Treatise: What's the Deal With the "Friend Zone?"

Talks about boy-girl stuff.

The first time I remember hearing this phrase, it was in a Ryan Reynolds comedy I saw in high school, where the main character was romantically interested in a woman who didn't reciprocate, but considered him a friend. Apparently the vernacular idiom originates from the tv series "Friends," but at any rate, I didn't see the end to the movie. I don't think I missed out very much.

The "accepted wisdom" of the day among adolescent males is that you want to avoid the dreaded "friend zone" because once a girl considers you her friend, you've lost the chance to become her boyfriend. This is based on the unquestioned assumption that men and women cannot be friends prior to becoming romantically involved. It implies that a girl/woman would rather date a stranger than someone she knows. Further, it cheapens friendships by casually disregarding them as anything worth having. The doctrine of "the friend zone" declares that boys should be primarily interested in "getting laid," or at least getting a girlfriend, which these days are essentially the same thing. If a girl is pretty, there is no redeeming value in having her as a friend. And if she won't be your girlfriend, 1) you've failed as a man, and 2) don't waste your time on her.

The fear of being frozen into "friendship" so horrifies modern chauvinists that they'll go to great pains to avoid being the kind of guy that a girl can be friends with, so as to leave her only 2 options: have nothing to do with him, or fall in love with him (not manipulative at all, of course!). The consequence is part of the reason why certain attractive women have difficulty relating to men. Nobody interacts with her normally, so she has no concept of normality. Everyone has ulterior motives, so she's either a cynic, inclined to dislike men, or vulnerable, easily taken advantage of and hurt by disingenuous sleazeballs.

Misogynists have perpetrated a culture of dysfunction. Idiot boys with no respect for women as equals use the words "friend zone" to shame others who are being too courteous to ladies without 'making a move,' and discourage them from being content without intimacy. And many boys/men who find themselves in a friendly but non-intimate relationship with a single woman tend to be restless, frustrated or resentful of the fact that they haven't been rewarded for the time they've put in.

What a shame that many relationships suffer, because young men don't want to be friends with women. What a shame that their insecurity and single-minded pursuit of sexual conquest robs women of healthy relationships with respectful gentlemen who are more concerned with her honor than with their gratification.

Isn't there another way? Oh sure there is. We can stop exposing young women to the dichotomy of "every guy who talks to you wants to sleep with you" and "you're completely alone and no one likes you." But what will that take? Logically, the young men need to figure out that girls are not there for you, let alone for 'the one thing.' That there's redeeming value in having non-sexual relationships. That they can like someone, and not have to act on that by trying to force a "boyfriend-girlfriend" relationship.

But for them to move in that direction, they have to have motive and incentive. Positive incentive, through seeing abstinence as desirable. Disincentivization, through not letting them be rewarded for promoting misogyny, chauvinism, sexism, etc. Girls must stop expecting sex to be a normal part of a casual relationship. Logically, if there's a concern that a guy's just after sex, what's the best way to rule that out as a possibility? Obviously, don't give it to him -- don't let him have sex with you! If he doesn't get what he wants, and he's a shallow fool, he'll leave right quick (in most cases). If sex is not the only thing he's living for, then he'll have integrity and stick around.

This can be expanded beyond sex to include physical affection, kissing, or announcing yourselves as a couple. Some desperate boys can/will hang on as long as they're getting something. The best way to get rid of the ones with selfish intentions is to refrain from any kind of physical romantic intimacy prior to the all-in commitment of the marriage ceremony.

Isn't it ironic how everything always comes around to the Biblical side of things, after a time?

Summary

The "friend zone" is a nonsense derogatory term used in reference to a man being friends with a woman without pursuing sexual intimacy, which is intended to shame 'deviants' and justify the chauvinist's view of women as sex objects for his pleasure. It makes men into noncommittal idiots, and women into victims, who either distrust men - to the detriment of their relationships - or trust men far too much, and go in vain from one to the next, searching for the one who won't break her heart.

There is a two-pronged approach to killing this insanity: women must stop rewarding sexists, and men must decide that women are worthy of respect, not to be treated as objectives in a game. Men must get their priorities straight, and realize that integrity of character and permanence of love are more desirable than racking up shallow sexual encounters.

Simply telling them they're wrong won't do the whole job. Evangelizing with Scripture presents a united front, where the claims of "you must treat women ____" are not the disorganized arbitrary cries of feminists, but levied against them with the full weight of the authority of Almighty God.

It is the renewal of the mind by the washing of the Word that supernaturally empowers a man to treat a woman with the dignity and honor she deserves in God's eyes.

If you leave God out of it, have fun doing the same things and expecting different results (something Einstein called insanity).


~ Rak Chazak

People Who Accuse Others of Victim-Blaming Are Demeaning Women

Victim Blaming: Accusing someone on the receiving end of some calamity to be responsible for its occurrence. 

ex: "Telling women not to put themselves in situations where they might be sexually assaulted is blaming the victim. The only thing that causes rape is rapists."

Often heard from: feminists, "social justice warriors," change advocates of various kinds that are commenting on violence or gender related issues.

Please see my treatise on why this argument is only half true, and ultimately hurtful despite its being (maybe) well-intentioned: Treatise: Third-Wave Feminism's Irresponsibility Double-Standard

*  *        *  *        *  *

So how does accusing someone of "victim-blaming" demean women?, I'm sure you're dying to know.

I'll answer. But first let me clarify that it's certainly possible to be legitimately at fault for blaming victims, which is wrong.

Scenario A: "She should have known better. By getting wasted drunk around a bunch of frat guys, she brought this on herself."
Verdict: Victim Blaming. Disgusting assertion that she's responsible for someone else's sins against her.

Scenario B: "Rapists bear the full responsibility for their own actions. Even so, it's wise to be aware of risks and take action to mitigate your exposure to them. Please consider the way you dress, the people you socialize with, whether you walk alone, whether you carry mace/air horns/a gun, and whether you overtly sexually entice men around you, as ways to help protect yourself."
Verdict: Not Victim-Blaming. You can take action to protect yourself without implying that you're responsible for what others do to you otherwise.

And yet, this is often attacked as "blaming the victim" by feminists in online fora. I submit that this could be because the feminists a) really have no clue how to solve the problem and don't want to believe that they can fix it because that makes them feel uncomfortable and morally conflicted, and b) really resent men and want all the attention and responsibility to be theirs (men's).

1. Teaching someone how to drive is not blaming the victim if they are involved in a car crash.
2. Police officers wearing bulletproof vests are not blaming the victims of homicides for their gunshot wounds.
3. Teaching wilderness survival, gardening, hunting etc doesn't "blame the victims" of famine, starvation, or those who die of thirst or exposure to the elements.

Giving someone tips for how to protect themselves from getting hurt is not asserting that they are responsible for undesirable outcomes, when something happens that hurts them, which are out of their control.

Now that that has been emphasized, there are some direct consequences of this.

When someone discusses rape prevention in the vein of scenario B above, and someone responds to accuse them of "blaming the victim," then that person is actually demeaning women and promoting sexist attitudes that contribute to rape.

