If you glance at the right side bar, you may quickly ascertain that my previous two posts about Doug Philips and Vision Forum are right up there among the most read. This was, in part, driven by some who want to cast me as a defender of things I do not actually defend. If you take the time to scroll through the comments, or look at posts like this one, you may see that some folks got the idea that I was somehow blaming the young lady involved, which was not the case at all. How could I do that? I dont know the facts. Right now, just about all I know comes from Doug Philips public accusation of himself.
When I used the example of Samson and Delilah, I was no more saying that she was being a Delilah than I was saying that Doug Philips was appointed by God as a judge in Israel. My point there was simply that men can be really stupid whenever they think they are bullet proof. That is the only thing I was asserting.
But what my objectors may have been picking up on, in between the lines, is my conviction that such a scenario could have been the case. I really do think any number of things might have happened, and dont take sides based on the current politicization of sex. Anybody who knows beforehand how they would vote on a jury based on whether the accused is male or female needs to be kept away from juries.
Proverbs 18:17 might someday become my life verse. Until you know what happened, you dont know what happened. The world being the way it is, Philips might have been a creepy predator, preying on a dazzled and overwhelmed homeschool girl. Or, the world being what it is, she might have been a little vixen who saw her main chance. In short, she may have been a victim, she may have been a co-conspirator, or she may have been any number of other possibilities in between.
Sometimes the woman is responsible. Think Potiphars wife. Sometimes the man is. Think Amnon with Tamar. Sometimes they both are. Think David and Bathsheba, or Samson and Delilah.
Sometimes they are both responsible, but for completely different sins. Suppose a nubile young ninny put on a halter top and miniskirt and walked across the bad part of town at two in the morning. If I came to the conclusion that she was being a buxom little idiot, this would in no way be a defense of the evil dudes who saw something they wanted, and an easy opportunity for getting it. No, I would want a police chief to treat them like the evil men they are, but liberals would actually rather vote in a mayor like De Blasio. Maybe they want things to get really dangerous again so they can resume their much-missed take back the night rallies. Candles, not cops!
When Emily Yoffe recently wrote that college women should protect themselves from sexual assault by refraining from getting drunk, the response she got from the worked up world of feminism would make you think she proposed repealing the 19th Amendment. She was interpreted as blaming the victim.
Important notice to watchblog groups: I am not in any way arguing that the young woman in the Vision Forum scandal has ever worn a halter top, or a miniskirt, or has gotten drunk, or is a place-holder for Potiphars wife.
Unless we know, we dont know. But in any case, on any accounting, Philips was the one who was responsible to be responsible, and he is therefore the one who has no one else to blame when his ministry is blown to smithereens. If you can take this position and turn it into a blame the victim narrative, be my guest. But let me stand back a few steps, because when the creative juices of that amperage start to flow, no telling what might happen.
Nobody can play blame the victim yet because we do not yet know if there even was a victim. There could well be . . . but the facts, as they actually happened, and which we do not yet have, matter.
But this brings me to the main point, which is the double standard that liberals like to bring to all such matters. Not only do they have a double standard, but it is one they have soaked in lighter fluid and set on fire, so we can always find it in the night time.
Let me give two examples. When it comes to questions like getting an abortion, or initiating sexual relations with a fellow high school sophomore, or watching government approved porn for sex-ed classes, or coming out as homosexual, liberals want young teenagers to be treated as responsible adults. But then, if someone in authority make a pass at them, instead of slapping his face good and hard, like a responsible adult, the liberal assumes that a teenager has to be a terrified victim of authoritarian lust that cannot be denied. But if they are an adult, then they should be treated that way all the time. If they need guidance and protection (as I believe), then they need it all the time. You cant switch the need for oversight on and off, depending on the politics of the thing.
But that kind of thing requires preparation. Fathers have a responsibility to bring up daughters who respect themselves. That is what true patriarchy is after not craven women, easily manipulated. Perhaps one day I may tell you the story of what happened when Rachel was a teen, and somebody did something entirely inappropriate, and she mushed an ice cream cone in his face. Thats my girl.
The second example comes from the fact that some people have resumed quoting my comments from Fidelity, wherein I observed that sexual congress involves penetration. This generated howls of outrage and dismay, as though I was preparing the way for broader public acceptance of rape. What I was actually doing in that section of the book was explaining and countering the demented genesis of rape fantasies. When you deny nature, the result will somehow be unnatural.
The secularists and feminists may huff and blow, and pretend that we dont have a problem with demented self-loathing fantasies, but all I would do is point to the bestselling 50 Shades of Hypocrisy.
So get this. The people who would yell the loudest about a creational authority and submission in the marriage bed, grounded in mutual love and respect, saying that such a medieval notion is toxic for women such people have their own issues. Shall I illustrate?
Suppose we went out and found some old school missionary who wanted to insist on the missionary position for everybody. Without defending his views, I nevertheless guarantee that he would be mercilessly harangued as an oppressor of women, and a hazard to the public weal. However, comma, if that same man changed direction suddenly, lurching, shall we say, and started writing about fur-lined handcuffs, blindfolds, and slapping the bitch around to put her in her place, we could probably find a place for him on the New York Times best seller list. And if he got himself some bling and an over-sized white windbreaker, shot a few people, and put a seething hatred of women into metrical rhyme, we could probably get him an invite to an Obama fundraiser.
Just the other day I came out of Target, where I saw a well-stocked row of that 50 Shades misogynistic crap, alongside the knock-offs, being bought up by the kind of people who want to explore alternative sexualities in between their lectures on how traditional Christians mistreat women. This is why some enterprising neologifier coined words for us like puh-leeeze.
And if you have a problem with my use of the word bitch in the example, I will simply ask where that word is found more often in your bookstores or ours? In your greeting cards or ours? In your conversations or ours? In your rap music or ours? I dont ever talk that way, but I sometimes have to write about people who do. And the people who do often have a pretty sweet double game going.
Take in the obvious, and run a little thought experiment. Take 100 women who have complained about my Mablogian misogyny in the comments here, or who would agree with any such comments. Now take 100 women who are in my corner, who like what I write and so on. In which group would you find a higher percentage of women who had bought and read 50 Shades of Grey? In which group would you find a higher percentage of women who have been called a bitch by an angry husband or boy friend? In which group would you find a higher percentage of women who had been physically abused by a man close to them?
And no, if I may anticipate an objection, the point is not that such women deserve what they are getting. They do not. The point is that perhaps such women are not the most reliable guides on identifying and avoiding men who really are misogynistic jerks. The one who is lost in the woods may not be the best one to ask about how to avoid getting lost yourself. She may not have the best grasp of what the actual predictors are.
And no, if I may anticipate another objection right after the first one, the point is not that the percentage among conservative Christian women would zero. I know what it is like to be involved in church discipline against a man who wont treat his wife with decency and respect. My point that conservative Christians do a better job of actually protecting women than those who do not fear God.
We live in a screwed up world, and women do need to be protected. Overwhelmingly, they need to be protected from men. I believe that godly men need to step up and assume that role of protector, and I also believe that it is a high form of treachery for a man entrusted with that role to turn into someone a woman needs protection from. I believe that Doug Philips taught that men should be dragon-fighters, but that in this instance, he became the dragon instead. The woman may have wanted him to do that, or she may have tried to resist it. But it doesnt matter.
In either case, to try to turn my hatred of this kind of sin into a wink and a nod among the patriarchal good old boys takes a special kind of talent. Fortunately for their little cottage industry, it is the kind of talent that certain watchblogs have in abundance.