Collective delusion

The CBMW has responded in a predictable way to the discussion of drafting women.  While the Republican candidates are pandering to women by arguing that women should have the right to register for selective service, the CBMW continues to pretend that the push to put women in combat is not driven by mass feminist rebellion, but by men wanting women to protect them.

This isn’t about protecting women though, this is about false bravado.  It is about avoiding saying “no” to women in rebellion while pretending to be courageous.  The make believe in the CBMW article starts in the very title: We Will Never Let Our Daughters Die for Us  However, even while pretending this is about men forcing women to usurp men’s roles, the authors (including the president of the CBMW) are careful to avoid offending the feminist Christian women who dominate their audience:

We are Holistically Pro-Woman and Cannot Support This
At CBMW, we are completely pro-woman. Unlike a secular, gender-blurring culture, we honor women and view them in the highest regard. As complementarians, we are committed to the biblical truths that men and women are completely equal in dignity, value, worth, and honor; however, men and women are different in role and function. 

In their desire to appease the feminists in the audience they stress that women are very good at killing, and when they do kill it is of course a good thing.  They are so eager to appease the feminists that they hold up Jael killing Sisera with a tent peg after luring him to sleep as an example of self defense.

This–warfare–is a key arena in which we see differences between the sexes, both in terms of calling and design. 

We are not saying that women cannot defend themselves if threatened. Godly women don’t fear Satan and know no limits in their willingness to oppose evil. We know the story of Deborah, and we have heard of Jael’s dexterity with a tent peg.

Having begged the Christian feminists for some room to operate, they get back to blaming cowardly men for wanting their wives and daughters to fight so they don’t have to:

If men do not answer the call, women will have no choice but to fight. This should not be, though. Women shouldn’t have to be in combat, because men should step up and lead the way.

The real cowardice of course is not a movement by men to get women to fight in their place, but a fear by men of saying “no” to women in rebellion.  This very fear is what motivates so many Christian conservative men to play a passionate game of make believe whenever the issue of women in the military comes up.  This is not only true for the CBMW, but it is also true for Matt Walsh** as it was for Vision Forum.

*H/T Taciturn
**H/T The Question

Posted in Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood, Feminists, Matt Walsh, Military, Owen Strachan, Rebellion, The Real Feminists, Traditional Conservatives, Turning a blind eye | 77 Comments

He was for it before he was against it.

Before the editors of National Review discovered that women as warriors was against natural law, National Review Senior Editor Jonah Goldberg* was delighted with the message of feminist empowerment that it sends.  Just four months ago Goldberg was enthralled by the girlpower message of his real life Wonder Women “passing” Army Ranger training (emphasis mine):

Around the time little Laura’s school was cracking down on Wonder Woman lunchboxes, two women, Kristen Griest and Shaye Haver, passed the Army Ranger training course for the first time. The news was hailed across the country as a huge step forward for women.

Are these women role models or not? Are they heroes? Or should they be condemned for their willingness to use violence when necessary? Maybe Laura should get a Griest and Haver lunchbox and find out.

*In my original version of the post I incorrectly attributed the Wonder Woman article to Senior Editor Rich Lowry. Goldberg wrote the Wonder Woman article.  Rich Lowry is the editor of National Review, and Goldberg is a senior editor.

Posted in Feminist Territory Marking, Feminists, Military, National Review | 38 Comments

Cowering in front of women.

National Review has a new editorial complaining about the answers from Jeb Bush, Chris Christie, and Marco Rubio on Selective Service registration during the Republican debate on Saturday.  They frame this as men cowering behind women for protection in Only a Barbaric Nation Drafts Its Mothers and Daughters into Combat (H/T PokeSalad)

Men should protect women. They should not shelter behind mothers and daughters.

