Feminists Have Succeeded in Becoming The Men They Hated

Wow.

I am not a Catholic but have appreciated some of the observations I find at “First Things.”  The author of this article, “If Women Ran The World,” eloquently describes some of the most destructive elements of feminism today.  And she does it by sharing their own words.  The whole article is worth reading.

From time to time when I comment on feminist ideas, someone reminds me that that the particular view in question doesn’t represent all feminists.  Fair enough. But there are too many permutations for me to keep it straight. So I won’t dare suggest that this represents all feminists.

Here is what is clear to me. First, many of the most prominent feminist voices in journalism and politics today (like the one quoted below) represent destructive ideas that do not represent mainstream thinking. Second, they do not represent the ideas of feminists from a previous age. They wanted respect and equality. They condemned the bad behavior of men in a specific way. But they didn’t want to imitate it.

Elizabeth Scalia quotes a significant feminist voice:

“Writing for The Atlantic in September of 2012, Hanna Rosin argued that the “hookup culture” so prevalent on college campuses and in the lives of young adults is “an engine of female progress—one being harnessed and driven by women themselves.” She wrote:

‘To put it crudely, feminist progress right now largely depends on the existence of the hookup culture. And to a surprising degree, it is women not men—who are perpetuating the culture, especially in school, cannily manipulating it to make space for their success, always keeping their own ends in mind. For college girls these days, an overly serious suitor fills the same role an accidental pregnancy did in the 19th century: a danger to be avoided at all costs, lest it get in the way of a promising future.’

In other words, women have succeeded in becoming the men they hated.”

Source: If Women Ran the World | Elizabeth Scalia | First Things

Some Unexpected, And Brutally Honest Marriage Advice from Tolkien.

I stumbled on this blog post and had to share it. I am not a Roman Catholic, but I agree with most of this article.  Our culture is awash in selfishness. It is so deep that it has been camouflaged as “love.” We have attempted to twist the virtue of love into “loving yourself,” which is actually the opposite of love. The very nature of love is to put others before ourselves.

Concerning the article, I think I would temper some of what he says regarding self denial and monogamy with “the rest of the story.”  The honest truth is that self denial is necessary because of our fallen nature. The idea that men are “not monogamous” is true because we are fallen, discontent, and unfaithful creatures. It is true in the same way that men are not peace loving by nature.  Only when we operate in grace and practice self denial we will find the truest expression of ourselves.

Tolkien’s perspective reminds me of the premise behind Tim Keller’s book, The Meaning of Marriage.  I would highly recommend the book and use it for premarital counseling.

The excerpt below comes from a letter that JRR Tolkien wrote his son:

“THERE IS NO ESCAPE”

“Men are not [monogamous]. No good pretending. Men just ain’t, not by their animal nature. Monogamy (although it has long been fundamental to our inherited ideas) is for us men a piece of ‘revealed ethic, according to faith and not the flesh. The essence of a fallen world is that the best cannot be attained by free enjoyment, or by what is called “self-realization” (usually a nice name for self-indulgence, wholly inimical to the realization of other selves); but by denial, by suffering. Faithfulness in Christian marriages entails that: great mortification.

For a Christian man there is no escape. Marriage may help to sanctify and direct to its proper object his sexual desires; its grace may help him in the struggle; but the struggle remains. It will not satisfy him—as hunger may be kept off by regular meals. It will offer as many difficulties to the purity proper to that state as it provides easements.

No man, however truly he loved his betrothed and bride as a young man, has lived faithful to her as a wife in mind and body without deliberate conscious exercise of the will, without self-denial. Too few are told that—even those brought up in ‘the Church’. Those outside seem seldom to have heard it.

When the glamour wears off, or merely works a bit thin, they think that they have made a mistake, and that the real soul-mate is still to find. The real soul-mate too often proves to be the next sexually attractive person that comes along. Someone whom they might indeed very profitably have married, if only—. Hence divorce, to provide the ‘if only’.

And of course they are as a rule quite right: they did make a mistake. Only a very wise man at the end of his life could make a sound judgement concerning whom, amongst the total possible chances, he ought most profitably have married! Nearly all marriages, even happy ones, are mistakes: in the sense that almost certainly (in a more perfect world, or even with a little more care in this very imperfect one) both partners might have found more suitable mates. But the ‘real soul-mate’ is the one you are actually married to. In this fallen world, we have as our only guides, prudence, wisdom (rare in youth, too late in age), a clean heart, and fidelity of will…(Letters of J.R.R. Tolkien, pp. 51-52).”