Say whaaat? Let me guide your thinking:

Paradigm shift 1
Taking away someone's responsibility takes away their ability. Taking away their ability takes away their power to effect change. Taking away their power takes away their freedom of choice, and makes them helpless victims of circumstance, at the mercy of their abusers.

This is what denying women their right to prevent rape (by denying that they have the ability or responsibility to protect themselves) accomplishes.

Paradigm shift 2
By asserting that rapists are the sole factor in rape**, advocates are denying the woman's responsibility over herself. By denying her responsibility, they assert that women are incapable of doing anything to protect themselves that might actually decrease the chances of getting raped. This makes women out to be defenseless. This view is sexist because it portrays women as weak and ineffective compared to men, who always get what they want because they alone have the power and are the sole determinant of what they will be able to do.

Paradigm shift synthesis
Taken together, the logical conclusions of accusing "scenario B men" of "blaming the victim" is the promotion of the belief that women are incapable, and men are capable. That women are irresponsible, and men are responsible*. That men can rape, but women cannot stop rape. That women don't have the freedom of choice, to choose their own destinies, in the context of whether they will be raped or not. That women are victims, and that men, by contrast, must be victors. That women are helpless and defenseless and at the mercy of the decisions that men make. That men get what they want, when they want it, from whom they want it. The buildup of all these contrasts encourages the subconscious prejudice in both men and women to see women as weak and inferior and men as strong and superior. It is the very epitome of sexism.

Therefore, though promulgated in the name of feminism and the defense of women, any attacks against the character or motive of a man, or the impact of his statements, if he encourages women to seek to protect themselves from the sort of men who would take advantage of them, nevertheless has the effect of PROMOTING SEXISM.

Feminism = sexism. Against women, no less. I could not be clearer.

Women, think twice about attacking any man that disagrees with you about some issue that touches on gender relations.

Men, take courage, and be careful to make sure you speak wisely on this issue. Sexism rules on "both sides," and it is your responsibility, as someone who seeks to honor woman, to fight against the things that hurt her even when it's what she believes with all her heart to be in her best interest.

~ Rak Chazak

* note the equivocation in these terms. It's nevertheless the impact of using these words without clarification and therefore the conclusion is sound.

** Rapists are solely responsible for their choice TO rape. But rapists don't exist in a void and strike at random. This is evidenced by the fact that most rape is "acquaintance rape." Rapists must CHOOSE their targets, and to do that they need motive and opportunity. You have the ability to deny them the opportunity, and to some extent their motives. If you have this ability, should you act on it? Then that is the same as saying that you're responsible for your own actions that can mitigate or exacerbate the risk of being raped. Please read this treatise to see that there are two senses of the word 'responsibility': culpability and personal governance. To say that you're accountable for yourself is not to say that you are to blame for what someone else does to you. The consequences of denying personal responsibility over your choices leads to absurdity.

All About that Alto, No Soprano..."Empowering" Sexism in Mainstream Music

This is a lambast of the Main-Stream-Music song "All About That Bass." I recently read a TIME snippet where the song, along with a few others, was held up as an example of an uplifting message for girls about body image.


Talks about butts.

Ok.

Here are the lyrics from the chorus:

My mama she told me, 'don't worry about your size'
She said 'boys like a little more booty to hold at night'

WHAT?

Okay, let me get this straight: "(1)Don't care about your personal health, (2) because you're a sex object." Niiiice. Oh, and even better: "your personal worth lies in your rump's ease of being groped, and (sexism alert!) boys don't care about anything but sex, objectifying women, and being a pervert." And last but not least, it purports to lift up fat girls by dealing with their insecurity by telling them they're superior because of their body type. This is literally putting down skinny girls for the same reason, that they "don't have all that bass." Yay empowerment!

You don't improve someone's self image by telling them they're better than somebody else. That's the essence of what bullying is, putting someone else down to make you feel better about yourself. And that's even without the twisted fact that the thing that makes you better than the other person is your ability to be objectified and treated like a piece of ass, that you don't have value in yourself, only in being desired by immature sexually-obsessed boys!

Is this empowerment? No, this is an example of how messed up our culture is, when in the name of doing good for someone, the exact opposite is perpetrated.

Feminism is dung.

That is all.

~Rak Chazak

Random Thought: An Ad Absurdiam Reason Why God is not Female

I was singing a line to a hymn in my head when I stumbled upon an obvious realization. “When He shall come with trumpet sound, oh, may I then in Him be found.” If it’s easy for people to mock true religion now, for “things hard to understand,” just imagine the fodder for immature minds that would be provided if God had in fact revealed Himself as a woman, or having a “female” nature. “When She shall come with trumpet sound, oh, may I then in Her be found.” Can we agree that the imagery connoted by saying that you’re “inside” a female God is at best problematic, and at worst, so tied to sexual euphemisms that it seriously gets in the way of properly thinking about God—even if it was the case, in this alternate reality we’re envisioning, that He revealed Himself as a Heavenly Mother? God is a woman, and we want to be in Her…inside Her? So many wrongs. Take the phrase, 

10 Do you not believe that I am in the Father, and the Father in Me? The words that I speak to you I do not speak on My own authority; but the Father who dwells in Me does the works. 11 Believe Me that I am in the Father and the Father in Me, or else believe Me for the sake of the works themselves.
~ John 14:10-11

, which would if God revealed Himself in feminine terms be rendered, "My mother is in Me and I am in My Mother"], as a ridiculous example. Though a female God would probably have shown up as a female Jesus, but still. Something about the language of being “in Him” excludes a sexual context from consideration, so it’s just transparently easier to understand than the alternative. Here’s my parting thought: God is transcendent, which means that though He is so great as to be unable to be understood completely, He is fundamentally able to be understood rightly, on multiple different levels, no matter your knowledge or intelligence. This seems to me like a satisfactorily simple example of just one more reason why God could have validly chosen to reveal Himself in masculine terms. And indeed, probably something that in actual fact crossed His mind in making that decision, since it crossed mine and He created me and knows my thoughts…just saying.

~ Rak Chazak

Statistical Vindication of the Superiority of Pre-Marital Sexual Abstinence

That sounds like a scientific paper title. If you ever write for a technical journal, basically your header will encapsulate the conclusion of your research. Goes to show I really was paying attention in my writing-intensive elective seminar.

As I scrolled through the latest argument about sex on my university forum, I saw that the resident third-wave feminist had levied a research study's conclusions against a guy commenting on the same "slut survey" I wrote about in this post. He had said that he couldn't see why anyone would take pride in 'owning' the word slut and expressed that there must be something wrong with them. Feminista Number One's response made use of data from a blogspot article by The Social Pathologist to claim that women who had several sexual partners were less likely to divorce than women who had had a few, or women who had had numerous partners. This was supposedly evidence of the superiority of having more than one sexual partner. 

Nevertheless, FN1 couldn't deny the results also showing that virginity prior to marriage was far superior to any number of sexual partners, in serving as a predictor for the success (non-divorce over an extended period) of their first/only marriage. Intrigued, I went on to click on the link and peruse the article.

