Repackaging feminism as Christian wisdom.

Repackaging modern thought into a Christian and counter cultural sounding message is extremely common, and something I’m convinced conservative Christian men and women do without ever being aware of what they are doing.  We’ve seen this with the CBMW inventing the (feminist) sin of servility, laying an extra (and unbiblical) burden on Christian wives trying to fight the culture in order to follow the Bible.  We can also see this with Director Stanton explaining that women are innately good, as well as pastors explaining that women are light years closer to God than men are.  As I’ve explained, much of the problem is that conservatives find themselves conserving the new social order (feminism), while feminists ironically find themselves becoming conservative to protect the new feminist order they have created.

But another part of this is the blind spot modern Christians have when it comes to women sinning.  There is a near complete inability to recognize what women sinning looks like.  The only sin modern Christians can imagine women committing is the (again feminist) sin of lacking self esteem.

Whenever modern Christians see signs of women sinning, they look for the devious man who must have forced the poor woman to go against her innately-good-but-servile nature.  This takes a good deal of rationalizing, but it is something we (collectively) have gotten quite good at.  We see a woman seeking out sexual attention in any number of sinful ways, ways the Old Testament describes in detail, and we just know they are only looking for love and lifelong commitment.  All of the young women competing to hook up with the campus alpha or dancing topless on tables at spring break?  They are really just trying to find a man who will commit to them.  This isn’t what the sinful expression of women’s sexual nature looks like;  they are only victims.  A woman blew an entire bar?  Men must have tricked her into it (H/T Oscar).  When women delay marriage until the last possible minute and shamelessly obsess about escaping commitment, we just know this is because men aren’t manning up and committing to women*.

Don’t get me wrong.  Women don’t have the market cornered on being fallen.  Men are plenty sinful too.  The problem we have however is while we have a fairly accurate understanding of the way men tend to be tempted into sin, we are in complete denial of the temptations women experience.  Some might misunderstand this as giving women an “unfair advantage” when it comes to sin, but the truth is just the opposite.  Giving women a leg up into sin isn’t kindness, it is cruelty.  It isn’t loving or protective, it is cowardly.  Yet at the same time it feels brave, kind, loving, and protective.  Ironically the way men are currently failing women is at the heart of men’s sinful nature, all the way back to our original sin.

As just one example of packaging modern/feminist thought as Christian wisdom, Matt Walsh has a post up titled Dear daughter, please believe me that you’re beautiful.  Nearly all of it could have come straight from a Women’s Studies course, but what modern Christian would recognize this?  Even the extremely sharp and highly respected John C. Wright doesn’t see it. Walsh explains that the main problem with our current culture is that it doesn’t tell women that they are beautiful enough, strong enough, and special enough.  It isn’t that our culture isn’t broken;  it certainly is.  But Walsh’s critique is the feminist critique.  He even bemoans his own male privilege:

I guess I’ve learned to take a few things for granted. As a guy, I can walk into any clothing store and find something that A) fits, and B) provides my body with basic coverage, which is the whole reason clothing exists in the first place, according to Wikipedia. As you will eventually discover, women have an entirely different experience. For them, even something as simple as clothes shopping becomes an all out assault on their values, priorities, and body image.

While this is a post Walsh has framed as a letter to his daughter, I’ll respond to this as a general post on advice to young Christian women (see moderator’s note below).  The problem with the post is its feminist frame, and its denial of the role women’s temptations to sin are playing in shaping the culture.  The shops at the mall haven’t conspired to force young women to misuse their sexuality.  Not too long ago we collectively decided that moral constraints on women’s sexuality were unfair, and tossed them aside.  What we are seeing now is where this lack of moral constraint is taking us.  Women are being tempted by the culture, but they are being tempted to do something any student of the Old Testament should understand.  They are being tempted to do things our great grandmothers understood.  We can’t even think let alone use the word harlot, yet we have sluts marching down main-street.  While it is true that it is a challenge for a modest woman to find suitable clothing, the reason for this isn’t because men or evil capitalists have colluded to keep modest clothing away from the rack, it is because the vast majority of women are choosing immodest clothing out of a desire to misuse their sexual power.

We don’t help women by denying all of this, or by repeatedly telling women they are beautiful no matter what and begging them to believe it.  We don’t help women by adopting their own blind spot regarding their temptation to sin.  We help women by manning up and helping them be honest about their own temptations to sin, and we help them by teaching them what God finds beautiful:

Do not let your adornment be merely outward—arranging the hair, wearing gold, or putting on fine apparel— 4 rather let it be the hidden person of the heart, with the incorruptible beauty of a gentle and quiet spirit, which is very precious in the sight of God. 5 For in this manner, in former times, the holy women who trusted in God also adorned themselves, being submissive to their own husbands,

1 Pet 3:3-5 (NKJV)

The problem isn’t that modern women want to be beautiful, nor is it that they aren’t told enough how beautiful they are, how special they are, or how perfect they are.  The problem is that modern women aren’t focusing their desire to be beautiful in the right ways.  They shouldn’t strive to be beautiful for the other women around them, nor for the men they meet in public.  They should strive to be beautiful to the Lord, and to be beautiful to their own husbands.

