On Feminists and Rape

I keep hearing variations of something like this:

"Don't tell women to do X,Y, or Z. Tell men not to rape."

"Don't tell your children to get good grades. Tell them to eat their spinach."

Now even beyond the fact that the two are not mutually exclusive, I've always thought this was a very silly thing to say. Who are they planning to tell not to rape? The men who wouldn't do it or the men who would? The former don't need to be told and the latter aren't going to listen. (Because they're kind of evil and stuff.)

Statements like these are purely rhetorical - they have no teeth. They make great soundbites, but they do nothing to end rape. If you want to tell men something you might tell them that there will be swift and severe consequences if they attempt a sexual assault. You might even tell them that you are armed and determined to defend yourself. These are effective things that you might say to anyone who is willing to try to get what he wants using force. Words without force mean nothing to those who can only understand force.

Surprisingly, feminists recently took issue with Miss Nevada for recommending that women take steps to defend themselves against sexual assault. You would think that feminists would be in favor of women taking measures to defend and "empower" themselves. I've heard many times, and it makes sense to me, that a determined and desperate resistance can be a strong deterrent against rapists since they are typically looking for easy targets. So why would feminists, who spend a lot of time talking about rape, not be in favor of women taking effective measures against rape? In their own words they claim that this is because the mere suggestion that women take practical measures to defend themselves against scumbags is a suggestion that women are somehow at fault for rape. But this is like saying that, because I recommend that you have a home security system, I think it is your fault if your house gets broken into. Sure, you shouldn't have to have a home security system, but you might want one. Sure, you shouldn't have to learn how to defend yourself against a rapist, but who wants to get raped on principle?

It is becoming clear that feminists are concerned with rape not so much because they want to reduce the number of times that it occurs by finding practical means of discouraging it, but rather because of the excellent rhetorical opportunities it provides to beat down men in general. To this purpose, suggestions that women take measures for their own defense are quite useless and possibly even harmful. Feminists are much more concerned about assigning the blame for rape rather than preventing it. Ostensibly, we all agree about where the guilt for rape should lie. It is always 100% the perpetrator's fault. That's the easy part of the question. The hard part is what we are going to do about it. The truth is that feminists are obsessed with the assignment of blame because they would like to hijack the tragedy of rape and use it to guilt trip men who would never consider committing such a heinous act.

In my opinion this is why hardcore feminists will only ever be in favor of more talk when it comes to ending rape - at least when it comes to measures that women can take. They're cool with that because ultimately that's all they want out of it - just another talking point.

Two Songs for Memorial Day

In honor of it being Memorial Day I thought I'd share these two songs by way of paying tribute to those who have gone into harm's way on my behalf. They're both songs that kind of grabbed me and I hope my discerning readers can enjoy them.

This first one has what I must confess is a crummey music video. Apparently that wasn't the singer's forté. Just pass over that and listen.


This second one mercifully sticks to just lyrics and is equally moving.

On Being Wronged: Forgiveness and The Big Picture

A lasting and mutually amicable relationship must be based on truth. By "truth" I mean a mutual understanding and acknowledgement of what is true about the relationship, its status, and what, from the history of that relationship, one party may reasonably expect from the other. Without it there can be nothing more than a superficial show-relationship with all the trappings and none of the meaning.

We are not commanded to forgive when forgiveness has not been asked. This should not be treated as license to hold a grudge, but rather as a statement about the nature of what it means to forgive. To say "I forgive you" is to affirm that you accept and acknowledge the repentance of someone who has wronged you. That repentance, of course, implies that the repentant acknowledge wrongdoing. Therefore, it is quite impossible to accept repentance which has not been offered. Until it is, the relationship cannot be reinstated as it was.

Moreover continued refusal to acknowledge wrong is Biblical grounds for the termination of all interaction. This does not mean rendering evil for evil or wishing evil upon those who have wronged you. We should always be willing to embrace those who have wronged us the minute they confess their wrong and ask for our forgiveness. Nor should this forgiveness be contingent upon the other party's ability to make good what his or her wrongdoing may have cost us. Particularly in cases of betrayal, this is not possible. (Though I suppose true repentance would be accompanied by a desire to do so.)

Forgiveness, then, should be offered with genuine joy that the offending party has been won over. We should rejoice to see this spiritual fruit and not begrudge letting go of our claims. Though really, any "claims" that we might think we have ought to be deeded over to God in the first place. He ordained it and he will make it right in his good time.

This brings me to my final point. Sometimes God allows bad people to do bad things to those who are displeasing to him. Time after time God used the cruelty of Israel's wicked neighbors to judge Israel for her sins. What's interesting is that God later would judge these nations because of what they had done to Israel. They were wrong in the cruel things that they did, but God was just in using them to judge Israel for what Israel herself had done. I think God uses cruel people for his purposes today just as He did back then. So if someone has wronged you, it might be a good time to sit up and pay attention to what God is trying to get across to you. I don't know about you, but I sure wouldn't want for Him to have to do it again.

If you're reading this, I sincerely hope you found it helpful. They say that a wise man learns from his mistakes, but a very wise man learns from other people's mistakes.

