotta earn it. That means she’ll need to do the same number of pushups, run the same comparable times, carry the same amount of gear on any marches, be subject to the same food deprivation as everyone else, hold her own in hand-to-hand combat exercises, show that she can effectively lead a small unit on various patrols and assaults. Just like the boys, she will have to do very difficult things without showing signs of fear. She gets no easy treatment. She gets no special breaks. Playing the “girl card” results in dismissal. Playing the “unfair card” results in dismissal. (Every aspiring Ranger is subject to varying degrees of “unfairness”, as that is to be expected in combat. One must learn to deal with it.)

If she can hack it, she earns the tab, just like any guy who earns it. If she can’t, then she’s in the same league with the rest of us mortals.

But unless you grade the sexes equally, then you cannot reasonably tell me that they are equal–in that respective sphere–in any more than basic human dignity.

Quote of the Day

From Vox Day at Alpha Game:

If a woman asks why you’re not a feminist, the correct answer is “because I don’t believe in leprechauns riding unicorns down rainbows”. And if she asks why you don’t think much of the intellectual capabilities of feminists, the correct answer is “Because people who structure their entire approach to life around leprechauns riding unicorns down rainbows are stupid.”

Feminism is a mental illness.

Answering Vox Day, on Dorner

Vox raises a good question:

Another thing that strikes me. It seems as if every drama on television about either doctors or police. I wonder if the constant repetition of the heroic portrayal of the police saving the day and blowing away the perp, who is usually a white men, has not only programmed the target audiences to believe that white men are evil, but has also helped convince older white men to see police as the enemy.

I doubt it, but here’s the thing: in those shows, cops typically go after REAL bad guys. Murderers, rapist, child molesters, kidnappers, etc. You rarely see them address the nuances of the War on Drugs. (Even Miami Vice–which had its big run in the 1980s–focused more on the evils of the big fish in the drug culture, most of whom were non-white, not the little guys on the street who get screwed by it.)

In the real world, cops harass people by pulling them over for speeding when they are low on their monthly quotas. Cops harass people by arresting them on dubious “weapons” charges. Even when they make a legitimate arrest, they often trump up the charges by adding a plethora of lower-level felonies in order to scare you into plea-bargaining to something that gives them a notch on their belt.

In the real world, cops bust into the wrong houses, they claim “exigent circumstances” when breaking into homes, they bolster the fraudulent “child protection” industry, they make criminals out of people who aren’t doing any harm.

I know a few good cops. The problem is they are not the majority. And you aren’t going to find cops like them in the big cities like LA.

That said, I have no sympathy for Chris Dorner. Whatever the merits of his case with LAPD–and I believe he probably got screwed–he had no business using deadly force. His life was not in imminent danger.

I hope the FBI HRT takes him out before he does more damage, if he hasn’t died already. (Given the snowstorm, he could already be dead from exposure or suicide.)

Oh, and here’s a wrinkle: in this debate over drone strikes on Americans, one might ask whether it would be appropriate to use a drone on Dorner. My answer is no. For one thing, he is entitled to Due Process, and we owe it to society to do what we can to afford him that opportunity. OTOH, if he wants to shoot it out, we have the wherewithal to take care of business. Drones are unnecessary and are a big threat to American liberties.

As for the LAPD, they are worse than pathetic. This case has shown why they are thought of so lowly. In the Dorner fiasco, the LAPD has shot two people–wounding one of them seriously–just because the truck they were in LOOKED like it might be Dorner’s. In other words, they fired on people without properly identifying the target.

Those cops need to be fired and prosecuted. If you or myself had done this, we’d be looking at multiple felony charges, and–if lucky–would be allowed to plea bargain to a lesser felony charge. These cops need to be held to at least that standard.

As for Dorner, the media has falsely made him out to be some super-commando. Puh-leeeze!

Dorner was a Naval Reservist. BFD. He wasn’t in SpecOps. He wasn’t a SEAL or a SWCC. He didn’t go to Ranger School, or BUD/S, or Scout Sniper school, or the Q School. He was a “Marksman” with a rifle? All that means is that he shot well enough to qualify with the M-16. EVERYONE IN THE MILITARY HAS TO DO THIS!!!

Looking at his crimes, he has demonstrated nothing of great skill. He shot two people in their car. BFD! All that requires is sneaking up on someone. ANYONE can do that. He shot three cops, but only killed one. If he was any good, he would have killed all three.

In fact, Dorner is an overweight, overrated 270-pound target who, eventually, will be taken down by either suicide, exposure, or a well-aimed single shot from an HRT sniper.

God Bursts Through My Enemy Like A Raging Flood

I LOVE God’s Holy Word. I LOVE reading my Bible. I love that God takes whatever I’m reading and applies it to what I’m going through, right now. This is what I read last night in my journey of reading through the Bible (in, well, as long as it takes).