*I shared my thoughts on this other post by Walsh when asked about it in the discussion of a previous post.  My comments in response are here and here.

Moderator’s Note:  Please avoid referencing Walsh’s children (or anyone else’s) in the discussion of the post and instead focus on what is wise advice regarding young Christian women (or men) in general.  Comments which don’t follow this rule will be deleted.

See Also:  If we were as foolish about male sexuality as we are about female sexuality.

Posted in Denial, Feral Females, Matt Walsh, Philosophy of Feminism | 178 Comments

Commitment issues.

The dominant, unchallenged narrative is that men have problems with commitment, while women are naturally inclined to commit for life.  Yet the difference between the dominant narrative and reality couldn’t be more stark.  Women in the western world are obsessed with fantasies of divorce and ending relationships, for any or no reason at all.

Jennifer McDonald at Slate offers us the latest installment in this shameless obsession with her review of the chick crack book Nobody Is Ever Missing*:

There are days when you awake and want to blow up your relationship. Perhaps things are mildly bad, or perhaps they are horrible, or perhaps there’s nothing for any reasonable human to complain about, but anyhow, something has happened, something has shifted, and in that moment of waking, were you to follow your whims, they would spirit you away to another bed, another city, another life. Sometimes this fantasy swoops in only for a quick spot of tea. Other times it arrives loaded with baggage and settles in for a good long visit, long enough that your discontentedness grows, and you begin acting strangely. You cheat. You…

…inform your other half, who may or may not have seen it coming. Belongings are packed. Excuses are made. “It’s not you, it’s me.”

For those who find this too subtle, as you scroll down the review up pops:

SOMETIMES YOU JUST FEEL LIKE BLOWING UP YOUR MARRIAGE.

There are even helpful shortcuts to facilitate sharing this message of familial destruction with other women on Twitter and Facebook.

Of course it isn’t just the ladies at Slate who pass their days fantasizing about broken homes.  This is a staple in women’s entertainment because it is what the audience demands.  As just one example, a reviewer on Amazon.com praises the book’s empowering message with a four star review titled “Finding yourself”:

Elyria takes off for New Zealand, without even giving a heads up to her husband. She is seeking, searching, for her truest self, and attempting to unscramble the cognitive dissonance between her outer and inner selves. She senses what she calls the wildebeest in her, caught between two impulses of wanting to be here in love and wanting to walk away like it never happened. Her way of thinking is often circuitous and epigrammatic, such as “…and it seems the wildebeest was what was wrong with me, but I wasn’t entirely sure of what was wrong with the wildebeest.” This strain of opposites and paradox filled out Elyria’s psyche and also made her feel shriveled.

This kind of obsession in all forms of women’s entertainment is now so common that no one notices it.  Our denial is so strong that we overlook what the divorce data makes abundantly clear.  Women (in general) have serious issues with commitment, to a far greater degree than men (in general) do.  Were we to acknowledge this we could save millions of children the pain of growing up with their fathers expelled from the home.  Sooner or later we are bound to adjust the narrative to reflect reality.  The sooner we do so the better for all involved.  It isn’t just men and children who suffer because this pathology is openly encouraged in our culture, but women themselves.  Nurturing these obsessive and destructive fantasies is no more healthy or empowering for a woman than a flask of bourbon is to an alcoholic.

*Hat Tip ISA and Pirran.

Posted in Choice Addiction, Cracks in the narrative, Denial, selling divorce, Whispers | 207 Comments

Atheist Adam Lee’s smear campaign to silence my discussion of Christian sexual morality.

Adam Lee AKA the Daylight Atheist has asked his twitter followers to falsely report my blog to wordpress for abuse.  I’m writing this post to help anyone from wordpress understand the nature of the smear campaign against me, and to also ensure that I have the opportunity to defend myself against this smear campaign while I still have a platform to do so.

Adam Lee is a blogger on Patheos who focuses on attacking Christians whom he accuses of being liars.  However, Lee isn’t above lying himself when he gets the opportunity to silence a blogger like myself who dares to write about Christian sexual morality:

First, this isn’t an MRA blog.  I am not an MRA, I am a Christian and I write almost exclusively about a topic I have great passion for;  marriage.  However, MRAs do read my blog and are part of the conversation.

More importantly, the blog post which caused Adam Lee to organize a campaign to have me silenced wasn’t abuse, it was a discussion of sexual morality.  In my post One at a time, please I pointed out that since we have abandoned biblical sexual morality we have ended up with the incredibly low standard of serial monogamy, which when you boil it down simply means “one at a time”.  In that post I pointed to a columnist on the gossip site* The Frisky who wrote about having sex with multiple men after telling her husband she wanted a divorce but before the divorce was official.  To be clear, this is a woman gossiping about her sex life on a gossip site she writes for.  This wasn’t me exposing anything in her personal life that she hadn’t decided to share with everyone who will listen.  In the same post, I linked to the woman’s personal blog where she has a dedicated section of self portraits, as well as to her public Flickr page.  These links were in context with the point of my post which was that even a free spirit like the woman at the Frisky felt compelled to demonstrate that she was complying with our new (but meaningless) definition of sexual morality.

