A woman’s prerogative.

A reader who asked not to be named describes how the military has come to define rape:

One of my fellow company commanders in Afghanistan invited a CID agent to give a lecture on sexual assault. I had my Soldiers attend and I attended as well. The agent told a story about a female Soldier who had sex with a male Soldier, admitted she was on top most of the time, texted her friend while he was in the shower, then had sex with him again. When her boyfriend found out, she cried rape. The accused was convicted.

I asked the CID agent if that meant that if someone regrets having sex, that means it’s rape. He said yes. I was shocked.

The key thing to remember is this is not the new policy on rape having unexpected results.  This kind of outcome is entirely intentional.  Accusations of rape have become a general purpose weapon for feminists to use against men.  Whether a rape has occurred or not does not matter.  The goal is to make men live in fear of accusations, as Ezra Klein explained in “Yes Means Yes” is a terrible law, and I completely support it (emphasis mine):

The Yes Means Yes law is a necessarily extreme solution to an extreme problem. Its overreach is precisely its value.

If the Yes Means Yes law is taken even remotely seriously it will settle like a cold winter on college campuses, throwing everyday sexual practice into doubt and creating a haze of fear and confusion over what counts as consent. This is the case against it, and also the case for it. Because for one in five women to report an attempted or completed sexual assault means that everyday sexual practices on college campuses need to be upended, and men need to feel a cold spike of fear when they begin a sexual encounter.

…To work, “Yes Means Yes” needs to create a world where men are afraid.

This is why regret equals rape, and why a college student can be expelled for rape even though the ostensible “victim” never claimed to have been assaulted, and in fact has consistently stated otherwise.

Posted in Feminists, Military, Rape Culture, Yes Means Yes | 57 Comments

What causes all of the consternation about housework?

This week Lori Alexander of Always Learning had a Facebook post go viral with a cacophony of feminist clucking.  In the post Lori suggested that wives not focus on the amount of houswork their husbands did, but instead:

…do your housework cheerfully, as unto the Lord.  Remember, you didn’t marry your husband to help with the household chores.  You married him to be your protector and provider.  You also should have married him because you deeply loved him, wanted to be a great help meet to him…

This outstanding post predictably drove feminists mad, and the criticism from feminists lead Lori’s husband Ken to write his own post.  Ken explained that godly husbands should do housework, but that if a husband is sinning in this way his wife should just do the housework cheerfully anyway.  Lori’s focus was on the toxicity of feminist resentment.  Ken agrees that wives should fight against the resentment, but also shifted the focus towards the sinful husbands he contends are (generally) the reason wives feel this resentment in the first place (emphasis mine):

The reason it struck such a viral cord is twofold: First because it did not fit with the progressive women’s agenda that a wife married to a husband unwilling to meet her expectations should just take the high road and love him anyway. Second, because this is one of the hottest sources of frustration for most wives in the modern world.

In the discussion Ken reiterated that he does not see the frustration as emanating from a feminist mindset, but as coming from husbands not helping their wives enough:

I am also not referencing the source of the feminist resentment, but the resentment felt by a wife who feels frazzled with a home, with a brood to manage, while feeling her husband is not helping her enough.

In the discussion Ken does leave open the possibility that an individual husband might not be sinning if his wife feels this resentment, but his general thrust in both the post and in the discussion is for the husband to do more of whatever work his wife identifies as the source of her resentment.

What Ken has misunderstood is the true source of the resentment.  The resentment does not come from an excess of work or an unfair distribution of work, but envy of men.  This is why women who haven’t overcome this envy will complain bitterly no matter how much better they have it than their husbands.  He may be doing dirty, backbreaking, dangerous work, but he isn’t stuck being a woman like she is.  It isn’t the work, but what the work represents to her.  The problem is that the work reminds her that she is a woman.

This is why during the height of World War II Margaret Sanger understood that the women in her audience would identify with a resentful wife who complained about being “trapped” caring for a young child while her husband had the good fortune to be fighting in Europe.  Sanger knew that this would resonate with women, because the reality of the respective lots of the man and woman are entirely irrelevant:

…now the wife.. who was really just a girl.. was feeling trapped and rebellious. She loved her baby ↑of course↓ , and well she might, because he was a beautiful child, but she was beginning to feel very bitter toward her husband because she said that she could tell from his letters that he was actually enjoying the ↑excitement of↓ war! Already he had been to Iceland, England, Africa, and Italy! Oh, she was willing to admit there were plenty of hardships connected with it… but what had she been doing all this long while? Just staying home day after day minding the baby! “When he gets home,” she told me, “he can just sit with the baby for a while and see what it’s like. I’m going out and have some fun!”