This is all part of the fantasy which has brought us to the situation we find ourselves in. The problem isn’t that men are cowering behind women.  The problem is that men are cowering in front of women.  The idea that sending women into combat will lower the number of casualties for men is pure fantasy. Adding women to combat roles will increase, not decrease the number of men wounded, captured, and killed in future battles.  The National Review touches on this fact in their editorial, but still pretend that this is about men wanting women to protect them.  It is not.  This is about women demanding to usurp men’s roles, and men being too terrified to say no. You can see this by the way the three Republican candidates framed their answers.  The focus is on empowering women and not restricting their feminist rights.  You can see the full transcript here (do a word search for selective service), but here are the highlights.

The question:

I want to move on to the military. Senator Rubio, all restrictions on women in combat as long as they qualify. Positions including special operations forces, like Navy Seals. Just this week military leaders of the Army and Marine Corps said that they believed young women, just as young men are required to do, should sign up for Selective Service in case the Draft is reinstated.

Many of you have young daughters. Senator Rubio, should young women be required to sign up for Selective Service in case of a national emergency?


First, let me say there are already women today serving in roles that are like combat. That, in fact, whose lives are in very serious danger, and so I have no problem whatsoever with people of either gender serving in combat so long as the minimum requirements necessary to do the job are not compromised. But, I support that, and obviously now that that is the case I do believe that Selective Service should be opened up for both men and women in case a Draft is ever instituted.

Next Bush:

RADDATZ: Do you believe young women should sign up for Selective Service, be required to sign up…

BUSH: … I do, and I do think that we should not impose any kind of political agenda on the military. There should be — if women can meet the requirements, the minimum requirements for combat service they ought to have the right to do it. For sure. It ought to be focused on the morale as well. We got to make sure that we have readiness much higher than we do today. We need to eliminate the sequester which is devastating our military.

We can’t be focusing on the political side of this, we need to realize that our military force is how we project our word in the world. When we’re weak militarily it doesn’t matter what we say. We can talk about red lines, and ISIS being the J.V. team, and reset buttons and all this. If we don’t have a strong military than no one fears us, and they take actions that are against our national interest.

[Moderator repeatedly redirects Bush to the fact that Selective Service would determine who was drafted if a draft were implemented.]

BUSH: … we don’t have a draft. I’m not suggesting we have a draft. What I’m suggesting is that we ought to have readiness being the first priority of our military, and secondly, that we make sure that the morale is high. And right now, neither one of those are acceptable because we’ve been gutting the military budget.

Finally Christie goes full feminist:

CHRISTIE: Can I — can I be really — can I be really clear on this, because I am the father of two daughters. One of them is here tonight. What my wife and I have taught our daughters right from the beginning, that their sense of self-worth, their sense of value, their sense of what they want to do with their life comes not from the outside, but comes from within. And if a young woman in this country wants to go and fight to defend their country, she should be permitted to do so.

Part of that also needs to be part of a greater effort in this country, and so there’s no reason why one — young women should be discriminated against from registering for the selective service. The fact is, we need to be a party and a people that makes sure that our women in this country understand anything they can dream, anything that they want to aspire to, they can do. That’s the way we raised our daughters and that’s what we should aspire to as president for all of the women in our country.

Rubio says Selective Service should be “opened up” for women.  Bush says women have a “right” to be in combat, and argues that by allowing women into combat we are allowing the best qualified to be selected and thereby avoiding playing politics with the military.  Christie says women should not “be discriminated against” by denying them the right to register for the draft.  The pandering to women by the candidates is undeniable.

What very few have noticed though is it isn’t just Bush, Christie, and Rubio who are afraid to say no to women.  The authors of the National Review piece are just as afraid to say no to women on this issue as the candidates are.  The candidates framed this as a women’s rights issue, and National Review framed this as a women’s safety/privilege issue.  Both are avoiding saying no to women, they are just using different methods of avoidance.  The former assures women their desire to usurp men’s roles won’t be hindered.  The latter complains that men are forcing women into usurping men’s roles.  This is the real cowardice.

Men aren’t cowering behind women, men are cowering in front of them.

See Also: 

Posted in Envy, Feminist Territory Marking, Feminists, Military, National Review, Rebellion, The Real Feminists, Traditional Conservatives, Turning a blind eye | 97 Comments

NFL Super Bowl PSA: Who is the abuser?

