Monthly Archives: August 2015

Where Are the Feminist Harpies Now?

Former Cheerleader-Plea

So a former NFL Cheerleader was recently convicted of having sex with 15-year-old boy. Here’s NBC News:

“The ex-Baltimore Ravens cheerleader who pleaded guilty to having sex with an underage boy she met on social media was sentenced Friday to 48 weekends in jail. Molly Shattuck, 48, appeared to sob as a Delaware judge ordered that she serve every other weekend in jail for two years. The judge also ordered that Shattuck pay the victim’s family $10,650 and register as a sex offender, according to NBC affiliate WBAL. “I will spend the rest of my life making this right,” she said.  The family of the 15-year-old victim told the judge that Shattuck’s actions have been “devastating” for their son, the station reported.”

48 weekends? Really? Just imagine if the genders were switched and you had a 48-year-old man having sex with a 15-year-old girl. Does anyone really think that the man would be sentenced so lightly?

I ask again, where are the feminist harpies shrieking for equality now? I, personally, don’t hear anything. But then again, this is male privilege at work. We live in a patriarchal society where men receive tougher sentences relative to women for the same crime. Men, it’s time to check your privilege.

H/T to Will over at Patriactionary for the story.


That Didn’t Take Long at All…

To many this is probably old news. However, I believe it’s important enough to merit a post two months later. I would have discussed this the day it came out, but I was buried in Bar review. Better late than never, right?

My previous posts on same-sex marriage have dealt with the fact that arguments in favor of same-sex marriage also lead to the justification of other relationships such as polygamy and incest. I’ve been branded a bigot many times for this but I’m sticking to my guns here.

About two months ago, the Supreme Court of the United States legalized same-sex marriage claiming that bans on same-sex marriage denied same-sex couples a fundamental right. I have shown elsewhere how the Supreme Court’s redefinition of marriage during the last 50 years enabled the legalization of same-sex marriage. I also argued that this redefinition logically leads to the legalization of incest and polygamy among other things. Take a look at what the Supreme Court states in the Obergefell v. Hodges case from two months ago.

The nature of marriage is that, through its enduring bond, two persons together can find other freedoms, such as expression, intimacy, and spirituality. This is true for all persons, whatever their sexual orientation

We see that the SCOTUS has not departed too much from its modern definition of marriage. Here, marriage is an enduring bond in which people are free to express themselves, enjoy intimacy and find spirituality. I have no idea where the spirituality comes from; sounds a bit New Age-y to me so I’ll ignore it for now.

The court states that the nature of marriage entails two people though I honestly wonder why it should. Under the traditional definition of marriage, limiting it to two people made sense. Marriage is ultimately about the making and raising of children and it takes two people, a man and a woman, to make and raise them. However, once you strip that foundation away there is no good reason why we should limit it to two people. If marriage is nothing more than a public statement of emotional support and commitment, why should it be limited to two people? Furthermore, describing the nature of marriage as an enduring bond is pretty much a joke when this country makes divorce extremely easy to obtain.

Interestingly, Chief Justice Roberts states, “it’s striking how much of the majority’s reasoning would apply with equal force to the claim of a fundamental right to plural marriage.” This is pretty much what I’ve been saying all along. And almost on cue, an article titled “It’s Time to Legalize Polygamy” popped up on Politico the day after the SCOTUS issued its opinion. The author wrote:

Polyamory is a fact. People are living in group relationships today. The question is not whether they will continue on in those relationships. The question is whether we will grant to them the same basic recognition we grant to other adults: that love makes marriage, and that the right to marry is exactly that, a right.

Substitute the above and with same-sex relationships and you have the argument that same-sex marriage advocates have been making for awhile now. With the current trajectory of American culture, the legalization of polygamy and even incest is just around the corner. But tell me again, how will the legalization of same-sex marriage not lead to to the legalization of these relationships?


A Bunch of Babies

A while back, my wife posted the following on Facebook:

This is a good question, I admit.

This is actually a good question. With the surrounding culture screaming “FAT ACCEPTANCE“, it’s good to get some clarity on issue. Now I expected the question to get some pushback. What I was not prepared for was the passive-aggressiveness and anger that the question generated, especially from among other self-proclaimed Christian women. Here’s one exchange between a self-proclaimed Christian and my wife.

