When Feminists Turn the Immoral into the Illegal:

The first wave feminist Prohibitionists pushed to make alcohol illegal, and when they succeeded, it became more and more obvious the problems and corruption that occurred with trying to treat the immorality of being drunk as the crime of consuming liquor. Now the 4th wave feminists have their own version of Prohibition, trying to make more and more of what is sexually immoral into what is illegal, without regard to the corruption of justice that can occur when you try to make every immoral thing illegal.

I've said that the church needs to care about feminist perversions of justice, even when those areas of justice are dealing with the results of sexual sin. It is morally wrong for a man to leer at a woman? Yes. Should it be illegal? If so, as a woman, would you argue that you should never be the object of male visual sexual attention? If not, then how do you legally delineate the male visual sexual attention you accept and enjoy from the male visual sexual attention you don’t? How do you prove that a man was leering at you, as opposed to merely noticing you? Making leering illegal smacks of an attempt to sanitize life to only experience the good but not the bad that sometimes comes with the good.

Is it morally wrong for a sober man to have sex with a tipsy woman? Yes. Should it be illegal since a tipsy/drunk woman may not give the same consent as she would when sober? If so, why do our laws acknowledge that a drunk person is legally responsible for their actions when they get in a car or when they display disorderly behavior in public?

The consequence of feminists wanting to turn all of what is sexually immoral into being illegal is that it brings an excessive amount of subjectivity into the picture, and requires proof of what cannot be proven, and requires double standards and inconsistency between one set of laws to the next. In the absence of any concrete proof, a woman can say that she felt leered at, and/or can say that she did not provide consent and a man is in the de facto position of proving his innocence.

This makes the question of sexual harassment, assault and even rape into something that is too easily exploited by unscrupulous women who can game the system against men, as in the case of this video about what is going on in Israel. Every false cry of rape serves to dilute and pollute the quest for justice of those who truly have been raped.
This is a consequence of feminists only seeing the immorality of male sexual misbehavior but not that of female misbehavior and female responsibility and agency. It is also a consequence of the failure of feminists to affirm masculinity as something intrinsically good that requires cultural space for strong men to guide other men into right behavior. Lacking this, they look to ever more stringent laws to punish male misbehavior.

The Imploding World of Non-Committal Sex

This is a developing argument of mine: Secular Humanism has proven itself as failed a guide to sexual ethics and morality. Feminism is Secular Humanism applied to gender and sexuality.
As others (like my friend Sako) have said, sex cannot be sacred unless there is some higher truth giving it sacredness. When the higher truth, the spiritual structure of reality as God has created and designed it, is denied through secularism, sex is profaned, and someone can try to conceive of the idea of “casual sex”. In truth, sex is not casual nor was it designed to be done outside of commitment. You can have non-committal sex, but never casual sex, and you cannot have non-committal sex that is both fun and safe and you cannot ever have non-committal sex that produces any lasting happiness, since any temporary "fun" of non-committal sex will come at a price of sadness sooner or later.
This is becoming a more and more inescapable for the “sex positive” 2nd wave and 3rd wave feminists, pick up artists, and the 4th wave feminists who are trying to control "casual sex" and mitigate its inherent emotional damage by making ever more stringent legal and often ridiculous standards for consent. What all of these have in common is that they are all secular humanists who all bought into "casual sex". The culture of non-committal sex was never safe physically and emotionally, and is becoming less safe legally by the day for pick up artists. What one writer wrote many years ago about std's in the porn industry, “recess is over in the playpen of the damned", is applicable to the crumbling edifice of "casual sex".
You can’t have the fun of sex without mystery and spontaneity / you can’t have spontaneity without non-verbal forms of consent/ you can’t have non-verbal consent without trust / you can’t have trust without commitment/ and you cannot hold to any of this if you do not recognize that there is a higher spiritual truth that makes sex sacred.

What is a "housewife"?

I have realized that we need to challenge the 2^nd wave feminist term “housewife”.   It was a way for the 2^nd wave feminists to try to claim that they still thought it was ok to be a “wife” while looking down on a “housewife” who stayed home and took care of the home.  To be a wife meant you could still conquer the world with your husband, but to be a mere “housewife” was to settle for mediocrity in life, anonymity to history, limited horizons and petty domestic concerns.  Trying to separate “wife” from “housewife” was part and parcel with the lie that a woman’s career was going to make her happy and that having a career would not detract in any way from the full experience and title of being wife and mom.

One of the more common mundane points of conflict in marriages that try to be egalitarian is that the career woman and career man both come home and have house work to do.  The woman, most often, has much higher standards of cleanliness and neatness.  If you are not living in denial of male and female nature, you understand that this is a nesting instinct that is normally part of a woman’s nature. When a woman operates on her nesting instinct but does not admit it in a marriage that is trying to be egalitarian, she ends up being frustrated that her husband is not pulling his weight cleaning the house, and that she is working the equivalent of a “second job” to do it.   The woman is frustrated that her man does not automatically comprehend her standards, and the man is frustrated that his masculinity is belittled as he is berated for not having her standards.  It is the way of the world, particularly in business, that the person who cares the most intensely about something being done in a certain ends up being the one doing it.