When the Philistines heard that David had been anointed king over all Israel, they mobilized all their forces to capture him. But David was told they were coming, so he marched out to meet them. The Philistines arrived and made a raid in the valley of Rephaim. 10 So David asked God, “Should I go out to fight the Philistines? Will you hand them over to me?”

The Lord replied, “Yes, go ahead. I will hand them over to you.”

11 So David and his troops went up to Baal-perazim and defeated the Philistines there. “God did it!” David exclaimed. “He used me to burst through my enemies like a raging flood!” So they named that place Baal-perazim (which means “the Lord who bursts through”). 12 The Philistines had abandoned their gods there, so David gave orders to burn them.

13 But after a while the Philistines returned and raided the valley again. 14 And once again David asked God what to do. “Do not attack them straight on,” God replied. “Instead, circle around behind and attack them near the poplar[b] trees. 15 When you hear a sound like marching feet in the tops of the poplar trees, go out and attack! That will be the signal that God is moving ahead of you to strike down the Philistine army.” 16 So David did what God commanded, and they struck down the Philistine army all the way from Gibeon to Gezer.

17 So David’s fame spread everywhere, and the Lord caused all the nations to fear David.

I Chronicles 14: 8-16

There are some very powerful things in these verses. First … God enables us ad uses us to burst through our enemies! How cool is that! And we can take none of the credit – it is ALL about God and NOTHING about us. My God … who bursts through my enemies. I really needed to hear that.

Because of who David was, his enemies came after him. We want to think that the closer we get to God and doing/becoming who He desires for us to be and become, the less we will have to face our enemies. But tis isn’t so. When the Philistines heard that David had been anointed king over all Israel, they mobilized all their forces to capture him. Not only did his enemies come after him, and were defeated, but they came after him again: 13 But after a while the Philistines returned and raided the valley again. 

I want to only face my enemy once. I want it to be that defeating my enemy once means my enemy is gone for forever. But tis not so. Our enemies are relentless; defeat does not stop them. They come after us again and again. I get tired of the word ‘again.’

Each time David was faced with attacks from his enemy, He consulted God as to what he should do … first … before he did anything. VERY important. 10 So David asked God, “Should I go out to fight the Philistines? Will you hand them over to me?” 14 And once again David asked God what to do. Here are those words, ‘once again.’ Sometimes I feel weighted having to go to God, once again. “Here I am, God, once again, fighting the same enemy, who You enabled me to defeat before, but he’s back. Again.” I get tired of once again.

I found it interesting that God had different game plans for each attack. The Lord replied, “Yes, go ahead. I will hand them over to you.” “Do not attack them straight on,” God replied.” One of the critical reasons God wants us to consult with Him first is that He is the Master Planner. He knows the best way for us to defeat our enemy this time. And this time may very well require a different game plan than last time.

After David received God’s instructions, David obeyed God. This may seem trivial because who would not obey God? Well, a lot of us.  11 So David and his troops went up to Baal-perazim and defeated the Philistines there.” 16 So David did what God commanded,” David didn’t argue with God or question Him; he simply obeyed Him.

David did not take credit for that which God did. “God did it!” David exclaimed.” 17 So David’s fame spread everywhere, and the Lord caused all the nations to fear David.” No matter how gifted and talented we are. No matter how hard we worked for what we have. WE.DID.NOT.DO.IT. God did. God gives us our talents and gifts and abilities and wisdom and discernment and knowledge. No matter how we try to slice it, we still cannot take credit for what God does.

I cannot ignore another truth here. When David defeated his enemies and they ran, they left behind their idols. David did not ignore this. He burned them, got rid of them, destroyed them. 12 The Philistines had abandoned their gods there, so David gave orders to burn them.” Things that are against God and detestable to God need to be destroyed so they do not destroy us. Just because it’s left behind when God defeats our enemies through us does not mean God intends for us to keep it.

I love this: 15 When you hear a sound like marching feet in the tops of the poplar trees, go out and attack! That will be the signal that God is moving ahead of you to strike down the Philistine army.”  When we hear God, it may not be something we can understand. When you hear a sound like … marching feet in the tops of the poplar trees? God’s voice, His thoughts, His ways, are so much higher than ours. Only God can make the sound of marching feet on the tops of trees! And how clever! There is no direction of where the sound is coming from. And although David’s army was well equipped and very well experienced, GOD moved, and GOD struck down the army.

“God did it!” David exclaimed. “He used me to burst through my enemies like a raging flood!”  I love this verse. God did it, but He did it through David. Sometimes God does things all on his own; sometimes He uses us. I wish I could hover in a corner with my eyes closed till my enemy is defeated … but I can’t. Sometimes God will defeat our enemy without our help or even our knowledge that we had that particular enemy. But God often wants to enable us, use us, to burst through our enemies like a raging flood.