Exchange

I have to ask, when did Christianity become so flaccid, weak and whiny? Asking questions now makes you a bully because you are accusing a group of people? I especially like the by-the-numbers response that so many offended Christians make when confronted with sin. *whiny voice* You aren’t encouraging. You aren’t being loving. You aren’t uplifting and pulling along side other believers”. Seriously? What kind of Christianity is that. Just because your feelings were hurt doesn’t mean you were sinned against. Notice how this woman kept trying to reframe the conversation and, when my wife refused to concede the frame, responded with a weak “well you just don’t understand”. Indeed, I don’t understand what kind of Christian you claim to be.

The following woman responded a bit more firmly.

I couldn't have responded better

To the woman who responded, did you ever think that speaking the truth is itself an act of love? Obviously not, otherwise you wouldn’t have responded so ignorantly. Again we see another typical Christian response, “you should pray about what you said because… feelings”. Instead of responding in a rational manner, this woman attacks the other person’s spirituality. In addition, notice what the woman says toward the end, “I’m not going to even argue with what I find wrong… that’s less important to me”. In other words, she doesn’t have any argument and waves it away by claiming it’s “less important” to her.

Tragically there is no practical difference between these self-proclaimed Christian women and the modern Social Justice Warrior Whiner. It’s as if they swallowed whole the talking points of the surrounding culture. This does not bode well for mainstream, American Christianity.


Sketches of Male Privilege Part 1: David

It seems that everywhere I turn, there’s another story or video in which a feminist bemoans “male privilege”. I could link to an article or video about this, but they really aren’t hard to find. If you are that curious, google “male privilege” yourself and see what you get. Now, according to these feminists our patriarchal society allows males (apparently just white males) to enjoy an unbelievable amount of privileges due to the fact that they are men. Men get the privileges and women are oppressed goes the narrative.

One small thing I noticed about these articles is that many tend to use personal anecdotes instead of hard data. Because of this, I decided to take a page from the feminist playbook and present a few stories of male privilege myself. You could call them sketches. Now, before I begin, I have to say that this first story is based on real events. This actually happened to someone I know personally. Obviously, names were changed and facts were altered a tiny bit but the substance of the story is largely intact.

David sat in his car, hands hanging off the steering wheel and tears welling up in his eyes. He glanced over to the sheet of paper on the passenger seat detailing the court order. He was not to set foot anywhere near his wife, his children or his house; at least 300 feet away. No contact with any of the younger kids and absolutely no visitation for the time being.

David turned away from the paper and walked out of the car toward the trunk. A frown warped his face as he opened the trunk and stared inside. In it were the few possessions he was allowed to pack. He wondered where he would sleep tonight as the events of the day replayed in his head.

A few days ago, David received a notice to appear in court. Claire was filing a restraining order against him and his presence was requested along with Claire’s before a family court judge. The notice alarmed David at first, but as he began to think it over he doubted anything would happen. Claire obviously hated him. Her behavior over the past 2 or 3 years clearly demonstrated that. They didn’t sleep in the same bed for a couple years now after David moved out of the master bedroom. He wanted her to sleep in it while she cooled off. Still, the way she refused to even look at him was worrying. Her pregnancy with Olivia, their 8th child must have done a number on her. Ever since then Claire refused to even acknowledge David’s existence.

What could have been the reason for Claire’s intense hate? He thought back to the Mary Kay incident. It was the highlight of the past year. David barely made any money working at Rite Aid, but he worked hard enough to make sure his wife and kids were fed and clothed. Claire came up to him excited and told him about this make up company called Mary Kay. You get to work from home selling make up and keep a certain percentage of the money you sold. This extra money would help them a lot, she said. David was wary and said as much but after Claire blew up, he let her do it if only to keep her from making his life more stressful than it already was.

Weeks later, while looking over the bills and finances, he saw that Claire had spent over $600 on this Mary Kay crap. He had no idea how much Claire made from this $600. He got up, walked over to her and asked how her Mary Kay thing was doing. Claire smiled, it was going ok, she sold a few things to her mom and some of the women at church.

“Doesn’t sound like much. How much money have you made so far, exactly?” David asked. Claire’s smile disappeared.