The need for the dual career family has a lot to do with a lifestyle choice that puts a premium on having a spacious place to live and living in the “right” neighborhood.  There is not a bigger lie that having a more spacious place to live makes anyone happier.  Frontier House was a show where families from the 21^st century lived for a few months like they were in 1860s’ frontier in Montana.  One family admitted that they were happier living together in the small cabin during their months on Frontier House than they were living in their large, lavish house in California.   

The related lie is that you need to have lots of money to pay for expensive education so that your kids can “get ahead”.  If you achieve peace, stability, love and mental stimulation in the home, the kids will carry that throughout their lives.  If you fail to achieve it at home, your kids won’t find it at an expensive school.

A married couple that cannot live happily on a single income often belies a quest for material pleasure and ego at the expense of lasting relational joy between husband and wife.  When the woman makes the home her first priority it allows for a complementarian distribution of labor between husband and wife that helps avoid the conflict caused by one gender's expectations projected onto the other.  And the family dollar will go farther with someone devoted to cooking and not eating as much convenience food. 

So we need to challenge the false housewife/wife dichotomy of 2^nd wave feminism.  I assert that if your woman does not have taking care of the home – the food, the upkeep, the children – as her first priority, then she is not your wife.  She may be your spouse, partner, significant other, your live-in lover, but she is not your wife. If your woman has a job that your family needs to pay the bills because you are out of temporarily out of work that she could quit tomorrow because her home is her priority then she is your wife.  If she has a career, then you are in a polyamorous relationship, and her career is her other lover and priority.

Ideology U

It is becoming clearer that universities, for the most part, have been hijacked by Leftism. They have been hijacked intellectually, and increasingly hijacked physically.
There is not going to be one silver bullet solution to this issue, but it will take several approaches. Encouraging alternative paths than college is certainly one of the solutions. Universities also need to be transformed from within and without.
Anything other than a hard science like chemistry and math is going to be prone to be heavily affected by the ideology by those who publish and who teach. This does not mean that there is not academic value in examining social phenomena or in trying to apply scientific discipline to social studies. But it does mean that an ideology-free social science is a myth. It is un-achievable even if it is noble to strive for it. A “soft” science is soft precisely because it is prone to be affected by the ideology of the person conducting the study.
The problem is when a university only favors only one ideology while being in denial that it is favoring it. This is what happens when the university operates in the falsehood that the unattainable ideal of non-ideological social science is their academic reality. The result of this myopia is that a university allows itself to be hijacked by a dominant ideology.
When it comes to gender studies departments that are strongholds of feminist leftism on university campuses that poison college-going young people, a university should lose its federal funding and its donor support unless it either dumps these departments or creates ideological balance between left and non-left positions.

Feminism vs Biblical Justice

As secular feminism has pressed the church, much of the church has caved into the moral framework of secular feminism resulting the distortion of true Christianity into Feminist Christianity.  The church must work to confront the distortions that have occurred within the church as it works to understand how the forces causing that distortion are at work in the world at large.   Those who correctly identify and meet the challenge that the church is facing will be those who clarify the truth of Scripture against the distortions of feminism so that the church will be able to remain firm in the truth.

Rabid 4^th wave Feminist Social Justice Warrior culture is a weed with very deep roots in our wider culture.  While there may be examples of patently ridiculous SJW behavior that has been the subject of “SJW Fails” videos online, the breadth and depth of the 4^th wave feminist SJW mentality should not be underestimated.  The vitroilic 4th wave feminism of today is a direct heir of feminism past and of a host of related secular philosophies.  If you are pastor it has likely permeated your church to one degree or another.

By attributing the misery of women to the “patriarchy”, feminists have not been honest with the moral agency of women and the complicity of women in the world in all of its warts and flaws past and present.   So feminists have been promoting gynocracy and the moral infantilizing of women in the name of promoting their “rights”, holding women as less responsible than they actually are relative to men.

When Jesus met the Samaritan women at the well, he was engaged in an act of social justice that is consistent with Scripture.  Jesus broke down a social barrier between Jews and Samaritans that needed to be broken in order to advance the gospel, to advance the worship of God in Spirit and in Truth.

SJW’s frame the past as that of their victimization at the hands of the group they hold responsible, and believe that this is only righted by victimizing the victimizers.  They have granted themselves the presumed moral superiority to dispense vengeance in the name of “justice”.  So while the fruit of Biblical social justice is the advancement of the Gospel and the Kingdom of God, the fruit of godless SJW social justice is further injustice.

SJW’s have an ends justify the means mentality to advance their ungodly and unholy concept of justice, which ends up sacrificing the very core of justice in its purest and simplest sense; that of judicial impartiality.  As surely as Scripture condemns dishonest weights and measures in the marketplace, so too does it condemn dishonest weights and measures in regard to jurisprudence.  It is a very basic and very ancient concept of morality and law. This is why the church needs to stand with those who speak out against the feminism that has permeated the judiciary that is more and more treating men and women with different weights and measures in court.

Feminism and the Shame Scepter

Shame is a reality of every culture.  It expresses the norms and values of a culture.  It can be expressed overtly or covertly and with varying degrees of harshness, but it is always there.

