Category Archives: Feminism

Some Unpopular Thoughts

Nothing long today, but I’ve had a few ideas on my mind that I haven’t developed enough to write about, but which I don’t want to lose. They aren’t necessarily related.

  1. Breast Cancer Awareness is a bad model for medicine. It has us focus our thoughts not on diseases which are most easy to treat, or diseases which affect the most people, but on diseases which have the most money spent on advertising. As one of the oldest “awareness” campaigns, it also has the distinction of being a pillar of that terrible substitute for character building and the pursuit of accomplishment. At least with breast cancer, being aware can cause one to make good medical decisions. But who, at this point, is unaware of it? And how many things can we really be aware of simultaneously?

  2. While men go out and do cool stuff like circumnavigate the globe, fly across the ocean, go into space, coach football teams, build skyscrapers, and fight wars, it seems that women prefer not to be the first to do anything except to be the first women who do what men already do. I suspect the deep envy that’s at the poisoned heart of feminism is largely responsible.

  3. While I think racism is real and bad, I don’t think sexism is real at all. I used to. I probably did even a couple years ago. But now I can’t see any reason to accept the concept.

    Sexism, according to those who use it, is when you treat someone differently because of their sex (some may say “poorly”, but I’ve never actually seen anyone limit it to that). But unlike racism, every single family on earth has representatives of both sexes in it. Our sexual differences are real, but if we exist for more than one generation, they are also unavoidable in our lives. We all have a mother and a father. So unlike racism, which is often from clashes between cultures, “sexism” – the difference in treatment one has for men and women – never has a chance not to exist.

    I think instead, sexism is feminism’s attempt to hijack an actual problem (racism) and use it to paint genuine sexual differences pink. That is, men and women naturally treat the same and opposite sexes differently (if you are a Christian, by design and if you are a naturalist, then by nature). Among the lies beneath feminism are the contradictory pair that men and women aren’t really different and also that women are superior to men. “Sexism”, really, is just when someone disagrees with either of these claims in word or deed.

    Related to this, I think the word “sexism” is a great example of how much power someone has when they control language. That one word has enabled radical feminism to alter conservative thought, such that conservatives now speak out of both sides of their mouths, affirming “traditional gender* norms and roles” on the one side, but then decrying any actual differences in gender norms and roles as “sexism” right alongside the radical feminists**.

    * I use “gender” and “sex” interchangeably, because in a language like English which doesn’t have gendered nouns, they are interchangeable. Don’t fall for the myth that they are different. “Gender” is just the Victorian-style polite way to say “sex” when referring to male/female instead of the act.

    ** A fun game to play with those who claim to be genuinely conservative is to ask them first “Do you think men and women are different?” and when they inevitably answer “yes”, ask them “What things should only men do and what things should only women do?”. Note “should”, not “can” (this bypasses the obvious child-birthing answer). If they answer ambiguously (e.g. “only men can be fathers”), ask them to distinguish further (e.g. “so what should only fathers do?”)

The Most Controversial Thing

Today, something short.

I used to be pretty prolific on social websites and would, several times a day, break the modern taboo and write scathing and inflammatory things about politics and religion. However, I reflected a while today and realized none of that stuff was anywhere near as controversial as The Most Controversial Thing.

What would that be? It’s the thing that cost me friendships. It ruined relationships with family members. It got me condemned by people I love and respect. It got me uninvited from all sorts of events.

The Most Controversial Thing? It’s simple: any genuinely good advice for women in their 20’s.

Suggest, for example, that young women find ways to be stay-at-home mom’s and prepare for that. Suggest that working in an office doing mundane office tasks is nowhere near as important as mothering children. Suggest that young women don’t sleep around and instead work hard at being the kind of woman that the sort of man they wish to marry would want to marry. Suggest that young women prepare for marriage and not life-long careers, because few women really want that. Suggest that women don’t travel abroad and take out a quarter-million in student loan debt. Suggest women avoid worthless degrees and 4 years of being indoctrinated to hate their church and their parents.

Make any of those suggestions and prepare to feel the wrath of everyone – “conservative”, “independent”, and liberal alike.