Source: Tolkien Speaks: The Secret to a Happy Marriage | The Catholic Gentleman

I Have Come to Indoctrinate Your Children Into My LGBTQ Agenda (And I’m Not a Bit Sorry)

shoes

Here are some thoughts on an older article from the Huffington post with the title above.

For a long time the sexual revolution has been advanced through the idea of tolerance. Once upon a time that seemed to mean: Please leave us alone, let us live the way we want. But that meaning has gradually morphed into something else. This article is a soft reveal that the LGBT agenda is not about tolerance, it is about transformation. It is about social  re-engineering disguised as tolerance. Because if you disagree, you shouldn’t be tolerated.  There are numerous examples of people within the LGBT community itself who have expressed dissent and are subsequently attacked in the name of tolerance. Here is one. Here is another. And another.  Here is another example of tolerance unleashed against your own team. These aren’t attacks on Christians, they involve hostility towards people who disagree with the LGBT agenda on one or two points.

Tolerance…

The article actually says a number of true things that I agree with. I don’t believe in demonizing people, and I am sad that this happens to anyone. Whether to transgender people, or to the religious folks that believe there is a God-designed physiological difference between boys and girls that is the basis for gender.  I am against bullying on both sides.  And make no mistake, there has been plenty of bullying going on in the name of tolerance.

What this author makes clear is that the present battle is a battle for the hearts and minds of children. He interacts with the idea that LGBT folks have to recruit and indoctrinate because many of them can’t reproduce through their romantic relationships. So the only option is converting people. And the author embraces this. Unashamedly. Since they can’t indoctrinate their own children, they are coming for yours.

True tolerance is a good thing. It involves respecting people that disagree with us. But I have come to believe, in large part because of articles like this, that the idea of tolerance in the present discussion is a Trojan horse for a larger sexual ethic. It is presented as simply “love and kindness to all,” but that is just the spoonful of sugar to make the medicine go down.  And here is why I say this: my beliefs are often criticized as intolerant. However, I am not criticized for hurling insults, committing acts of violence, trying to deprive LGBT folks of their rights, etc. I haven’t done any of these things. Simply disagreeing with the agenda is enough to earn the label of bigot.  This doesn’t bother me that much, I have another set of marching orders.  I have raised my children to love and respect their LGBT friends and classmates while at the same time maintaining a philosophy of sex and gender that excludes most elements of the LGBT agenda. And I do this because my allegiance is to Jesus and his teaching in all of life. His teaching confronts our sexual sin. His teaching confronts MY sexual sin. It is dishonest to claim to follow Christ but reject what he says in situations where I want something really bad.  You can’t follow Jesus and define right and wrong by your appetites or attractions. Gay or straight.

This larger public agenda explains why these discussions almost always include a discussion violent persecution. The author mentions the murder of trans women, which I abhor, as his motivation for writing children’s books. Ironically, the group that is opposed to “the binary,” have framed this issue in a binary way. If you do not celebrate the LGBT program, then you obviously agree with gay-bashers. There are only two options. Anyone who disagrees with the sex and gender revolution must be depicted as sick. They are sick with the virus of hatred and bigotry. This is the same virus that leads people to murder. Perhaps the infection hasn’t advanced that far, but just wait. If you think this is hyperbole you aren’t reading enough from LGBT advocates in mainstream magazines like Salon, HuffPost, Vox, etc.  And even if a well-respected progressive author in the New York Times suggests that maybe his team is being, perhaps, a tinsy-weensie intolerant, the response is venom. Read the comments.

Ironically, this perspective advances the same kind of ignorant bigotry that it seeks to decry.  There is a certain kind of intolerance that grows when you don’t have any real LGBT friends. What is the answer? “Get to know them, they are nice people.”  The same thing is true in the gender debate. I know hundreds, if not thousands of Christians that hold to strong religious beliefs about gender and sexuality. And these people hold no hatred or violence toward members of the LGBT community.   The options are NOT limited to A: Celebrate, or B: Hate. The reality is much more complicated. (Even the Onion picked up on this one) It it involves the shocking idea that you can disagree with someone without hating them. But that perspective isn’t useful for the revolution. And you probably won’t find it in any LGBT children’s books.

Reader be warned: The author has admitted his purpose for your children. Take note that he is not only telling a story about LGBT folks, he is telling a story about YOU as well.  That story is not loving or peaceful. And in my experience that story is not true.