Here are some quotes of interest from the article at the blog link:

"...divorce rates are the lowest for those with zero pre‐marital partners. That part is unambiguous. Virgin brides are the least likely to divorce, all else equal. But why do  divorce rates rise with one or two premarital partners only to reverse and drop after two or more sexual partners? And next, why do divorce rates reverse and climb back up after the pre‐marital partner count goes into the double digits?"

"My own hypothesis is that a higher partner count (up to 5‐9 or so partners) is correlated with age and maturity in dating experience....Specifically, I suspect it’s not the 5‐9 pre‐marital sex partner count per se that drives the relative drop in the divorce rates, but rather it’s the maturity and experience that women have acquired while they’ve dated more men."

From a table constructed by the analyst,

"One can see that the divorce rate is nearly 50% for women who had only one pre‐marital partner and if that partner did not develop into her husband. The divorce rate falls to half the above rate (25.6%) if a woman later marries her first and only pre‐marital sex partner. However, both these divorce rates are higher than the divorce rate for virgin brides. Pre‐marital sexual experience with one’s future spouse does not beat out having no pre‐marital sex at all."

Thanks, Feminista Number One!

I initially thought I was going to be led  to a pro-3WF site where I would have to read between the lines. As it turns out, that's what FN1 was doing, herself. Intriguingly, the study cited was called the National Survey of Family Growth and was published by the Heritage Foundation. So FN1 is reading research spearheaded by conservatives. One can only hope she doesn't fail to be persuasively influenced by her dabbling in the enemy's camp, over time.

It should be noted that it isn't the mere fact of virginity or sexual activity that has an effect on marital success, but what it implies, either in terms of the type of character or decision making that went into the choice to have or abstain from intercourse, or in terms of the type of effect that such a decision consequently has on that person. But if you're a foolish person, doing the right thing without knowing why is not morally wrong, it's just less beneficial to you; nevertheless, since it gives you time to figure out a coherent ethic justifying your choice, you will reap the reward for it over time, even if you do "the right thing for the wrong reasons." 

~ Rak Chazak

On the Word "Slut" and "Sexually Liberated" Third-Wave Feminism

A student at my university solicited the opinions of the general academic public in a study she was doing for a class paper. I was more than happy to oblige.

Q: "Why are women called 'sluts' for having multiple sexual partners but it seems men are respected for the same?"

Because of the sexist double standard perpetuated by third wave "feminism."

Personally, I don't respect promiscuous men, either, and even have less respect for them, because they're more apt to display an ignorant self-congratulatory attitude whereas most women I've interacted with seem to regret their past activities--whether they are presently sexually restrained or not--and are less likely to boast in the same way.

So if I don't respect males who are sexually immoral any more than females, why does it seem that most of society behaves in a different manner? I've wondered about this.

I sincerely believe it's because I reject the nonsense agenda of third wave feminism and most other people are influenced to think a certain way because of it, either consciously or unawares. Contrary to the claims of 3WF, it does not elevate women nor achieve any forward-steps of equality. It dehumanizes both men and women and that's why you see double standards remaining and perpetuated.

Why?

Simple. It doesn't matter what you say, if your actions demonstrate otherwise. The average woman would say she wants to be respected by men. But 3WF advocates for women to lay aside "antiquated" notions of sexual restraint and modesty, e.g. that it's acceptable to have multiple sexual partners, dress revealingly for explicitly sensual reasons, to engage in or view pornography, and to upend "traditional" roles--that she should pay for dates, that she should drive most of the time, that she should take the initiative in pursuing males in romantic endeavors, etc. I'm not saying there's anything inherently wrong with paying, driving, or showing interest. What I'm saying is that when you shift what is normative by actively striving to do the contrary to what is "antiquated/traditional" or as it is commonly called by 3WFs, "patriarchal," then you are bound to produce an effect.

And what is the effect?

If you show guys that they don't have to put in any effort into relationships, what do you teach them? They don't have to try. They become lazy. The result is women who are frustrated with boys who put little or nothing into the relationship. The women end up feeling used.

Further, combine the first part I mentioned: the loosening of sexual restraint. So now you've taught guys that they don't have to take any initiative in starting relationships, and you've taught women that they don't have to withhold (or even that there is no good reason to refrain from) sexual activity in a casual relationship. And so you have girls giving time, money, affection and their bodies to boys who won't --and have no incentive to-- exercise patience, thrift, respect etc. And the result is that the women are used, sexually, and they end up feeling upset and taking one or other course of action. They generally hate and blame themselves or they hate and blame men. They either refuse to believe that they could be happy in a submissive relationship with a man (and therefore now become domineering and emotionally unreasonable) or they desperately try to create what they wanted to have with that first failure, and go from bad relationship to bad relationship until they get jaded or worse.

Meanwhile, guys learn that there's no need to treat women as human beings, since by doing nothing they'll throw themselves at you and give you their bodies for your pleasure. These guys learn from their interactions with women that women may be people in theory, but functionally, in practice, they are not, and may as well be treated as objects, because that's all that the women treat themselves as, and that's what they're clearly tolerant of males treating them as.

So the notion that women are treated as objects isn't foreign to me. I think it's wrong, yes, but I can also see why with a level of clarity that the average male cannot, for the simple reason that the average male desires instant gratification of sexual desire, and I have decided to put off such gratification until I have found and created the commitment I desire, wherein which sexual activity can have the potential to be fully satisfying, in a way in which it cannot in casual, temporary relationships.

I don't think men are respected for having many sexual partners. Perhaps among some in society, but I doubt this is true among the "movers and shakers." Rather, in that class, I predict that the reason for any distinction is a judgment on the relative stupidity and naivety of the female who throws themselves desperately into hopelessly unfulfilling relationships versus the relative intelligence and scrupulousness of the male who utilizes such easy access to physical pleasure but never entertains in his mind the idea that it was anything more. I think that's where you may find the stratification; when your reasoning allows the judgment that women are stupid sexually, and men are not, then you can see respect for the male and disrespect of the female in the way we currently observe in society.

It's tragic. But that which explains the onesidedness of the observation is the fact that there is nothing like third wave feminism for men. There is nothing that promotes an act-first, think-later approach to sexual intercourse for men. There is for women. And the results are that the women that buy into it end up looking very stupid and very sexually promiscuous, whereas the males who take advantage of it look smart and oddly not as sexually driven. I think the illusion is because what really drives most women is not sexual desire but a stronger desire for emotional intimacy than most men have. But the women think that sexual intimacy with a man will achieve that emotional intimacy--blame third wave feminism's philosophy of sex. Consequently, when these women throw themselves at men in sexual pursuit, they appear to be the more sex-driven when that is not the actual case. It is the men who take advantage of these women who are the more sexually fixated, since they fail to in any way treat women as something more than objects of physical pleasure. But the person who takes advantage is in a position of control whereas the person who is taken advantage of is in a position of weakness. And control denotes strength and intelligence, whereas weakness ... denotes weakness. Of an intellectual and sexual-restraint sort. I think this explains why society at large has more respect for promiscuous men than women. Promiscuous men are seen as in-control and intelligent, whereas promiscuous women are seen as out-of-control and stupid.