When someone publically calls out others for “body shaming” them, they are not truly against the use of shame.  Rather they want to counter-shame those are trying to shame them for having an unattractive/non-normal body.  It is an attempt to re-direct the values of the culture away from the value of maintaining attractive appearance, athleticism and health and toward the value of being sensitive toward the feelings of others for their non-conforming bodies.

When a group of people has the power to shame others, they have what I will call the “shame scepter”.   When a woman dresses immodestly in public, she is holding the shame scepter that feminism has given her.  Her power to shame those who would call her out on being immodest is more powerful than those who would try to shame her for being immodest.  It happens in a society where the value for her freedom of choice and sexual freedom is more important than considering the sexual power that her body has on others.   The shame scepter goes where the values of the culture go and shifts where the values of the culture shift.

Feminists are particularly skilled at wielding shame and have held the shame scepter for many decades. Feminists deny male and female nature, and at the same time never call out women for being too sensitive toward their real and felt needs, only men.  Feminists will shame men for being insensitive to women when men stand in the way of women’s felt needs.  At the same time feminists will shame men for being too sensitive when men stand up for their felt needs.    So feminists use the shame scepter to simultaneously deny masculinity and exploit masculinity into supporting feminism.

The latest incident with theWonder Woman movie was the theater provoking a reaction from certain men, and the feminist left using the shame scepter that they wield back on those men.

Feminism and the Quest for Superman

During the height of 3^rd wave feminism in the ‘90’s there was a song by Paula Cole, Where have All the Cowboys Gone whose lyrics said “…where is my John Wayne, where is my prairie sun, where have all the cowboys gone?”.   In this song “Cowboy” and “John Wayne” are codes for men, real men of a bygone age.  The song is asking “where have all the men gone?”  The answer is that feminists, including Paula Cole, drove the real men away, and left a landscape where only simps, strivers and supermen can occupy.

Underneath rosy sounding ideas of equality, Feminism is premised on the inevitable failure of men toward women, and becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy.    Feminism encourages women to be masculine, physically tough, able to provide for themselves, and verbally aggressive.  Underneath the red-herring idea of “equality” is the underlying idea that women need to be all these things because they can’t rely on men.  

It is part of God’s design that men desire to provide, protect and lead in a marriage.  God has designed women to desire those things in men, and admire men who are able to do those things and have contempt for men who don’t.  Part of the lie of feminism is that women can be reliant on themselves and at the same time have emotional space left over for a man to occupy that will be truly satisfying to both her and the man.  It is part of the lie that a woman can have a hard-charging career, while delegating childcare duties to a nanny and/or house-husband and still fully satisfy all that is involved in being mom.

There are many things in life that will help you survive but will inhibit you from thriving.  If you were to save every penny and never go out on the town, it would inhibit your ability to relate to people which is part of what is necessary to make real money.  If you were to stay off the snow slopes in fear of hurting your knee, you would never enjoy snowboarding.   The same principle applies to feminism – the actions that feminist women take to survive men failing them keep them from enjoying the best of who men are designed to be for them.

After a feminist woman has tried to make herself tough as nails, there is no real room in her life for a man to occupy.  And so you have feminist women in conflict with themselves – the feminist in a feminist woman and the woman in a feminist woman seek diametrically opposed things, and the things that will satisfy the woman in the woman won’t satisfy the feminist and vice versa.  And only a superman can save her by sweeping her off her feet –by being so emotionally and financially dominant that she backs down from her feminism and allows the man to provide, protect and lead like a traditional husband.

Any other type of man who tries to occupy the paltry emotional space over to him will be a man who she does not truly admire.  The latter man is either a simp who has been brainwashed by feminism into thinking that he should occupy a smaller space than was intended for a man to occupy, OR he is a striver who has taken on the misguided challenge of thinking that he can be a superman to her when he cannot.   As for the simp, she will never admire him and will engage in emotional affairs or worse with more with men who enter her life who appear more manly. As for the striver who believes he eventually can over-come the feminism in the woman to occupy the place of the traditional man – he is destined to resent and be in conflict with the woman when it is clear that he is not superman.

I remember when Cheryl Crow was with Lance Armstrong years ago back before it was known that he was doping.  Cheryl Crow said at the time that she was now going to allow herself to submit to a man.  I thought to myself at the time that for the many modern, feminist women out there like Cheryl Crow, you would have be a Lance Armstrong – a superman -- to be worthy of being treated as a traditional husband.  Of course, the story of Lance Armstrong is of a man who burned his relationships, reputation, fortune and quite possibly his health trying to turn himself from man into superman.

It is also telling that when 2^nd wave feminism entered the mainstream of our culture in the ‘70’s the G.I Joe dolls for boys went from being normally proportioned men to being super-muscular men.   Men’s desire to be superman in fantasy when they cannot be in reality is proportional to the feminism in society at large.

When a whole society is organized around feminism, our institutions weaken men while encouraging women to be independent and tough to protect themselves from weak men, while teaching men that something is defective with them unless they are supermen who can sweep feminist women off their feet.