During the Super Bowl tomorrow the NFL will be running the following PSA on domestic violence:

Last year’s PSA featured a woman dialing 911 but not being able to tell the 911 operator why she called.  She couldn’t speak freely because her abuser was in the room with her to prevent her from communicating in ways he didn’t approve of.  This year’s PSA is more ambiguous, but it suggests that the woman being abused during the Super Bowl is the victim of a boyfriend or husband who is “in a mood” and therefore she declines an invitation to a Super Bowl party. At the very least it is implied that the woman in the PSA doesn’t want to provoke an argument with her controlling boyfriend/husband.  It might also be that as with the previous year’s PSA, the boyfriend/husband is monitoring her communication and perhaps even physically blocking the abused woman from communicating with her friend (or family) in ways he doesn’t approve of.  Her abuser might be physically stopping her from communicating by taking her phone away or pressing cancel before she can hit send.

If we didn’t know that only men are domestic abusers, we might be tempted to point out that the scenario in this year’s PSA is far more likely with the sexes switched.  It is far more likely that a man would decline an invitation to a Super Bowl party because his wife or girlfriend was “in a mood”.  It is also more likely that a wife/girlfriend would physically stop her husband/boyfriend from communicating with friends or family.

The domestic violence industry tells us repeatedly that domestic violence really isn’t about violence, but about power.  This is only partially true.  To domestic violence activists, it isn’t about the methods one partner uses to achieve power of the other, but about which partner is in power.  This is why being “in a mood” is lumped in with physical violence, and why looking at pornography is considered “sexual abuse”.  This is also why there are careful safeguards to prevent women from inadvertently being caught up in the domestic violence machinery.  Police are trained to see the man as the abuser, since abuse comes from “male privilege”.  They are further trained to see denials of abuse by accused men as proof that they are abusers.  Dr. Don Dutton, head of the University of British Columbia Forensic Psychology lab explains how domestic violence activists have trained police and other officers of the court to identify the man as the abuser:

Jaffe et al. then go on to define abuse, using the “Duluth Power and Control Wheel” that includes “Using Male Privilege” as a part of an octant of abusive strategies used against women.  Jaffe et al. then list, under “whom to assess”: Victimized mothers (p.44), Battering fathers (p.46) and “war torn children” (p. 49). Jaffe et al suggest using an Abuse Observation Checklist (Dutton 1992) and asking the victimized woman to describe the “first, worst and last” incident, followed by allowing the “alleged perpetrator an opportunity to respond”. It is not clear what response, apart from denial might be expected from an accused male. Indeed, the authors warn an assessor that (p. 42) the male perpetrator may “minimize their abusive behavior by blaming their victims or proclaiming that the abuse was uncharacteristic”. It seems that, once accused, the male can only use responses that the evaluator is already primed to see as disingenuous.

The most commonly used model of defining abuse, the Duluth Model, is very specific that it is men who are the abusers.  They make it a point not to create a gender neutral standard for defining abuse, because their primary focus is on who benefits from the way abuse is defined (emphasis mine):

Making the Power and Control Wheel gender neutral would hide the power imbalances in relationships between men and women that reflect power imbalances in society. By naming the power differences, we can more clearly provide advocacy and support for victims, accountability and opportunities for change for offenders, and system and societal changes that end violence against women.

Their fundamental goal is to effect feminist change, not to stop violence or controlling behavior in general:

…change societal conditions that support men’s use of tactics of power and control over women.

As a final safety against having charges of domestic abuse used against women instead of men, domestic violence advocates have created a special category of abuse to apply to men who try to point out that what their wife/girlfriend did to them is abuse.  A man using the language of the domestic violence industry is guilty of knowledge abuse.