These are not the private opinions I have. I know it goes much deeper than this. As I've indicated, I think the driving force is a mixture of deep-seated emotional yearning in women, harnessed by the tragically anti-productive social philosophy of third-wave feminism. All I've done is to the best of my ability explain how I think the thought process of the individual may play out and produce the disparate social stratification we see on a macro scale. And I think I've done so quite well.

Addendum: My response to the "Further thoughts?" question.

Or, How to Solve the Problem of the Sexual Double Standard

What makes me different?

Why am I not affected by 3WF in the way that I describe the 'average male?'

It's simple. The world is ruled by ideas. And if you don't subscribe to one worldview then you will subscribe to another. Instead of 3WF, I have a different philosophy that shapes my approach to love and sex.

But it's more than a philosophy. There is a level of thought involved in it but it's more than just an idea for approaching the world. It's unique in that it first changes how I see myself. The outward results in my thinking are the product of an internal revolution.

I'll be very straightforward. I don't think you can really solve the issue of social ills that operate in the realms of the hearts and minds of individual people without changing their hearts and minds. Money won't do it. Propaganda won't do it. Social programs won't do it, and teaching other people how to interact with them won't do it. 

The only thing that can actually change a person from an objectifying, misogynistic, sexually-unrestrained arrogant person into a person who respects men and women is the Gospel. I am well aware that you likely don't want to hear "religion is the answer." Well, religion isn't the answer. Religion is a set of rules that you tell people to follow, and then when they succeed, they become self-absorbed and prideful, which is bad, and when they fail, they become depressed and despair, which is also bad. Christianity has rules, but the success someone has with following the rules is not what determines if that person is a Christian.

Christianity is unique in that it isn't something that men do for God, it's something that God does in men. The individual's responsibility concerns solely how they respond to God's initiating action to save them.

Please detour to get a helpful, less-than-a-minute-in-length, explanation of what the Gospel is, here: http://singlechristian1.blogspot.com/2013/05/the-gospel-in-60-seconds.html .

To be saved, all a person needs to do is to acknowledge their sinfulness and ask God to take the punishment they deserve on their behalf. That way, the Crucifixion's effect gets 'credited to your account,' and your sin is legally dealt with, from God's perspective. You don't become sinless at that moment. But you become guiltless. And from that point, God's treatment of you begins to affect your treatment of others.

I now understand what love is. Contemporary wisdom says that "if it makes you happy, do it." That love is a feeling of happiness toward someone. But when that feeling subsides, people think "I don't love them anymore," and relationships are destroyed.

True love is not an emotion but an intent: to do that which is in the best interest of another person, and sacrifice (put aside, as a lower priority) your own self-directed desires in order to accomplish their best interest.

With an understanding of love like that, I could never take advantage of a young woman's desire toward me, no matter how much of a gentleman I would be to her. I know that the act of sex produces an emotional bond, one that in its intended context produces satisfaction in a committed relationship that draws you closer and keeps you inseparable. But if you were never going to commit, when you separate that relationship, all that bonding, when it tears, wreaks emotional and spiritual havoc on the people involved. Damage like that to another person is not loving. Love is not something you can have for someone for a little while and then not any more. That isn't sincere love. It's a farce. An act. And this misunderstanding is at the root of so much pain in our society today.

I see sex as an important part of a committed relationship. But the only truly committed relationship is the one that doesn't have the entertained possibility of it ever ending. That's marriage! So a direct conclusion of simply knowing what love is is that I would never want to have sex with someone before marriage, no matter how good it might feel, temporarily.

I've been living this changed life for a few years now and don't mistake me as thinking more highly of myself than others. I am not more special, but with what I have been given, what I have been blessed with in being saved and having my life transformed day by day by the Gospel, I am specially privileged. And I can see now, after having observed many examples far and wide, that you can't change the culture by trying to change people's minds, first. You have to change their hearts. Therefore,

I would be doing a disservice if I didn't tell you that I think any and all approaches to a problem like the way this society views sex would be ultimately unsatisfactory and ineffective if it does not include the Gospel. It is only God's power to save and transform that can change a person's eternal destiny and current state of being, from a wretched self-interested person to a person who is fully satisfied in God, and who desires to help other people to live a good life now, but more importantly to attain eternal life to come.

Sure, go ahead and think of me as a raving religious lunatic. But I couldn't be content with myself if I didn't take the chance to try to tell you the truth. What you do with it is your business. I only hope that God will open your mind to receive what it is I've had to say here, insofar as I am speaking what He would want me to say.

Thanks for reading.

~ Rak Chazak

Treatise: Third Wave Feminism's Irresponsibility Double-Standard

What follows are some excerpts of comments I made regarding sexism on a university post – since the things I said on there are examples of core beliefs I have, you can learn some things about me by reading them.

Here's the main idea. Third Wave Feminism wants women to be free to make their own decisions (great!) -- which normally might mean that they would be responsible for their own actions, correct? No, not according to the third wave feminist, who simultaneously will demand that a woman be utterly blameless--not responsible on any level whatsoever--for the consequences of her actions, or even her choice to perform those actions, irrespective of consequence! Here is a long analysis from me on this contradiction, followed by a response to a post by an angry 3WFeminist afterwards. The immediate context is a discussion about rape and 'victim-blaming.'

This post tackles sensitive subjects and uses frank vocabulary.

*************

“It’s worth considering that there are a number of us who are not personally invested in the sense that we know people who are deeply affected by depraved sexual behavior, nor are we people who perpetrate such behavior. I am neither a woman at risk for sexual assault nor am I the sort of guy who would ever consider violating a woman in the ways that have been described here (and don't take that to mean that there are ways I would violate a woman--the English language isn't clear enough to avoid this vagueness). So as a conclusion, for me to consider this issue, it is certainly an academic exercise. It is entirely intellectual, seeing as for me to understand another person's perspective I cannot sympathize, but must empathize, trying to imagine what it's like to be in their position and doing all sorts of mental analysis to consider their statements, and my position, from multiple different angles to ensure that it all makes sense, both to me and to them. Don't take my lack of personal involvement to mean that I don't care. But take it to mean that I can't intimately emotionally understand your exact feelings as it relates to this topic.”

“[someone I’m commenting sarcastically in response to had made the claim quoted]: "The Vagina Monologues is about ending violence against women..".. By offering, as one of the monologues, a tale where a woman was sexually abused as a child, and then when 13 (later edits change it to 16, because that makes it okay I guess) had lesbian sexual relationships with an older woman, and used to promote the idea "if it was rape, it was good rape," until popular pressure caused that to be edited out as well? Because perversion like this is thrown in whenever an event is held to ostensibly help women, I can not, neither have I been, nor do I suspect I ever will be, able to in good conscience recommend attendance to any woman I happen to interact with. It's junk. And besides being junk, it's freaky weird abusive filth, like 50 Shades of Grey where the woman is beaten by a 'lover' who was abused as a child, and Twilight, where a teenage girl is stalked by a boyfriend who breaks her car to prevent her from meeting her friends.”