If it's too late to be very wise, I hope I can at least be wise.

My response to "3 Things Christians Should Stop Doing On Social Media"

Original article: http://jarridwilson.com/3-things-christians-should-stop-doing-on-social-media/

For an article written by a pastor and directed toward Christians I see a disturbing lack of scriptural references, but a whole lot of tired buzz-phrases.

1. While I am somewhat unclear on what is meant here by "publicly calling people out", the elaboration that follows uses the word "judgement" in the pejorative sense that is so often used by people who don't like to be reminded of what God doesn't like. The word "Judgmental" has been so badly abused in this way that perhaps the most humane thing to do is to put it out of its misery and have it stricken from common use. We should go on "speaking the truth in love."

2. No major objections, but if he means not sharing the gospel and/or biblical truth on social media then I strongly disagree. Everything must be brought into subjection - that includes social media. Moreover, even a nugget of truth my pique the appetite.

3. I don't disagree with what he says. I disagree with what he means. The use of the word "Argument" is loaded language. With this one term people of his persuasion sweep up petty, childish disputes, philosophical and doctrinal discussions, and political dialogue. Then they stamp them all with the same condemnation and wag a finger at it all using the sweeping term "arguing". There is absolutely nothing wrong with humbly contending for the truth as you feel led. ("in humility correcting those who are in opposition.") Just because you don't feel led to doesn't mean no one else can be, and just because you have seen it done unkindly doesn't mean that it must always be so.

Social media is a powerful tool and can be used for good or evil. The answer is not to bar all serious discussion from it. The answer is to subject all uses, including serious discussion, to God's word.

The Serenity to Accept the Things I Cannot Change

I'm pretty sure that most humans don't like the idea of anything being out of their control. I'm also pretty sure that we male types are even worse about this. I've found that it's especially hard to accept the fact that I have no recourse in a given situation. To my mind there must always be something I can do to "fix" the problem. My mind rebels at the idea that I might not be able to deal with the situation on my own. I find myself either angry or discouraged when I'm boxed in or cut off from the things that I think I "need." Reaching quiet resignation is about the toughest thing to do. I say quiet resignation because I want to make it clear that the kind of resignation I am talking about is not a noisy, boisterous, or complaining resignation, but a quiet resolve to accept whatever comes my way while still doing my best to bring about the best outcome in each situation. Part of reaching this state of mind is the recognition of the fact that a lot of the things that I tacitly assume that I need are not needful at all. I could name specifics, but it really boils down to a misapprehension that I often suffer from: namely that idea that if I just stay on top of everything and play my cards right I can get the things that I "need." And further, as often happens, if I'm not getting what I "need" then somebody somewhere must have messed up. And certainly from a human perspective this is possible. But try for a moment to look at the big picture that God is seeing. For him nothing is ever out of control, nothing has slipped or gone off the rails, and even the things that we humans call "mistakes" happen for a purpose. All too often though I have an unstated set of minimum requirements that need to be met before my status can be "okay." Otherwise something is amiss and I need to find a fix quickly. And I'm not patient when one of these items is missing. Red lights come on in my mind's control panel and a blaring alarm sounds. The situation is out of control, my "needs" are threatened, and action can and must be taken on my part to secure those "needs" - not only for now but for the foreseeable future. The ludicrous nature of this idea needs only to be put in words to be clearly seen. What I ask of myself is a complete impossibility. No one ever has achieved or ever will achieve the necessary amount of control over their lives to ensure that the things that we often regard as "needs" are always met. And yet I have the arrogance to think that it should somehow be different for me. I sometimes chuckle when I think of how silly this idea is.

So if there's something that you feel you "need" and you're not getting it, may I humbly suggest that you turn your attention to the things that you truly need and remember that we've already been promised everything that is truly needful.

Quacks or Cures? Thoughts on nutrition and health

Alternate nutrition rejects a lot of accepted medical practice, in favor of a more natural approach to health and wellness. The ostensible idea behind the movement is to get back to "natural" remedies that used to work in past times. An over-sweeping theme is that our modern science and medical technology is not helping us with the things we really need, and that the medical profession does not have a vested interest in making us well. This standpoint is also fundamentally optimistic because it holds that we can be in much better health than doctors and conventional nutritional doctrine would have us to believe.

While I'm very much in favor of proper nutrition, and would caution anyone against blindly accepting anything a doctor tells them, I cannot agree with my homeschooled friends on this subject. I believe that most of the arguments, used in the defense of these views, will not bear the light of critical thinking. As the reader, it's your right to disagree with me, however, if your interested, I've enumerated a case for conventional medicine below.