Source: I Have Come to Indoctrinate Your Children Into My LGBTQ Agenda (And I’m Not a Bit Sorry) | The Huffington Post

Relativism and the Double Standard

double standard

I had an epiphany yesterday. Almost every time someone announces that there are no rules, they are getting ready to tell the world how to behave. Usually they are about to tell me why it is WRONG for anyone to criticize them for their choices because of course the rules are relative.

If you pay close attention, the person who says that there are no rules (or morals) almost always means there are no rules for them.  It is the parlor trick played by tolerance magicians everywhere.  They don’t like the morality that says their behavior is wrong. But they do have a long list of things that others must not do. They don’t call them rules or morals. They usually get tagged as justice, decency, or love. But a rule by any other name is still a rule.

And every human society has rules for conduct. Call them mores, norms, or whatever. Human beings all have behavior codes and we enforce them in social ways. Making judgments about the behavior of other people is one of the things that we do constantly.  So, when a person insists it is wrong to ever make judgments about other people, they are making the broadest condemnation possible.

Ironically they are making a case that it is wrong to make moral judgments, while making moral judgments.

This brand of hypocrisy is endemic to western society: A generation of people telling others how to live while insisting it is immoral for others to tell them how to live.

Another Dark Chapter In The History of Free Sex

captain-cook-entertained-by-the-natives-of-tahiti

The section below is from the book, “The Age of Wonder” which is an award winning volume that chronicles the connection between scientific discovery and the ideals of the Romantic Age. In the first Chapter the author writes about the history of Captain Cook’s voyage of discovery. Here he gives ample attention to the time Cook and his crew spent in Tahiti.

I am posting a lengthy section below, and it is worth reading all 4 paragraphs. This narrative is largely taken from the diary of James Banks who documented their experience. As I read this I was struck with more than a bit of Deja Vu. There is something familiar operating here.  What they witnessed in Tahiti fits the appetites of our generation for a mythical paradise of free and open sex.  But, he also narrated the suffering that grows from this kind of selfishness. What am I talking about? Infanticide and more. It is tempting to view native cultures as pure and innocent, uncorrupted by the ideas of western culture. However, the truth is different.  Every society has it’s own virtues and vices. Attempts to  portray any one culture or age as a eutopia usually exaggerate the virtues and ignore the vices.

This snapshot from history is not unique. It has been repeated many times in cultures ancient and modern.  The American generation that started the sexual revolution forgot to study history.  So now we are stuck in the painful double loop of both repeating and failing to learn from the sins of the past.  In spite of our most prurient longings there is no such thing as sex without consequences.

Here are a few things I took away from this passage:

  • This level of sexual debauchery often starts early. Young girls were taught to engage in lewd dances before they reached puberty.
  • There is no sexual sin without grave consequences to others.  We seem to believe that as long as we do not transgress the one sexual absolute of consent that everything will be just fine. But the way we wield the weapon of sex leaves deep wounds. Every culture that lives this way ends up damaging the weak and vulnerable, even if they once offered their consent. The rest of the account describe the horrible consequences of the plague of sexually transmitted diseases among the natives and sailors.
  • There is always a double standard in the world of free sex. In Tahiti men were allowed to get away with adultery while a woman would be beaten for it.  Part of this is because of that natural strength advantage that men have. The other is the fact that in reproduction the woman’s body is designed to carry the child. This is the way we are and it has implications, even in our sin. And the answer to this double standard is NOT that women should be able to be just as bad as men.
  • Banks spoke with several couples that had previously murdered 2 or 3 children and THEY EXPERIENCED NO REGRET. This is the long term effect of cultural sin. The fact that some people can commit horrible acts without empathy doesn’t make those acts virtuous. Just because some cultures engage in certain practices doesn’t mean they ought to.
  • The decision to kill an infant was driven by the men. When a man wanted free sex but was unwilling to take responsibility for the child, then that child would be killed, even against the wishes of the woman. The way that men manage their strength and leadership is often a driver in this kind of depravity.
  • The status of motherhood was despised. Once a woman had born a child, she was viewed with some degree of contempt.  High views of motherhood  are not compatible with a free-sex culture.

“The idea of sexual innocence proved more complicated for a European to accept: ‘All privacy is banished even from those actions which the decency of Europeans keep most secret: this no doubt is the reason why both sexes express the most indecent ideas in conversation without the least emotion; in this their language is very copious and they delight in such conversation beyond any other. Chastity indeed is but little valued especially among the middling people; if a wife is found guilty of a breach of it her only punishment is a beating from her husband. Notwithstanding this some of the Eares or chiefs are I believe perfectly virtuous.’