“I'm disturbed that several individuals on this thread have indicated that their primary, or singular, outrage is because the said twitter page includes posts that concern homosexuality (either as the motivation for posting, or the object which is posted about). The absence of a comparable outrage over the posts that are not derogatory re: homosexuals, or casting homosexuals in a bad light, implies that the posters(on this forum) do not see the other negative posts as being as bad as the ones they are showing outrage over. Or if they are not as bad, at least the omission indicates that the poster does not think it matters as much, for a different reason. This concerns me more than the crude comments in the first place. The crude comments reveal a lack of basic decency, but the selective outrage reveals a lack of concern for other people.”

“Is accusing someone of being gay for not seeking heterosexual sex necessarily anti-gay or is it actually anti-straight? More to the point, is it more insulting to gays or to straight people who choose abstinence? Being the latter, this is far more of an insult to straight people who hold to a moral standard of sexuality more strict than that of "most people," than it is an insult to someone who is homosexual. It implies that there is no legitimate reason to not want to have sex with someone except if you're gay. It objectifies men, declaring that so long as there's an attractive female in front of you, you're expected to want to have sex with her, and expected to actually follow through if given the opportunity. It's way more insensitive toward straight guys than gay guys.”

“It's been this way since middle school/high school. It never bothered me to be called "gay" or "faggot" because I either didn't fit the stereotypical sexual or physically aggressive behavior that some other guys expressed. What concerned me was the assumption that because you didn't highly prioritize 'getting laid' or because you didn't respond to jerks by threatening them physically, that this made you effeminate. It really doesn't. Not by necessity. What it can mean instead is simple: it means you're restrained. You're like a Vulcan. The Vulcans of Star Trek never show emotions--but it's not because they don't have emotions. Instead, they're a historically very emotionally impulsive and aggressive race, who learned over time to suppress displaying those emotions. It's like that with guys. I have the same basic desires, turn-ons, temptations etc as other guys. I've just learned to be restrained, and to rule my emotions, rather than letting my emotions rule over me. And I'll hazard a guess that this is the case for most other guys that have self-control, as well.”

**********************

“Second question for discussion: Yoga pants/leggings/underarmor/etc -- Tacky or acceptable attire? The person quoted in the video wants to excuse their ill behavior by saying "tight fitting clothing made me stare at butts," but the fact remains that since there are such people out there, dressing in a certain way does invite their negative reactions, no matter how unjustified. I think you can wear whatever you want, but you can't wear whatever you want and expect to be respected, if you're not respecting yourself by the clothes--rather, lack thereof--that you wear. Think about what the abovementioned fabrics do -- they fit tight to the skin, such that if you wear them without anything on top, you're essentially walking around in pantyhose. No one can see the color of your skin but that's the ONLY thing they can't see. Whoever dresses this way is essentially walking around naked.  I ask you -- is it appropriate to walk around naked in front of other people? Ignore the question of how other people react. That is a separate issue to whether you should be (un)dressed a certain way. Let's deal with the "it's comfortable" response. I retort, it's comfortable to go naked when it's warm outside. Is that what you'll be seeking to justify next? Just because something is comfortable does not make it acceptable to wear in front of other people. I'm a first-wave feminist. I believe women should be treated equally in the eyes of the law. What I don't agree with is second-wave feminism (that asserts that women should be treated unequally in the eyes of the law) and third-wave feminism (that asserts that women should be allowed to objectify themselves--and men--sexually, but that it's somehow wrong when men do it). I think that what is today called "feminism" is far from what the pro-women feminism of yesteryear was. What passes for feminism these days is a rush by women to degrade themselves so that there will be nothing left for men to degrade, as if this removes their "power over women." Naturally, irresponsible men love this and encourage it. "Sexual equality" is a ruse; it is not empowering to engage in sex without considering the consequences. It's not empowering to dress in ways that tempt males to contemplate your body sexually. It's what encourages the behavior that offends you so much. Can't you see that the whole movement of feminism is creating a culture where boys are taught that they have no responsibility to respect women's bodies, and they'll even be punished if they try to? What do you think happens as a result? Boys grow up taking what they can get from girls, knowing that they are free from responsibility, because feminism has, in its attempt to force a vision of equality, placed all responsibility on women, while simultaneously encouraging them to be utterly irresponsible. It's chaos. It's what results in the ludicrous scenario where girls try to dress as revealingly as possible but get upset when their attire provokes lustful thoughts and words from the boys around them. If you want to talk about a sexual double standard, this is it. You can't disrespect yourself and expect others to respect you. Note what I'm not saying: I'm not saying it's acceptable for people to disrespect you if you disrespect yourself. What I'm saying is that by not respecting yourself, you make it easier for disrespectful young men to be disrespectful of you as well. They can get away with it because you've undermined yourself and have no moral high ground on which to stand on to assert that their behavior is wrong. You are right that they are wrong--but people don't listen to hypocrites. 

Read carefully and you won't misunderstand what I'm saying here. Hopefully what I've written will make a few people inclined to respond with their thoughts.”

Someone responded, and I replied with this: “Briefly, my statements about the different waves of feminism are obviously my interpretations as they were relevant to the current topic of self-respect, and are by no means meant to be exhaustive definitions.  I tried to head off any misunderstanding of my words, but I think I'll have to try to explain myself again. Your quote in question is this one: 

"Telling a woman that it's her fault that men objectify her or harass her or whatever because of what she's wearing is a manifestation of victim blaming."

This is not what I was doing. Here's the relevant quote I made, and then I'll unpack it:  "You can't disrespect yourself and expect others to respect you. Note what I'm not saying: I'm not saying it's acceptable for people to disrespect you if you disrespect yourself. What I'm saying is that by not respecting yourself, you make it easier for disrespectful young men to be disrespectful of you as well. They can get away with it because you've undermined yourself and have no moral high ground on which to stand on to assert that their behavior is wrong. You are right that they are wrong--but people don't listen to hypocrites. " Here I specify that the woman is not responsible for the actions or thoughts of any man toward her.
Do I need to repeat that?

The woman is not responsible for the actions or thoughts of any man toward her.

It can therefore not be victim blaming. Because by definition, I am not blaming the woman for the behavior of the man.
What did I say, though? I said that the woman carries responsibility for herself (contrary to what 3WF promotes, as I mentioned earlier in that comment). She has responsibility for how she dresses and where she chooses to go. If you disagree, then you will find nothing wrong with a woman parading naked around a max-security all-male prison, and surely you will expect nothing to happen to her, and if it does, then she should not have been expected to know better, and none of it is a result of her actions. If, on the other hand, you find that this is clearly an unacceptable conclusion, then you must also acknowledge for the existence of caveats regarding your implied assertion that the woman is not responsible. And hence, I think you ought to agree that women have a responsibility to think about and make responsible decisions regarding what to wear and where to go.
You must interpret this in light of what I've already told you, i.e. that the woman is not responsible for the actions of the men around her. Otherwise you are not being charitable in entertaining my reasoning.