Conserving Feminism

The whole modern world has divided itself into Conservatives and Progressives. The business of Progressives is to go on making mistakes. The business of Conservatives is to prevent mistakes from being corrected. Even when the revolutionist might himself repent of his revolution, the traditionalist is already defending it as part of his tradition.  – GK Chesterton

The headline and captions caught me off-guard, and it took me a moment to realize I was reading Ben Shapiro and Matt Walsh. From Shapiro’s Daily Wire:

Joe Biden: It’s Okay To Hit A Woman If It’s In Self-Defense

Democrat presidential candidate Joe Biden suggested during Wednesday night’s presidential debate on MSNBC that it was okay to hit a woman as long as it was in self-defense.

“Yes, and by the way, it’s one of the reasons the first thing I would do is make sure we pass the Violence Against Women Act re-authorization,” Biden responded. “The fact is, what happens now is we in fact have to fundamentally change the culture, the culture of how women are treated. That’s why as Vice President, I asked the president if I could start the movement on the college campuses to say it’s on us, it’s everyone’s responsibility.”

“No man has a right to raise a hand to a woman in anger other than in self-defense,” Biden said, adding, “and that rarely ever occurs.”

The conservative response to Joe Biden wasn’t to point out the contradiction between a feminist lie (i.e. “Women are equal to men.”) and sex-specific laws (i.e. “Women need special treatment”). My more naive self many years ago would have suspected that this was the point of the headline.

Sadly, but not so unexpectedly, it was not the point. Biden is wrong on the data (more men than women suffer physical abuse from their wives and girlfriends), but even that was not the point.

Shapiro and company were condemning Biden not for going too far in his endorsement of feminism, but for not going far enough. Far from pointing out that it would indeed be appropriate to respond to force with a countering force, the conservative position is now that any mention of men physically harming women – even in self-defense – is worthy of ridicule. The Facebook comments on the story were exceptionally revealing, with the occasional “What’s the story here?” drowned out in a sea of mockery toward Biden’s “antiquated” approach. It seems Biden, in suggesting it is appropriate for a man to defend himself against a physically violent women, is too conservative for the conservatives.

I once resisted Chesterton’s assessment of the conservative project, but he was dead on.

Should the Government Recognize Marriage?

A while back in a comment section on another blog, I got into a debate with several other people about the role government ought to play in recognizing marriages. I argued that the government must be involved and was told by others that this was varying degrees of stupid, ignorant, or dangerous. The thrust was that “marriage worked fine before the state got involved” and therefore, the state ought to back off. It was “fantasy” to expect the state to honor and enforce any aspect of marriage, and I was a fool for defending the idea.

Although it might be fashionably libertarian to argue against state interaction with marriage, I don’t think anyone can reasonably defend that case. I think illustrating the situation will help, but first, some explanation.

In the West, there is a strong but recent tradition of radical individualism that sees every individual person as the fundamental unit of the society they live in. The French Revolution gave us the first taste of this, with disastrous consequences. Western tradition has a much longer-lived, deeper, and more attested view of society, however, which views the fundamental unit as the family. Instead of viewing a man, his wife, and their three children (for example) primarily as five equal individuals, this deeper tradition sees one family with a father, a mother, and children. All five are individuals, but not primarily. This is most obvious when it comes to young children, who are fully dependent on their mother and father just to survive each day. To see each person in the family as an interchangeable fundamental unit is laughable.

I think this view of family as fundamental is not just a part of Western civilization, but one of its axioms. I’d go further and say that this is fundamental to civilization itself, but I have not studied the East to the same degree or with the same interest, so I’ll hold back for now.

Marriage is the fundamental relationship within a family because marriage, by nature, bonds a father to a mother, and both a mother and father to their children.

There are two ways that the government can interact with marriage. It can either respect marriage or it can disregard marriage. In the former, the government treats the family as the fundamental unit, and outside of criminal justice, tries to deal with families instead of individuals whenever and wherever possible. The marriage relationship binds the family together, granting legitimacy to the children and – perhaps most importantly – giving the father rights over his own children.