“I don’t like the way you’re asking these questions.” She replied. And despite David’s best intentions, the conversation turned into another shouting match. David didn’t want her doing the Mary Kay thing anymore because she clearly wasn’t making back the money she spent. Claire accused him of being controlling and that set David off. He tried to be calm, but his anger inevitably came out. Why couldn’t Claire see that this Mary Kay crap was costing them money they didn’t have? More than anything, he wanted to keep his family out of debt and Claire couldn’t see that. Worse, she accused him of being controlling and abusive. That really set him off. The argument ended when David agreed to let Claire try for a few more weeks and see if she could turn it around. She never did. She ended up spending another $400 without selling much. So David, over Claire’s crying, yelling and accusing cancelled the Mary Kay thing and told her that she couldn’t do it anymore. David didn’t really expect Claire to understand, but he knew it needed to be done. With their extremely tight budget, every penny counted.

These sorts of fights were common in their 15+ years of marriage. David knew he shared a good amount of that blame, but he wished Claire were more willing to work through the issues with him. He hated their fights and wanted her support more than anything else. The way Claire looked at him nowadays on the very few occasions she actually acknowledged his existence destroyed his last reserves of motivation. The way she would jerk away anytime they had to walk past each other in the house as if she were  repulsed by his presence hurt him more than anything. The counseling didn’t seem to work at all and only seemed to drive Claire further away. David had no idea what to do and decided to just spend his time working hard so that his family would at least have the things they needed. That was when he got the notice.

The notice gave no indication why exactly Claire was seeking a restraining order. He couldn’t guess either. Was it his bursts of anger? He never once hit Claire. He never threw things around in anger either.. He did spank his kids and went overboard a few times. But he made sure to apologize afterward. Was it the finances? He couldn’t say. He decided this had to be a joke, there was no reason for this restraining order.

The day for the court appearance came and David found out it wasn’t a joke. As he stood before the judge, the knot in his stomach grew tighter and tighter. He finally learned the reasons for this restraining order. Claire told the court that David was abusive, violent and she and the kids were scared he might hurt them. Apparently, he was controlling and refused to let her spend money on anything, he physically abused the kids and was an overall violent person.

David’s mouth practically hit the floor. Where was this coming from. He loved his kids. Claire knew that he loved his kids and would do anything for them. He took them on bike rides and hikes and spent every moment of his free time with them.He listened closely to Claire’s testimony. She was now telling the judge about the time David took one of their daughters, Julia upstairs and sprayed her with water. In fact, he did this regularly. Claire said that this was clearly abuse. David couldn’t believe it. Above everything else, this was clearly misrepresenting what happened. Claire knew as well as he did that Julia was prone to really bad temper tantrums. Spanking didn’t work on her during these times so David always took her to the shower and sprayed her with cold water to calm her down. This helped Julia calm down almost all the time. He didn’t undress her or do anything inappropriate to her despite what Claire was trying to imply. Even Julia herself thanked her dad for this and admitted that it helped calm her down. Claire mentioned none of this. According to her, David liked dragging his screaming kids up the stairs and blasting them with water in spite of Claire’s pleas to stop. Claire tried to imply that these actions also involved the possibility of inappropriate contact with kids, especially the girls. She always did this. Plausible deniability and all that. David try to say something, but the judge shut him up and told him to wait until Claire was finished.

Claire brought up more incidents and spun them in such a way that made David look like the abusive husband she said he was. Claire’s testimony was filled with omissions, exaggerations, misrepresentations and even some outright lies. Yes, he spanked the kids from time to time. Yes, he lost his temper a few times and went overboard with the spanking. Claire did too. Yes, he asked Claire to stay home and take care of the kids, but Claire herself believed in staying home for the kids as well. Yes, he yelled sometimes when he was at his wits end, but so did Claire; in fact, she yelled and screamed at the kids far more often than he did. David began to worry now.

When the judge finally turned to David, he didn’t know where to begin. There was so much. He decided not to go into the specifics and simply told the judge and practically everything Claire said was exaggerated or misrepresented. Some statements were outright lies. In fact, he didn’t agree with anything that she said. This whole thing blindsided him and he wished for some time to think about how to respond.