************

So if men's actions toward her are not her fault, what do I mean by saying that the woman bears responsibility for herself? I simply mean that any intelligent woman knows that despite the fact that men should not behave a certain way, there are men who do behave that way, and to ignore this fact of reality is not doing anything to promote female equality. To ignore it would be stupid, and it puts women at risk and in danger. If you dive headfirst into a pool and break your neck, it is not your "fault" that the water was shallow. But you made the wrong decision in failing to recognize that it was shallow and alter your behavior to protect yourself. I'm not comparing men's decisions with laws of nature, as if men don't have a choice. The comparison is of the fact of the existence of men who will make these decisions to the fact of the existence of the shallow water in the pool. You can't deny that these men are out there. Wishful thinking about how they SHOULD behave does nothing to change the reality. Acting according to what you think SHOULD be the case rather than acting according to what you know to be true reality is moronic. I hope this is more clear. Women don't bear the responsibility for men's lustful thoughts. They do bear responsibility for knowingly tempting those thoughts. Tempting a man who is in control of himself will not result in an incident. Tempting a man who gives in to temptation because he lacks self control will. And every woman should be aware that the second type of man is 'out there,' and should be wise enough to not provoke them unnecessarily. Being attractive is not something you can help. Being a woman is not something you can help. Wearing clothes that reveal your figure, to an extent, is not something you can help. Wearing skin-tight articles of clothing that show everyone exactly what you look like naked is something that you are eminently in control over, and have a responsibility to consider carefully before deciding to do.

**************

‘I think focus needs to be shifted from women and what they're wearing to the men who think that women are inherently theirs to look at and objectify/deem "respectable" or not/etc.’

What I would like to propose is that the culture of 3WF has created these men. The solution to their existence, then, is not 3WF. It is the rejection of 3WF and a return to SENSIBLE agendas for the elevation of women's welfare that will produce the desired results. The sad problem is that 3WF's goals are inconsistent with the methods by which its followers seek to bring about those goals.  The focus should not be on the men who objectify women, nor the women who are objectified, but on the culture perpetuated by a movement that itself objectifies women and bizarrely believes that men ought somehow to remain unaffected by this.”

“For the sake of definitions, When I say the woman is not responsible for men's actions toward her, I use "responsible" to mean "at fault for." When I say the woman is responsible for how she dresses, I use "responsible" to mean "morally obligated to make correct choices in governing oneself." Hopefully this helps avoid any equivocation over the meaning of the word in this discussion.”

********************

Please also see a related blog post made earlier in 2013 about "Feminism, Male Privilege, and Rape Culture," in which I tie the solution (of the ills that 3WF rails against and perpetuates) into the Gospel.

~ Rak Chazak 

Sarcastic Apologetic Response of the Day

One of the characters that I met through my university forum had an excellent response to a few aggressive feminists and postmodern pro-"transgender" debaters on a discussion thread a while back. I think it was succinct and powerful enough to be worth sharing here.

If I may demand of society how it perceives me in one way, then why not in another way? What limits that principle to gender?
Why can't I demand to be perceived as a different species? So my DNA says I'm human. Who cares? Species is a social construct, just like gender. Species is genetic, while species expression is external. I choose to live as a T-Rex.

…

[omitted for conciseness]

…

[OPPONENT], if I or my ancestors make money and I become wealthy, then I am wealthy according to the natural order. If I run for office and get elected President, then I am President according to the natural order. If I am born genetically human, then I am human according to the natural order. And so on. If I am born with XY sex chromosomes, then I am a man by the natural order.

I'm a middle class male human being. Economic and genetic reality dictate those facts beyond any doubt. So if I were to declare right now that "I am a millionaire" or "I am a T-Rex" or "I am a woman", why would the first two statements be nonsense while the third wouldn't?

~ Rak Chazak

Journal Entry: On Feminism, "Male Privilege," and "Rape Culture."

 Background: I had a debate earlier this year with a couple of feminists on-line about something I'd never heard of before. The term was "rape culture," and in short order I found myself being accused of contributing to it for having the temerity to dispute the idea that casual speech has a significant causative relationship to actual violence toward women. I was provoked to remember this conversation when I read about the "privilege" referenced in this article by Daniel Greenfield, "The Israeli Man's Burden." To start off on the right foot, make sure you begin reading the first sentence of the entry below as a rhetorical question, referencing a hypothetical claim, mentioned in the second sentence.

This post tackles sensitive subjects.

*     *     *     *     *

                        I don’t have an opinion on “rape culture,” a made-up word meant to attempt to instill guilt in teenage gamers who say “damn, you got raped,” in reference to getting killed in a first-person shooter by another player? Obviously I have ‘privilege,’ white privilege, even, and my lack of comparable upset to the ‘feminist’ means I don’t care about women, or wink at rape. It’s an offensive insult, as I care very much about honoring and protecting women, but my way of accomplishing this is not reducible to screaming at someone for violating my private banned-words list. Instead, it shows itself through modeling actual chivalrous behavior, and confronting guys who have wrong views of women, sex, relationships, etc. Don’t get me wrong, I don’t think actual rape is a funny thing and I am certainly angered when someone actually jokes about sexual assault without any show of seriousness. But the word ‘rape’ on some level simply means a violent domination of someone against their will. The word definitely applies to, say, getting chainsawed through the back, as may happen in the Gears of War video game series. One could make the distinction that it’s a virtual rape. And I don’t think that the use of that term necessarily diminishes it, and if a person does have a blasé view of sexual violence, I maintain that simply using the word in a fantasy-violence context isn’t what made them have that view. Rather, their attitude towards sex was already present and the way they used the word was an outgrowth of that unconcerned attitude. 

                        Simply looking at the words someone uses or is okay with hearing on occasion does not validate the conclusion that they disregard the seriousness of sexual assault or have a low view of women. The nicest, kindest, most soft-spoken men you know could harbor violent urges and secretly hate women. How would you know? You can’t know a person’s thoughts. You may know something about them by the words they say, but you can never know everything. Consequently, this works for people who use harsh words, too. Guys who cuss might be otherwise responsible and respectful; there is then simply a disconnect between the character they know they ought to have and the one which they present to others. Are guys supposed to feel guilty over having the “privilege” to not live in fear of being raped, so that they have the opportunity (whether they act on it or not, whether they choose to be a jerk or whether they choose to have empathy) to not view rape as deadly serious business to the point of being afraid to say the word? Some modern feminists would answer affirmatively. This is one of the reasons why I can’t respect modern feminists. People who are innocent of crimes that are committed by others who have nothing to do with them are not guilty and should not feel guilty over it.  IT IS NOT THEIR FAULT. This is the linchpin for the fight I have with third-wave feminists over the issues of “male privilege” and other made up concepts designed to give man-haters an outlet and an excuse to practice misandry and get away with it. Well, whether you follow my logic or not, now you know my suspicion, and why I don’t trust those making the accusation.