The gossip columnist was incensed, and reached out over Twitter to fellow atheist Adam Lee asking him to organize a campaign of atheists to (falsely) report this blog to wordpress for abuse:

falsely_report_abuse

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I want to reiterate that this is an entirely false charge.  All I am guilty of is discussing sexual morality from a Christian perspective.  This is something Adam Lee is on record as being against, so I’m not surprised that he would dislike my post as well as my site.  However, this cowardly attempt to silence someone who doesn’t share his anti Christian views of sexual morality is beneath contempt.  If Lee had any faith in his own beliefs and talent as a writer he wouldn’t feel the need to silence those he disagrees with.

I have faith in WordPress’ stated commitment to supporting free speech, including the speech of traditional Christians like myself, no matter how much my very existence offends atheists like Adam Lee.

*The Frisky’s main title is:

The Frisky | Celebrity Gossip, Relationship Advice, Beauty and Fashion Tips.

Posted in Beta Orbiter, New Morality | 232 Comments

Bad Grandpa Solipsism.

Bad Grandpa is Johnny Knoxville doing a Jackass skit extended to a feature film.  I’ve coded the video to start at 1 minute 11 seconds where they start discussing the bed he is selling.  Note that if you choose to start it from the beginning instead it is pretty vulgar at points.

 

Lets not make this all about you honey.

 

Posted in Manosphere Humor, Solipsism | 40 Comments

One at a time, please.

Please Take A Number.Aside from our inverting the roles of romantic love and marriage, another striking feature of our new view of sexual morality is the embrace of serial monogamy as the pinnacle of sexual virtue.  Indeed, serial monogamy is now generally considered more moral than lifetime marriage, because it facilitates an unfettered focus on romantic love.  Women especially are regularly advised that it would be an act of virtue and courage for them to leave their marriage should they be experiencing anything but quintessential romantic love.

Serial monogamy is elevated to such lofty heights in our society that it would be easy to forget that all it really means is one at a time.   Women will always search for a societal definition of the boundary between good girls and sluts, and our current answer is:

Good girls don’t do more than one man at a time.

Many would assume that modern women no longer care about such trivialities as the difference between good girls and sluts, especially since we now have sluts literally marching down the streets of every major western city.  While this mistake is understandable, it misconstrues what the slutwalks are all about.  The slutwalkers claim to embrace the term slut, but if they didn’t feel a powerful stigma they wouldn’t be protesting.  If the slutwalkers really wanted to show how unconcerned they are with the stigma of the word, they would proudly display the number of penises they had personally sampled, each eager to one up the more prude and inexperienced in their ranks.  But this would be taking the whole slut thing a bit too far, so very few women would be willing to march with an honest number.

Rebecca Vipond Brink at The Frisky recently posted an excellent example of all of this in Girl Talk: It’s Not Wrong To Date While You’re Divorcing:

I started dating immediately after I told my now-ex that I wanted to get a divorce. This was because, as one of my friends very aptly put it, I wasn’t really “rebounding” so much as just “bounding” — rebounding assumes that you’re bouncing off of something, and I wanted a divorce because my marriage no longer qualified as a relationship.

The problem occurred when some of the men she was dating declined to have sex with her because she was still legally married:

I think I dated maybe eight men in a six-month period. Two of them (so we’re talking 25 percent) enjoyed my company, enjoyed the sex, and then all of a sudden decided to tell me that they “couldn’t” date me because it was morally wrong because I was “still married.”

Obviously she felt the burn of being slut shamed by these men, or she wouldn’t have bothered writing an article complaining about the terrible unfairness of it all.  For those who aren’t familiar with the Frisky, it is important to note that this isn’t a site with anything like a traditional bent, and Ms. Brink is anything but conservative.  If you doubt this, take a look at Ms Brink’s other articles*, her Flickr page, or this picture, one of many of her self portraits.

Yet even a free spirited woman like Ms. Brink feels compelled to write an article explaining that in having sex with new men before her divorce was finalized, she wasn’t really violating the “one at a time” rule of modern chastity.

All of this is important to remember when you hear women complaining about how terribly oppressive the old rules of sexual morality were to women:

  1. No matter how free spirited the woman, she will still seek out the current definition of chastity in order to separate herself from those slutty women who don’t follow the rules.
  2. No matter how low the bar is, women will always loudly complain that the rules are too constrictive, and therefore cruel to women.

Take a number picture by Eric B.

*July 18th Edit:  The original link for “other articles” mistakenly pointed to a meetup page of for Ms. Brink.  I had intended to link to the full list of her articles at The Frisky.  I have since corrected this error.

Posted in Choice Addiction, Feminists, Feral Females, New Morality, Serial Monogamy, Slut | 410 Comments