I could see her point of view… what woman couldn’t? You don’t have to be a war bride to feel trapped… many a house-wife gets that feeling just watching her husband go off to the office every morning while she stays home facing the same meals, dishes, and children. How many divorces have their beginnings in just this very feeling of imprisoned futility?

What Sanger calls “imprisoned futility”, Betty Friedan called “The Problem That Has No Name”.  This is absolutely a feminist feeling, and was the battle cry that launched the modern feminist movement.

In his post Ken describes a situation from their own marriage many years ago that echoes the common pattern.  Ken was working sixty hour weeks and frequently had to travel for business.  When he was home he helped with some of the housework, but not all of it.  Lori would be generally happy when he was home, but once he went on the road other women would start whispering discontentment in her ears*:

I was talking to a friend today and she told me that you really should be helping me more. What I need is more help. My friend’s and sisters’ husbands help their wives more.

It is important to realize that no matter how much Ken had helped, these women whispering in Lori’s ear wouldn’t have stopped.  No amount of washing dishes would have made them stop tempting his wife into feminist envy and rebellion.  And no amount of vacuuming would have made the envy go away.  When wives feel this way they think they can sooth the discontent by forcing their husbands to experience the shame they have in being a woman.  They think that by making him vacuum, dust, change diapers, or whatever, they will transfer the consuming feeling of resentment from themselves to their husbands**.  But the source of the misery is in the woman’s own rejection of being a woman, in her own heart, not in anything inherent to the work itself.  This is why it only makes wives more miserable when their husbands cheerfully do these very easy tasks.  They wanted to make him suffer, to feel the shame (in their minds) of being a woman, but maddeningly he feels no such thing.

You can test all of this by offering suggestions to the next woman who complains to you that her husband doesn’t do enough housework.  My wife hears this complaint from other Christian wives all of the time.  Each time she starts by giving them time to explain why their no good husband isn’t doing enough around the house.  Then my wife offers suggestions that don’t involve the wife assuming authority over her husband and making him do work the the woman (falsely) believes is humiliating.  For women with children old enough to help, she advises having the children do more of the housework.  Other times she will identify time consuming work the woman is focusing on which could just as well be left undone.  In other cases she will suggest ways to get a “problem” job done that better frees up her day (cooking with a crock pot, etc).  The response is always the same, because the issue is not about the woman having too much work.  Invariably once the discussion turns toward solutions that don’t involve making the husband do more housework, the women lose all interest in the conversation.

*Note that even though Ken is telling wives not to nurse their resentment, he is at the same time whispering in their ears that a husband who doesn’t meet their expectations is sinning.  He says don’t feel resentment, while confirming their suspicions that their husband is the source of the problem.  In doing this second part he is inadvertently playing the same role with the women who read his wife’s blog that her friends and sisters played while he was away on business.

**This is very similar to the feminist impulse to dress men as women.

Posted in Armchair Husbands, Attacking headship, Envy, Fatherhood, Margaret Sanger, Marriage, Miserliness, Rebellion, Submission, Ugly Feminists, Whispers | 301 Comments

Giving us what we love.

The Country duo Florida Georgia Line has a new worship song* out that raced to number 1 on the Billboard Country chart.  The song is titled H.O.L.Y. and is dedicated to praising their savior:

You’re holy, holy, holy, holy
I’m high on loving you, high on loving you
You’re holy, holy, holy, holy
I’m high on loving you, high on loving you

You made the brightest days from the darkest nights
You’re the river bank where I was baptized
Cleansed from the demons
That were killing my freedom

However, the savior they are worshiping in the song is not God but their wives.

That such a song would have instant success should come as no surprise.  It feeds ancient temptations in both women and men, temptations which our present age has magnified by declaring them virtues.  Going all the way back to the fall, women have been tempted to be like God, and men have been tempted to follow woman instead of God.

Secular reviewers note that the song seems inappropriate in the way that it replaces God with a woman.  The Rolling Stone writes:

…Tyler Hubbard kicked off the prayer about a woman so perfect she turns dark into light and reminds him of a baptism they’re together. The mix of Christian imagery and hooking up is most likely a little over-the-line for devoutly religious fans (“Let me lay you down, give it to ya / Get you singing babe, hallelujah”)

Saving Country Music writes:

…but don’t let anybody tell you this song is religious. If anything, it might be sacrilege.

However, I wasn’t able to find any Christian sources calling out the song.  Perhaps I wasn’t using the right search terms, or perhaps the song hasn’t yet caught the attention of Christian leaders.