                        I should, in fairness, point out that the 3^rd-wave feminist would dispute that they’re attempting to place the guilt, blame and shame of male-on-female rape on law-abiding, responsible young men without the slightest tendency of violence toward women, in word or deed. Instead, they would claim that by their words (to recap, using “rape!” as an interjection when being virtually killed by a computer game) somehow affect other boys/men to the point where their accumulated words create a “culture” of irresponsible unconcern for women that somehow is supposed to imply to those who go on to be rapists that rape is apparently okay, because those other guys seem to talk about it like it’s no big deal. Apparently. Yeah, I don’t buy that argument. 

                        First, I agree that every individual bears some responsibility for the community because they do in fact influence it. But this is not an enforceable responsibility, which they can be punished for failing to uphold according to someone else’s arbitrary opinion about how they should or should not conduct themselves. Second, I defy the claim that the 3WF is just talking about increasing civic responsibility, and hold that she is indeed attempting to pin the blame for actual rape on those who are innocent. (My experience with seeing how they argue bears this out, their self-serving objections to the contrary.) We’ll call these ‘gentlemen,’ for future reference. Guys who behave themselves as they should. 

                        The fundamental underlying thing that angers me about the way the 3WF goes about the problem (does anyone deny that rape is an actual societal ill?) is that their modus operandi in “rectifying” the fact of women being attacked is to retaliate by attacking men. And not even the men who attacked women, but the guys whom the feminista derangedly thinks aren’t doing “enough” to stop rape from happening. As if any individual man has both the power and opportunity to stop the FACT of rape. It’s egregiously illogical, and to be showered with words intended to produce guilt over something that I bear no culpability for is, bottom-line, unjust. Nothing frustrates me quite as much as wrongful punishment.

                        Let’s go back to the point I made about not knowing whether a guy is a ‘bad guy’ or ‘good guy’ based on how they speak. The verse “out of the abundance of the heart, the mouth speaks,” came to my mind fairly easily. It’s a good thing to consider. So that I’m not misunderstood, I don’t mean to say that a guy can have a severe potty-mouth and be perfectly fine. On some level, the heart isn’t right, because otherwise he wouldn’t be saying those things. But it would be a mistake to conclude that because a guy presents himself very well, that this means that he has a good heart. Another verse is “man looks at the outward appearance, but God looks at the heart.” What the mouth speaks, while being ‘out of the abundance of the heart,’ is still part of the ‘outward appearance,’ and is therefore deceptive. I think the appropriate way to understand the first verse is that a person who talks like a jerk is, fundamentally, a jerk on some level, but this is all you can conclude. You can not conclude anything about what you do not see. If someone does not speak, then you cannot know what is in their heart. So the point of the verses together is to say that you can draw conclusions about a person based on what you see, but you cannot draw conclusions based on what you do not see, and therefore you should be careful to judge by what you see alone. In other words, you should be careful how you judge someone by their actions, and if you cannot be careful, it’s better to avoid judging at all in the first place, because you’re pretty much guaranteed to come to the wrong conclusion. And that’s third wave feminism in a nutshell.

                        So, what is my view, then? It’s easy to disagree with someone. One can look very impressive by being perpetually critical of others, but unless you have an alternative position which you are willing to defend, you’re either an ignorant fool (if you don’t have one) or a coward (if you’re unwilling to defend it). Either way, you’re criticizing someone else’s ideas without putting forth any of your own, and that is the behavior of an intellectual terrorist. You only tear things down, you don’t build anything yourself, only destroy. But I am not such a person. I’m not criticizing for the sake of criticizing, but because I have a well-developed view which third-wave feminism contrasts with. On those points of difference, I find reason to object, and therefore offer criticism. I’ve hinted at a few things I believe already. One, individuals of any genographic group (in contrast to demographic. Demographics concerns religious beliefs, political affiliations, cultures, social status, etc; Genographics concerns national origin, sex, ethnicity(skin color/shade), birth language, age, etc) bear no culpable (guilt, fault, etc) responsibility for the actions of any other member of that genographic group, or any member of any other group, for that matter. Two, all individuals have some responsibility to act in a certain way for the betterment of their society – but here’s where I differ from 3WF – this does NOT mean that if society deteriorates, you can trace this back to some error on their part. In other words, I have a responsibility to honor women. If someone in New York City rapes a woman, that did not occur because of some failure on my part to honor women. That’s my thesis. This is where I knock heads with third-wave feminism. Furthermore, I assure you that I have not misrepresented my opposition at all. I have had repeated interactions with others to this effect, and the people I have spoken with have not been one-off aberrations, but highly educated women holding positions as representatives of the present feminist movement on multiple levels. They all say the same thing, so I’m justified in characterizing the movement as promoting this view.

                        The solution to rape, according to 3WF, is to find something to scream at, because that’s just so productive, isn’t it? Since screaming at random guys is insane and makes you look like a crazy sociopath, the feministas decided that they needed to invent something to be a convenient target, or excuse, for the venting of their anger and frustration. So “rape culture” was born, which is simply one of the newer buzz-words that essentially mean the same as the catch-all, “male privilege.” Basically it’s a philosophy that says that as a man, if you’re not a woman-hating criminal, you’re part of the problem. Read that again, I didn’t mistype. It’s a complicated roundabout excuse for man-hating women to scream at random guys after all. It’s what they wanted to do, and with a little bit of crackpot philosophy, it’s possible for them to behave outrageously and get away with it, all while making themselves look smart to each other by talking about the newest “gender theory” that explains why women are so awesome and guys are lame and stupid. And mean jerks. 

                        Can you tell that I’m a bit emotionally invested in this? I notice that my tone became more severe through the course of writing, but despite  the bitter sarcasm in the last few hundred words, I maintain that my accusations are valid. Far from saying that all women who consider themselves “feminists” are necessarily the way I describe, I nevertheless insist that the movement as a whole is misandrist – man-hating – and nothing more than an elaborate pseudo-scholarly façade which sole purpose is to give angry women an outwardly legitimate reason to spew vile invective, disrespect, patronizing insults and unwarranted accusations toward people who don’t deserve any of it. And why are they angry? Well, why do some men hate women? You answer that question, and you’ll have the answer to why some women hate men. I suspect the pathology is quite similar and presumably much more of a personal issue than anything involving a conspiracy to diminish the seriousness of sexual crimes.