“What later came to be regarded as the most scandalous of all Tahitian customs, the young women’s seductive courtship dance, or ‘timorodee’, Banks describes with calm detachment and a certain amused appreciation: ‘Besides this they dance, especially the young girls whenever they can collect 8 or 10 together, singing most indecent words using most indecent actions and setting their mouths askew in a most extraordinary manner, in the practise of which they are brought up from their earlyest childhood. In doing this they keep time to a surprizing nicety, I might almost say as true as any dancers I have seen in Europe, tho their time is certainly much more simple. This excercise is however left off as soon as they arrive at Years of maturity. For as soon as ever they have formed a connection with a man they are expected to leave of Dancing Timorodee-as it is called.’

“The only Tahitian practice that Banks found totally alien and repulsive was that of infanticide, which was used with regularity and without compunction as a form of birth control by couples who were not yet ready to support children. Banks could scarcely believe this, until he questioned several couples who freely admitted to destroying two or three children, showing not the slightest apparent guilt or regret. This was a different kind of innocence, one far harder to accept. Banks pursued the question, and found that the custom originated in the formation of communal groups in which sexual favours were freely exchanged between different partners: ‘They are called Arreoy and have meetings among themselves where the men amuse themselves with wrestling &c. and the women with dancing the indecent dances before mentioned, in the course of which they give full liberty to their desires.’

“He also found that the Arreoy, and the custom of infanticide, owed their existence ‘chiefly to the men’. ‘A Woman howsoever fond she may be of the name of Arreoy, and the liberty attending it before she conceives, generally desires much to forfeit that title for the preservation of her child.’ But in this decision he thought that the women had not the smallest influence. ‘If she cannot find a man who will own it, she must of course destroy it; and if she can, with him alone it lies whether or not it shall be preserv’d.’ In that case both the man and the woman forfeited their place in the Arreoy, and the sexual freedoms associated with it. Moreover, the woman became known by the term ‘Whannownow’, or bearer of children. This was, as Banks indignantly exclaimed, ‘a title as disgracefull among these people, as it ought to be honourable in every good and well governed society.”

Holmes, Richard. The Age of Wonder: How the Romantic Generation Discovered the Beauty and Terror of Science. Print. p. 37

Truth and Grace Make the Safest Place- Helping Christians with Same Sex Attraction

This is a helpful article on how churches can become safe places for people with same sex attraction to experience love and hear truth.

In my opinion, the folks at the Public Discourse consistently offer thoughtful and academically challenging resources on moral issues affecting our culture.

Some big ideas in this essay:

  • When Christians profess to believe the Bible, yet compromise on sexual ethics it is confusing for people searching for redemption. The author of this article (a lesbian) writes about the journey she took with a friend, “Both of us were confused, wondering whether we should continue to embrace our lesbian identity with abandon, give it up for our faith, or try to have it both ways by twisting the Scriptures and suppressing the voice of conscience.” Sadly, in the name of compassion some Christians in their lives were unwilling to tell them the truth. This added to their troubles.
  • When we open our mind to sin, we open it up to deception. We lack objectivity when we try to wrestle with our own hearts, and often embrace bad ideas to rationalize what we want.
  • Telling people the truth in love does NOT hurt them, it helps them. Trying to encourage people by confirming them in their sin hurts them. Sin is always bad for you. All sin is bad (MY sin is bad for me). This is especially true of sexual sin.  And this includes the many different kinds of sexual sin, even the more acceptable varieties (like the Sports Illustrated soft-porn swimsuit edition).  This includes anything outside of the bounds of a committed, monogamous marriage of husband and wife. When pastors and churches teach a Biblical ethic on sexuality combined with mercy and grace, that is good medicine.
  • People that experience same sex attraction but want to honor God with their sexuality don’t have many places to go. The gay movement wants them to embrace their desires as their identity. Many in the church are also compromising and bending their message to the whims of the culture. There aren’t many places that will talk about repentance, AND also give you a helping hand in the process.  And not enough churches that do speak the truth are also prepared to walk as fellow sinners saved by grace with their brothers and sisters in this messy journey.
  • One of the best lines in the essay, when talking about sexual sin:   “Don’t single out homosexuality, but don’t leave it out either.”

 “Don’t single out homosexuality, but don’t leave it out either.”

The loudest voices in the propaganda machine would insist that the article I am referring to, as well as my comments above, constitute hate speech.  Which is interesting that an essay by a struggling lesbian giving advise to the church would be considered hate speech.  But none of this is hateful. And anyone who has ever experienced real hate-speech will know the difference.  And one of the big parts of becoming a grown up is learning the difference between people that hate you and people that disagree with you.