While I wouldn’t be surprised if Christian leaders eventually do denounce the song, it is worth noting that the song is drawing on themes deeply rooted in modern Christian teaching and culture.  Worshiping wives is especially common in conservative Christian culture, and a wife’s sexual attraction and feelings of romantic love (or lack thereof) towards her husband are considered a direct signal from God regarding a man’s righteousness.  Ultimately this kind of theology, both in pop culture and from Christian teachers, is provided to us because it is what we love.

*H/T Robert

Posted in Envy, New Morality, Rebellion, Romantic Love, Ugly Feminists, Wife worship | 94 Comments

Are you man enough to wear a Hillary pantsuit?

Two years ago Perrie Samotin at Stylecaster complained in Urban Outfitters Offends Again With Sexist Hillary Clinton ‘Nutcracker’:

The supposedly funny toy—a brilliant women with serious political ambition, ha ha—is rocking a pantsuit, and features packaging with some messaging like “Is America ready for this nutcracker?” while informing shoppers the gag gift has “stainless steel thighs” and that it “cracks the toughest nuts.”

Translation: Hillary is a ball-buster who emasculate men—a damaging message to send to the world about the person who may become the first female President of the United States, no?

Fast forward two years, and Hillary has made the pantsuit her campaign icon.  Hillary has fully embraced the (visual) image of the ugly feminist.  But Hillary’s ugly feminism runs much deeper, which is why the campaign is compelled to dress a man in a pantsuit tee.

Formally connecting Hillary the candidate with:

  1. A visual reminder that feminist women are proud to be unattractive.
  2. The emasculation of men.

is of course not helpful for the campaign.  This isn’t about winning voters, but about an ugly feminist compulsion.  But what do I know?  I’ve never walked a mile in her pantsuit.

Related:  How to be a hero.

Posted in Feminist Territory Marking, Hillary Clinton, Social Justice Warriors, Ugly Feminists, You can't make this stuff up | 51 Comments

Father’s Day doublethink.

A few weeks before Father’s Day the Mirror picked up a post by married* mommyblogger Constance Hall: Mum’s heartfelt post reveals 7 ‘facts’ about single mothers which people keep getting wrong.  Hall closes with:

7. They don’t want your husbands

They didn’t spend all this time getting rid of theirs and supporting their kids and working their arses off to have to wake up next to your farting, snoring, horny delight. He is all yours.

Hall is basing her argument on something the women reading understand from observing reality;  single mothers (as a group) deliberately ejected the father of their children from the home.  She then uses this well known fact to try to deny the risk that married women intuitively understand, that such women are on the prowl for a replacement man.  The problem of course is not her assertion that single mothers (as a group) ejected the father from the home, but her claim that this indicates the woman is “done with men”.  Such women aren’t done with men, they are merely in between steps on the path of serial monogamy.  Having it all means sticking the landing.

But while everyone knows single motherhood is caused by mothers ejecting the father from the home, everyone also knows that broken homes are caused by fathers running out on their families.  This brings us from the pre Father’s Day defense of single mothers at the Mirror to the Father’s Day Op Ed piece by Rich Cohen at the LA Times**:

With the adoption of no-fault laws, the U.S. divorce rate doubled between 1967 and 1985. In my junior high school years, every father and every mother were fighting in every kitchen. Every road trip was tense. Every kid was being raised by a single parent. No one could go out on Saturday because it was “my father’s weekend,” which meant an awkward stay with the old man and new girlfriend in an apartment downtown — apartments that always smelled like fresh paint.

…[Mick Jagger] personified that greater tide of coupling and uncoupling and begetting and going away. Mick was not my father — he was our father. He stood for all the wayward fathers, all those randy middle-aged men living in a crash pad on Grand Street; for all those who refused to behave like adults or function as parents.

Does Mick Jagger, who, as a great-grandfather, will be celebrated by three  generations of descendants, deserve William Jackson Smart’s special day? What about all those other boomer dads who took off because they fell out of love? (“Hey man, it happens.”) How do you honor fathers who refused to behave like fathers? Do they merit the gift cards, the neckties and spice racks made in shop class?

See Also:  Fatherless Doublethink.

*Hall’s post is a simultaneous defense of destructive behavior and a subtle reminder to single mothers that as a married mother she outranks them.

**H/T MrTeebs

Posted in Cracks in the narrative, Disrespecting Respectability, Doublethink, Father's Day, Having it all, Motherhood, Serial Monogamy, Status of marriage, Turning a blind eye, Ugly Feminists | 100 Comments