                        If 3WF’s “solution” to rape isn’t really a solution, then what would be the solution? Contrary to feminism’s solution of putting men down, I propose the simple alternative of raising men up. Not over women, mind you. Just out of the gutter where they’ve been left to fester for the last several decades while the “Women’s Movement” has produced a real “culture” of systematically ignoring the needs of boys and in fact privileging young girls, resulting in disproportionate levels of men entering any area of life. I suppose some statistics here would be helpful, but I’m not connected to the internet right now. I do know that roughly 60% of Baccalaureate degrees go to women, and considering that the ratio of men to women is much closer to 50:50 than 40:60, and furthermore considering the notion that the goal of the Women’s Movement was to achieve equality, hasn’t the time long ago come for spending more effort helping boys so they can be equal to girls? The fact that even as women make up a sizeable majority of college students and college graduates, the Movement keeps pushing ahead while ignoring the men and boys being left behind reveals that it was never about “equality.” It was about superiority, plain and simple. And the worst part about it is that this isn’t even helping women. But talking about how the “Women’s Movement” has failed women is a 3,000-word subject in its own right. I can’t divert to talk about that now. Forgive me. But based in part on some arguments that won’t fit here for lack of time, I believe that modern feminism has both created and fostered the “culture” of misogyny that it ironically rants about. You can’t promote the “right” of young girls to engage in pornography and then complain about women being degraded in the culture. There’s no consistency there. If your hope is to encourage people to respect women, why would your every action be directed at disrespecting women? The third-wave feminists have themselves created the “culture” of chauvinism that permeates the places they frequent, and the maddening irony of this is that the very thing that they accuse innocent men of – creating a culture that degrades women and subjects them to violence – is what they themselves are guilty of! This is what most frustrates and angers me about the whole thing. 

                        Feminism has had its chance. Now, instead of letting a bunch of sexist women dictate how men should behave, while refusing to put any limits on how women should behave, I suggest that the time is nigh for men to take the initiative themselves. Don’t be tempted to take advantage of the culture that the feminists created. Allow me to explain. This is what many guys do. I’ve seen this everywhere I go. The vast majority of males LOVE what feminism has produced: hordes of uninhibited young girls who will drink and lay and on top of it, if they mess up and get pregnant, they’ll get an abortion, absolving the guys of any and all consequences of their own irresponsible actions. What’s the best way to stop date rape? Might I suggest not promoting that girls view drinking and ‘hooking up’ as “fun,” but rather something to avoid? Shocking. I can feel the feminist anger rising against me. But the truth tends to insult people—that’s how it lets them know they don’t have it. However, as I noted, since the change is not going to come from the female side, since the girls are squarely in the grips of the perverting influence of 3WF, the change needs to come from the male side. These same guys who are living it up, taking advantage of the easy access to sexually unrestrained girls and women, are the same guys who need to be the ones to say “stop,” and to resist and reject the very thing that they find so enjoyable.

                        Sounds impossible. How would this be accomplished? There’s a couple of answers to that question. The first: slowly. There is no quick fix to any problem in society. You can’t just throw money at something, as politicians are wont to do, and you can’t just hold a conference to “raise awareness,” as academia is wont to do. The only way to change a large group of people is through grass-roots mobilization, a bottom-up approach, rather than a top-down one. You can’t simply command people to behave a certain way. For the record, rape is already illegal, not to mention deeply morally wrong. For somebody to commit rape, they’re not going to hesitate because somebody told them not to do it. The mentality that can rationalize a violent sexual act against someone else’s will is not one that submits to moral authorities, be they legal, familial or theological. The person in question needs more than merely deterrence – he needs to have his entire way of thinking changed. And THAT is something that culture can effect (that’s not a typo, either). The best way to prevent crime is not to be able to intervene at all times wherever the criminal may strike. This doesn’t solve the problem. The criminal is still a criminal at heart, even if the crime wasn’t committed that time. 

                        The best way to stop crime is to destroy criminals – by turning them into law-abiding citizens. How do you do that? You change their perspective. You convince them that the sexually gratuitous lifestyle is not satisfying, and ultimately destructive. You convince them that exercising self control and serving the good of others prior to the pleasure of the self is a superior way to live. When the guys who go out looking for someone to have sex with no longer feel compelled to do so, the chances of someone being taken advantage of in the service of someone else’s lusts greatly diminishes. And I could devote more words to elaborating on my point, but I think it makes enough sense to not need many examples. Simply put, you need to perform “inception” on all the males in America. Quite like the movie, that’s why I’m referencing it. The idea is to plant an idea, or multiple ideas, in their mind that then take root and lead to changed behavior in their lives. Instead of making demands, get them to understand why they would want to change their ways. When you show them that your alternative is not only right but also more appealing, you’ll have a better result. Granted, some will resist your attempts to model real manhood and insist on taking advantage of loose girls just because they can. These boys are too far gone for you to have any success with the ‘carrot’ approach. They’re going to have to experience punishment before they “get” it. That’s not your responsibility, it’s not our responsibility – it’s law enforcement’s. Or his parents’, or some other authority. Our goal is to work with the receptive minds that are out there and confront them with the fact that there’s an alternative way to be, and they’re making the wrong choice by not choosing it. This is what’s going to change the culture, and produce true harmony between the sexes. And I feel compelled to add, if this approach is rejected, in favor of the tried-and-false method of the feministas, then I assure you that things will get worse and worse. You can take my solution or leave it. But there are consequences to doing the wrong thing.

                        I would be remiss if I didn’t addend that the only way to really change a person’s heart is by the transformation of the Holy Spirit that is called the “new birth.” Christianity is more than just a belief system. When a person is saved, God begins to transform them on the inside, changing their very desires. Remember how I said that law could only punish but wouldn’t make the criminal a non-criminal at heart? Well, that’s what the Gospel has the power to do. It not only justifies a person in the sight of God, but it changes his heart so that the things he used to love, he begins to hate, and the things he used to hate, he comes to love. Only a total spiritual transformation of the soul can accomplish the feat of turning a rapist-at-heart into a man who loves and honors women. And the only way that can happen is if the Gospel is preached to them. 

                        So the solution to the problems faced by feminists, not just rape but EVERY problem stemming from the sinful human heart, is the love of God available through Jesus Christ. The solution is for the Gospel to be preached. Consequently, then, ignoring God and avoiding dealing with the profound spiritual issues at the heart of societal ills such as rape and misogyny will not accomplish anything but exacerbating the symptoms and perpetuating the decline in man’s interaction with himself. But don’t mistake me for peddling the Gospel as a pragmatic solution to temporal dilemmas. The Gospel is so much more. First and foremost, it is a reconciliation of man with God, forgiveness of sins and the offer of salvation and eternal life. Even if this was “all” there was, it would be enough for me. But God isn’t content merely to promise future things. He’s intimately involved with us and everyone who comes to Him not only receives the promise of eternal life, but they receive a life full of Him even until then. And a life filled with God can never defy God’s commandments to such an egregious extent so as to result in rape. A more harmonious society is just a side effect, one of the many wonderful blessings that by no means must happen, but which God lavishes on the nation who honors, loves, and seeks after Him. 

                        I want the Gospel to be spread so that my countrymen can avoid the wrath to come, and be saved. But second to that, I know that millions of Spirit-filled men and women have the power, God’s power through them, to bring peace and blessing to this country of a magnitude yet not seen. Why wouldn’t I want to see my nation prosper? So, in more ways than one, the answer to every thing is God. It is His Gospel. And the choice is ours. If we want to have peace in the next life,  we must accept the Gospel for ourselves. And if we want to live in peace in this life (no guarantees, though!), we must spread the Gospel to others. Not to mention that your efforts might be the only chance they get to take hold of eternal life. Love your fellow men and women. Don’t wait. 

~ Rak Chazak