For an example of how the Kafkaesque rules of domestic violence are applied in real life, we can look at the Idaho Statesman report of Saeed Abedini’s 2007 conviction of domestic violence.  Part of the story of course is a he said, she said.  But part of the story appears to be agreed to by both Naghmeh and Saeed.  According to the Statesman:

The argument came while Saeed, then 27, was speaking with family members. Naghmeh, then 30, got upset at something he told his family and tried to close the laptop computer he was using to talk with them, Saeed told police.

If we take this at face value, Naghmeh did what the Super Bowl PSAs and the whole industry warns us abusers do.  She prevented Saeed from communicating with others.  She even physically took over his communication device to force him to stop.  If the sexes had been reversed, this would have been domestic violence according to the DV advocates.

According to the Statesman report, after she closed his laptop Saeed tried to get Naghmeh out of the room so he could communicate without her monitoring him.  The area of dispute is what Saeed did in order to stop her from preventing him from communicating with family.  He says he verbally told her to leave the room.  She says he pushed her out of the room.

Naghmeh — who was holding her daughter, Rebekka, then 10 months old — told police that her husband “pushed her several times” and forced her out of the room. Naghmeh said Saeed pushed her in the neck and upper chest, and the officer, Erik Tiner, now a sergeant, reported seeing a “slight amount of redness” in that area, according to his report.

“He told me that he told her to get out of the room and made hand gestures indicating that he pushed her,” Tiner wrote. “I asked him if he pushed her and he denied doing so.”

Even if we assume Naghmeh’s account is the accurate one, switch the sexes and Naghmeh would be the abuser.  If a husband was physically preventing his wife from talking with her family by closing her laptop and hovering around to make sure she didn’t re establish communication, and the wife responded by pushing her controlling husband out of the room, the husband would still be the abuser.  This is, again, by design.

The domestic violence industry has created a paradigm where women can physically block, shove, and even hit their partners and still not be considered the abusers.  Web MD warns men to make sure they don’t end up in a room with only one exit when their wife gets in a mood, because it is very common for wives to physically block their husbands in a room and then cry domestic assault if the husband tries to escape.  From the WebMD article Help for Battered Men:

“Never allow yourself to be provoked into any kind of retaliation,” says Brown. “We tell men if they have to be in an argument, do it in a room with two doors so they can leave; a lot of times a woman will block the door, the man will try to move her, and that will be enough for him to get arrested.”

Understand that if a husband were to physically trap his wife in a room, this would make him the abuser, even if she tried to escape.  Turn the sexes around, and the man is still the abuser.

This same pattern persists even when a wife violently assaults her husband and he doesn’t fight back;  the husband is still the abuser.  Iraq war vet Joseph Kerr explained how this works in his post “What Do You Do When A Girl Hits You?”

Women assaulting their partners, and specifically women initiating violence against their partners, is accepted as normal and not domestic violence by domestic violence activists.  Not surprisingly, stopping women from attacking their partners would be extremely effective* in preventing the women themselves from becoming injured:

How can we prevent Intimate Partner Violence and injury to women? IPV researcher Deborah Capaldi, Ph.D., a social scientist at the Oregon Social Learning Center, finds that the best way for women to be safe is to not initiate violence against their male partners. According to Dr. Capaldi, “The question of initiation of violence is a crucial one… much IPV is mutual, and initiations — even that seem minor — may lead to escalation.”

The problem is, stopping women from being assaulted isn’t the primary objective of the DV industry, and taking away the power for women to assault their partners would take a tool away from women to control their relationships.  The issue is, after all, not about violence, but about power and control.

*H/T anonymous_ng

Posted in Domestic Violence, Duluth Model, Pastor Abedini, Uncategorized | 132 Comments

She wanted to run with the bulls.

Drudge has a news story up today about a woman the local Tennessee media celebrated back in July of 2015 for showing that women can be in combat just like men.  At the time Erika Lopez was the first woman in the state to enlist in the Army as a combat engineer.  The story is in the national media because Lopez is now considered a deserter.

Lopez was in basic training at Fort Leonard Wood in Missouri. An Army spokesperson tells Local 8 News that Private Lopez was scheduled to return from convalescent leave on January 4th. She was reported absent without leave (AWOL) on January 5th after she failed to return.