After David’s brief testimony, the judge gathered her papers and stated, “After hearing the testimony of both parties, I find that Claire Turner fulfilled her burden of proof and grant her request for a restraining order against David Turner. Mr. Turner is not to be within 300 feet of Mrs. Turner’s residence, the children or Mrs. Turner herself. Mr. Turner is also prohibited from contacting any children younger than 18. He is also prohibited from contacting Mrs. Turner herself unless she initiates contact. This order is to remain in effect for three years and begins immediately.”

David clenched his mouth, stunned. Didn’t the judge hear a thing he said? What evidence did Claire present besides her own side of the story. The judge simply took her version of the events without question. David just couldn’t believe it. What will happen to the kids, where will he stay?

The drive home was the worst. He was allowed a single hour to pack up his possessions. He didn’t even know what to pack. The worst thing was knowing that his kids were watching their dad escorted by two cops like a common criminal. That embarrassed him more than anything. Claire didn’t seem to mind that the kids saw their dad escorted by cops. He wondered what she would tell them, nothing good, that’s for sure.

David was back in the driver’s seat, slouching over the steering wheel. In addition to the restraining order, he would also have to pay Claire child support. These child support payments would take a huge bite out of his earnings… he doubted he would have enough left over to live off of. He was completely prohibited from seeing his younger children and didn’t even know if he would ever see them again. He sat in the car and decided to spend the night in it.

He found out a week later that Claire was telling her friends and family that he abandoned the family and left Claire to care for their 8 children alone. He knew they would believe her and that he wouldn’t get a chance to tell his side of the story

From the story above, you can see how David enjoys male privilege. Male privilege took David’s kids away from him based on the flimsiest of evidence. David’s male privilege certainly helped him as the judge took his wife’s words at face value while completely disregarding everything he said. In fact, David enjoys so much male privilege that he was forced out of his home and forced to pay child support based solely on the words of a single woman. I don’t know about you, but that is some heavy-duty privilege right there. David needs to check it.


Evil and the Uncaring God

Many people struggle with the idea of a loving God and the existence of evil in this world. A friend of mine had to deal with all sorts of abuse at the hands of her mother, who calls herself a Christian. This friend asked me once “how could a loving God do something like this”. Sounds like a legitimate question, but I always thought this kind of question isn’t asked right. It wasn’t God that abused this friend; it was her own mother. Innocent children molested, men tortured for their religion and women being gang raped, God doesn’t do that. This kind of evil is perpetrated by other people. God isn’t to blame for this. I’m reminded of a quote from the book “Watchmen”. A character in the book, after facing the depravity of man says that:

Existence is random. Has no pattern save what we imagine after staring at it for too long. No meaning save what we choose to impose. This rudderless world is not shaped by vague metaphysical forces. It is not God who kills the children. Not fate that butchers them or destiny that feeds them to the dogs. It’s us. Only us.

I don’t agree with everything here, but the character makes a good point about evil. God doesn’t rape little girls and sell them as sex slaves. God isn’t the one chopping up bodies like firewood and dumping them on the side of the road. We are the ones doing this to each other.

For the past couple weeks I’ve been listening to a history podcast by Dan Carlin. Look him up, it’s really good stuff. In it Dan Carlin talks about all the horrors the average soldier had to face in the trenches of World War 1. Soldiers were choking and suffocating in the worst ways during gas attacks. They were watching all their friends getting blown apart right in front of their eyes by artillery shells.  Some living in the same shell hole for weeks on end, peeing and eating where they slept because raising your head just an inch above the surface would get you shot by the enemy. The horrors were quite unbelievable. One British soldier said this about the horrors he experienced during the war:

“Eventually, I worked it all out. At least for myself. God was alright. It was we who were wrong. Why the hell should he care what happened to us lot? We had brought this war evil into existence, not God. [This is the] reason evil and ugliness were triumphing over goodness and beauty, why pity and compassion were considered weaknesses and ruthlessness and cruelty as noble. The reason for all this was the wickedness in ourselves and not the indifference of God.”

This soldier had first hand experience with the horrors of World War I and even he came the same conclusion. We are the ones responsible for the wickedness and evil in this world. Not God. This may not be the most satisfying answer but it is still a legitimate point. Blame the evil on the people committing it, not on God.