In the latter, the government doesn’t recognize marriage at all, and simply ignores it. It treats all members of the family as atoms.

Here are two diagrams of the models. The irony here is that the people attacking government recognition of marriage are against no-fault divorce, which is exactly what the government ought to embrace if it disregards marriage. But the important thing here is that if you don’t like the government getting involved in your intimate relationships, you are making a grave mistake by inviting the government to ignore marriage relationships. It may sound like the best way to keep the government out of your marriage, but it’s quite the opposite. You all but invite them into your home:


Government involvement with internal family affairs when the government respects marriage.


Government involvement with internal family affairs when the government disrespects marriage.

A Small Game

If you are a Christian and attend church regularly, I have a small game you should play every year.

On Mother’s Day, if the church you attend has a service which honors mothers, you win the game.

On Father’s Day, if the church you attend has a service which honors mothers and tells fathers to man up, you win the game.

I’ve won the game every year since I started keeping track in 2010. Pretending to win something keeps me sane.

Feminist Eisegesis

When you encounter a command in Scripture that you don’t like, you have a few options available to you. You can reject it, accept it, or take a more creative approach and impose a new meaning on it.

Here’s an example of the latter approach.

The passage in question is 1st Corinthians 14:34:

“…women are to be silent in the churches. They are not permitted to speak but must be in submission, as the law says.”

The blogger is upfront about his bias:

It’s embarrassing because it so out of step with our understanding of equality and the value of women in our culture today.

This is a fairly loaded statement, because it implies that if anyone were to take Paul seriously and not try to read his meaning in a way that comports with our post-feminist society, that person doesn’t “value women” or “understand equality”.

He suggests that this statement, if interpreted literally, contradicts Paul’s theology, in particular his statement in Galatians that “… there is no longer… male or female”. This passage is often (ab)used to put a rubber stamp on all of the modern, often intentionally anti-Christian movements to attempt to remove distinctions between men and women. I suggest that it’s an abuse of the text, because Paul isn’t making metaphysical statements; he is saying that the Gospel is for everyone. This is obvious from the context, but if you strip that out, you can make the passage in Galatians into a Marxist toolkit.

If you decide to read the entire post, you’ll note that the author takes into account the history of Corinth, the linguistic circumstances of the day, and pretty much every piece of context that fits his case.

What he neglects, however, is the context of the passage itself as well as any parallel passages. Here’s the passage in full:

As in all the congregations of the saints, women are to be silent in the churches. They are not permitted to speak, but must be in submission, as the law says. If they wish to inquire about something, they are to ask their own husbands at home; for it is dishonorable for a woman to speak in the church.

Did God’s word originate with you? Or are you the only ones it has reached? If anyone considers himself a prophet or spiritual person, let him acknowledge that what I am writing you is the Lord’s command. But if anyone ignores this, he himself will be ignored.

Since these are Christians and Paul is an Apostle who has no problem taking badly behaving Christians to task, Paul could have said “Some women in your churches are misbehaving and talking out of turn, and talking out of turn isn’t good for order, so I do not permit them to do that.” Paul could not have been more clearly not saying that, though.

But it doesn’t stop there. We have a related passage in 1st Timothy 2:

A woman must learn in quietness and full submissiveness. I do not permit a woman to teach or exercise authority over a man; she is to remain quiet. For Adam was formed first, and then Eve. And it was not Adam who was deceived, but the woman who was deceived and fell into transgression. Women, however, will be saved through childbearing, if they continue in faith, love, and holiness, with self-control.

I strongly suspect that the reason this passage was skipped was because Paul explains his rationale here, and it doesn’t fit the blogger’s interpretation. Paul doesn’t say “I do not permit a woman to teach or exercise authority over a man; she is to remain quiet. For your churches have women who are misbehaving”. If that’s what he meant, he easily could have said it. Instead he traces his reasoning to the very nature of man and woman. Eve was deceived and Adam was not – and this is a huge deal.