Spokesperson Tiffany Wood issued a statement saying, “After 30 days in an AWOL status, a Soldier is considered a deserter and a federal warrant is issued for his or her arrest.”

This story and others like it are bad for the narrative, but they won’t change the political decision to open all combat roles to women.  In the end it really isn’t all that bad for the narrative either, because for nearly all feminists this isn’t about actually having women perform at the level of men, but about disgracing the institutions that they see as conferring status on men.  Nearly all women understand at a deep level that they can’t actually perform the same roles;  feminists know they can’t attain the honor and respect that they are so envious of, so instead they set out to mark the space as feminine to ensure that men can’t either.  From this perspective Lopez is accomplishing the feminist mission whether she sticks around long enough to join a unit or makes a laughingstock of the whole process.

On the other side we have conservatives, who tend to fall into two camps*.  The first conservative camp is dedicated to showing that they embrace opening all roles to women so long as the military holds women to the “same high standards as men” and pretends this is about finding the best talent for every job.  This isn’t really serious though.  This is a plea to feminists to maintain the fiction conservatives see as their tacit bargain with feminists.  We saw the same nonsense last summer when the Republican leadership telegraphed their willingness to open the military to transgendered.  As House Armed Services Committee Chairman Mac Thornberry (R-Texas) put it at the time:

The department “needs to look at a variety of policies. As long as they look at it objectively, based on what’s best for the security interests of the country, then we’ll oversee or review what they do,” he told The Hill.

“When there’s a sense that there’s some extraneous social or political agenda … people get concerned,” Thornberry added.

This wasn’t a new argument, as it was the same rationalization Republicans have been using to first accept women in the military and then later women in combat.

The second conservative camp relies on a different fantasy to get them through the day.  They start with the same lie the first camp of conservatives uses to rationalize the process, and then pretend it is the other conservatives who have driven the feminist process all along.  This is an extra level of psychosis, but is their only way of claiming to support biblical sex roles while avoiding confronting the feminist rebellion that surrounds them.

Both groups are in full denial of what feminists have been entirely open about all along.  This is about envy of men.  The Lopez story of women’s empowerment is the same story feminists have been selling all along.  Her desertion wouldn’t be of any interest to Drudge if she hadn’t been sold as a feminist hero from day 1.  While both camps of conservatives have been denying that pushing women into the military is about feminism, we were all being bombarded with messages of feminist empowerment like the original local Tennessee news story:

A Knoxville woman has signed up for a job that could lead her straight into battle, and she is the first in Tennessee to do it. She hopes her journey will inspire her children and women around the world.

After delivering her first son at 16 and staying home to raise the next one that came along, Erica still found a way to follow her dreams.  She stepped out of her role as a housewife and enlisted in the Army as a combat engineer.  But Erica had no idea that her choice would be so unique.

Yet in the same piece her decision to leave her husband and two sons in order to “follow her dreams” is presented not as selfishness, but as a sacrifice she is making for them.  No one notices the contradiction because feminism is now one of our highest values as a society.  Promoting it even at the expense of her family is seen as a sacrifice she is making for her family:

She left her husband and two children in September of 2015 for basic training where she was learning to build bridges, detonate artillery, and detect roadside bombs under combat conditions. She said, “You make sacrifices your whole life for your children and for your family, this will be a sacrifice… Women can do anything they set their mind to just as well as men I don’t really see any difference at all. I hope women will want to join.”

Here is the video of the original news story from Youtube.  Some of the audio cuts out on the youtube version but the version on the Local8 page has the audio intact:


*Drudge and the WND story he links to are of course proof of a remnant of conservatives still pointing out that putting women into combat is a game of politically correct theater.

Update:  Private Lopez has turned herself in.

Posted in Complementarian, Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood, Denial, Envy, Fantasy vs Reality, Feminist Territory Marking, Military, Running with the bulls, Traditional Conservatives, Turning a blind eye, Ugly Feminists | 152 Comments