Source: Rending the Rainbow Veil: How to Make Your Church a Safe Space for Christians with Same-Sex Attraction | Public Discourse

Are Thinkers On The Left Defending Pedophiles?

Salon recently published an article titled, “I’m a pedophile, but not a monster” by Todd Nickerson. The article is disturbing to me on various levels.  It suggests that we are defined by our desires, indeed that we need to surrender and accept an identity formed by our appetites. It ignores the reality that some desires are evil, even if they are built-in. Further, it also avoids discussion of whether our desires can be changed. And it pretends that it is possible (and healthy- the word they used is “virtuous”) to avoid having sexual contact with children yet maintain an active fantasy life regarding them.  But, considering that we have busted the dam of almost all sexual restraint in the last 40 years, I am not surprised to read it.

Breitbart ran an article challenging Salon, and suggesting that its soft stance on pedohiles is part of a larger, and growing problem from the political left.   I have to wonder, Is this really a trend? Or is this an example of a few loons in a larger group. I am not sure, because I have a number of liberal friends that I know would oppose this.  But reading the Salon article and not hearing a torrent of outrage from the left does make me wonder.  Here is one article, (that comes from a left leaning author) that not only expresses concern over the article, but suggests that the folks on the left have a double standard on this issue.  They are merciless when prominent conservatives are revealed as pedophiles, but supportive or silent when the same thing happens with their own team.

Milo Yiannopoulos writes in Breitbart:

“Pedophilia itself is of course not confined to one side of the political spectrum. But defending it does seem to be. Pro-pedophile activism continues to surface on the Left in a way that it simply doesn’t on the Right. Salonis one of the worst offenders: the left-wing website runs sympathetic features on pedophilia with alarming regularity…” (emphasis added)

And again,

“Horrifyingly, there are signs of a new pedophile acceptance movement forming on the Left. Just as Allen West warned, the gay rights movement is being used as a template. First comes the argument that pedophiles are just “born that way,” absolving them of any moral responsibility for their desires. Then comes the argument that pedophiles are just normal people, like the rest of us, but somehow impoverished or victimised by their own condition.

“Inevitably, our society’s current ostracisation of pedophiles will be portrayed as an injustice: an oppression from which pedophiles must be liberated, or for which they deserve our sympathy. And woe to the oppressors! Quietly, in progressive columns and academies around the world, progressives are losing their footing and sliding down that slippery slope. Publications like Salon are abetting the turpitude.” (see the original article for important links)

Is this assessment true? I am not sure, but the reporting does connect the dots on several hunches for me.  Without a doubt this is the trajectory of a society that insists that morality is culturally relative, and views any rules limiting sexual expression as the source of our problems.

Source: Why The Progressive Left Keeps Sticking Up For Pedophiles

Fraud: Were There Any REAL Women On The Ashley Madison Site?

 

A fascinating look at the Ashley Madison situation from Peter Jones and the folks at Truth Exchange.  This little known detail is instructive about patterns of sin, the lies involved with temptation, and the guarantee of disappointment.  Of all the 39 million users of Ashley Madison, less than 3% were women, and that is using the generous estimates.   This sounds a lot like those crazy spam emails from desperate “women” around the world that are in my junk folder. The same thing just cleaned up a little, with a much higher price tag.

“Noel Biderman, the entrepreneur behind the company, claimed he was not looking for someone other than his wife. Hypocritically, while he and his wife made millions on cheaters, he claimed he was a devoted husband and father. She said she would be devastated if he were unfaithful. Not surprisingly, when the site was recently hacked, among the millions outed was Biderman himself, with emails proving he had used the site for multiple affairs with other women. The dissimulation continued, since evil has a way of multiplying its effects.

“Biderman stepped down from leadership, with the statement, “This allows us to continue to provide support to our members…We are steadfast in our commitment to our customer base.” You have to wonder what “commitment” means when the facts now show that of the 39 million “customer base,” only 12,000 of them, .03%, were real women. [Now a new claim of 87,600 women on the site is still only 2.2%]. It was all faked, meaning that virtually most of the millions of clients looking for “love” were men, with virtually no hope of actual “discreet encounters” with adulterous women.”

Source: Down the Decadent “Ashley Madison” Avenue | truthXchange

The Financial Collapse and Porn

The article linked below provides a slightly different piece of the puzzle as we unravel what brought us to our current financial crisis. It seems that while crooks on Wallstreet were lying and stealing, all of the folks who were supposed to be enforcing the laws we already had were looking the other way. And they were looking the other way a whole lot….