Finally, there’s this gem summarizes his thoughts, and I think it explains what’s really going on. A feminist, thoroughly imbibing on Marxist toxin, doesn’t like the passages in Scripture that contradict feminism and all his pet liberal causes, so he imposes new meaning on them. At least in this instance, his motive is clearly stated:

Unfortunately, since many of the dominant voices throughout church history, have been straight**, white*, males, this has meant that the church has been slow in pushing past the flimsy exegesis, and damaging assumptions of our past.

Instead of being the sexist, misogynist many have taken him for, I believe that Paul brings the challenge of feminism to the Church.

It’s worth remembering that if this is true, 2000 years of Christians were women-hating, racist, homophobic, sexists  who couldn’t understand Paul. It took secular anti-Christian feminist and sexual revolutions to get the church to finally see the light. Paul was, in his mind, obviously a far-left radical.

What I’d prefer, though, is for those who think all of these things to stop reinterpreting Paul and just say what they really think: Paul was wrong. Honesty is much better than manipulation.

* Most of the early church fathers were not European.

** I bet this blogger would also support the notion that the Bible has nothing meaningful to say about sexual ethics (except those cherry-picked portions that support feminism and egalitarianism). Who knew obedience to Christ’s commands about sexual activity was an unfortunate thing?

Tech Wars

On display today is a series of lies and deceptive statements coming from Ars Technica to maintain credibility with the (leftist) mob. Like many pop culture “magazines”, the content is a kind of distillation of trash and gossip. The end of this article is to describe why one Markus “Notch” Perssons (the creator of Minecraft) was unwelcome at party for the 10th anniversary of his game. Apparently, his comments on Twitter “do not reflect [the opinions] of Microsoft”. Or Ars Technica.

Even before the article begins, the author’s byline says everything we need to know: “Transphobia, homophobia, and racism aren’t Microsoft’s core values”. However, not a single example is provided of any of those things.

So what are Perssons’ comments? We will get to those. What’s fascinating is the author of the article, his legionary horde of commentators, and their response.

For example, Perssons apparently made the comment that people face jail time for “using the wrong pronouns”. The author of the article calls this “false”. Politifact stumbles around like a drunkard trying to explain things away, but even this far-left “fact” checking website admits that there are fines for the California version of this bill. However, Canada has a much more open-ended version of this type of legislation, which can certainly lead to jail time. And then in the UK, someone is facing jail time now for this very thing. The author is on the “right side” of this issue, and so can make bald-faced lies.

Perssons also used a slogan sometimes used by the alt-right: “It’s OK to be white”. If you read the comments, you’ll find a contradiction brewing, but no one seems to notice it. The same people who condemn the statement have a lot of bad things to say about white people, including several oikophobes who say that they are doing well because of their skin color. The comment section is full of nasty things to say about white people, who have the “white privilege” of being subject to the comments and being disbarred from responding, lest they be accused of racism.

The author of the article goes further however, and simply assumes that there are “systemic racial biases and imbalance within Western society” by saying that this isn’t something Perssons merely disagrees with, but that he fails to recognize it. The author is again on the “right side” of the issue. He can make these assumptions because the mob already makes the same ones.

Perssons seems to go too far with this tweet: “If you’re against the concept of a #HeterosexualPrideDay, you’re a complete f****** c*** and deserve to be shot.”, but a glimpse at Twitter of some of the horrific things said by the LGBT+++ crowd against Christians is far, far worse, including real death threats. Such context would not help the case that Perssons is simply an insane person who hates people, so it is not provided.

So where was the “transphobia”, “homophobia”, and “racism” that the author promised was so obvious that Microsoft couldn’t risk being associated with Perssons? The comment section has defenders of the terms claiming that “phobia” doesn’t mean or imply fear, but instead “hate” or “discrimination”. These are open-ended terms that allows anyone who even merely disagrees with the forced celebration of same-sex acts or transgenderism to be called “transphobic” or “homophobic”. These are not useful words to have in a reasoned discussion; they are insults that bullies use to shame people.

There’s a cold war in technology today between those who want the freedom to say what they believe and those who, as part of the fascistic mob, want to destroy the lives and careers of those who disagree with them using lies and deception if necessary. Notch seems to belong to the former, which is a surprise to me. Peter Bright, the latter.