One of the chief arguments used by apologists of alternate medicine, is what you might call the "discount" argument. Let me explain: You see, when a doctor, a scientist, or any kind of medical professional weighs in on the subject of health or nutrition, proponents of alternate medicine will neatly sidestep him/her by stating that, professionals are not qualified to speak on the subject because they are part of the medical profession. After all, what else would "one of them" say? This allows them to, as it where, "switch off" anything else a trained professional says. I think this judgement is premature for a number of reasons. Firstly, it comes off sounding just a trifle arrogant, albeit unintentionally. Doctors have to get through some pretty tough stuff to survive med-school. As someone who finds it possible to keep quite busy enough to suit my needs just getting through college, I have to say that I've developed a new respect for people who go on to do more, (like grad-school, law-school, and med-school.) But more than that, as someone who has taken high-school biology as well as good deal of computer programming at the college level, I can only imagine just how complicated a system the human body must be. I think I may safely say that it is more complex than even the most advanced computer we've made yet. And it has been my experience that when I go to tinkering with some part of a computer that I don't understand, it is all too possible to mess it up worse than I found it. Of course with a computer, the stakes aren't nearly so high, if I mess it up too bad I can usually reset it to default values or otherwise revert to a previous configuration or status. People, on the other hand, don't have a reset button. This is why it is doubly important to "get it right" the first time when it comes to doctoring. It is also why doctors go through years of intense training before they are considered to be competent in their discipline. Most of us are not doctors. This is no commentary  on our relative intelligence, only on our area of specialization. Some of us, myself included, simply may not have a flair for cutting up cadavers. But we do what we do because it's what we've been trained to do and, compared to most everyone else, we're pretty good at it. So when a layman or an amateur in the field of medicine, like you or I, undertakes to tell a doctor that's he's wrong about a medical question, we'd better have something more to go on than our own say so. But more than that, it's a mistake to automatically tune out everything they say. If they don't know what they're talking about, it should be relatively easy to disarm them in a debate. If they do, you may find, as I often have, that you've bitten off a bit more than you can chew. One more thing before I leave this point: We must avoid falling into the trap of thinking that medical truth, (or any other kind for that matter), is relative. The physical laws that apply to my body, are exactly the same for yours. What is a bad idea for me to do to myself, is probably a bad idea for you to do to yourself. Of course, individual circumstances may vary, but as a rule, there are no two right ways when it comes to medical best practices. The chemical and physical realities we live with are the same for everyone.

Now, I can almost hear you saying: "But David, not all education is equal. Who's to say that they haven't been taught/indoctrinated with bad science?"

There are a number of ways I could come at this, but I must say that if they have been taught bad science, we're in a little bit of a pickle. I'm not convinced that any of us are knowledgeable enough to call them on it. If this is true then it's a case of the blind leading the blind. However, I hear the medical profession being accused of conspiracy much more than of ignorance. Just how likely is it that the entire medical profession is part of a vast conspiracy by "big pharmaceutics" to keep us all dependent on popping pills that don't even make us better? Well, it's not hard to understand why they want to sell us medicine, but what I can't wrap my mind around is why, they wouldn't want to make more money by selling us medicine that actually works. And if it made us better, and we didn't buy it anymore, would we never get sick again? If even one pharmaceutical company broke ranks and started to sell the real cures that actually work, how long would it take for them to bankrupt every other company that refused to do the same? If there's a crime going forward, I'd be surprised because I just don't see a motive.

It isn't as if people are saving any money by going to alternative medicine. From what I've seen, you can drop every bit as much money on that as you can going to doctors or buying prescriptions. Nutrition seems to be the big thrust here, and as stated before, I'm a big fan of nutrition. But surprisingly, most of this energy has been directed at eliminating entire food groups out of hand. This is puzzling to me because, from a nutritional standpoint, more variety is better. The food groups that get the ax are often replaced with rare and not always appealing products that are usually produced in remote places at great expense. Most of western civilization's longstanding dietary staples fall victim to this nutritional zeal. If it's cheap, plentiful, and grown in the US of A, it's bad for you. Ironically, replacements often fill similar roles in the parts of the world where they come from. Apparently, the grain, as well as the grass, is better on the other side of the fence.

"Oh, but David, don't you know that it's all genetically engineered over here?"

Well, yes, and that's why we're not starving right and left like they do in a whole lot of other parts of the world. It's also why we're the second tallest nation in the world, (behind the Dutch). We do pretty well over here. And if there's a problem with our food, it's that we have too much of it, or more correctly, that we don't have the discipline to make ourselves stop eating it. But if the genetically engineered stuff was bad for us, you can bet your life that trial lawyers would be swarming all over it. We live in a pretty incredulous society, and believe me, folks have gotten sued for a whole lot less. There are just too many people who could stand to gain from capitalizing on such an enormous cash cow for any vast conspiracy theories to be plausible. Give human selfishness some credit.

"David, are you defending trial lawyers?"

Well, you got me there. Perhaps, like everything else, they have their place.

There's one other thing that I'd like to address before I close. That is the subject of online information and it's uses. We have to bear in mind that anybody can post almost anything they want online. There is no system of peer review online as there is for publication of information or hypothesis about that information in books or periodicals. The result is that, no matter what your viewpoint, you can pretty much always find somebody else to agree with you about it online. And that's not all a bad thing. A wealth of useful information can be found online at reputable websites. Even websites that must be taken with a grain of salt, such as Wikipedia, can be extremely useful in satisfying casual curiosity or directing the avid scholar to other, more credible sources on the topic in question. However, if the only place you can find support for your view is online, it generally doesn't bode well. Most of us know how easily the most outlandish rumors can propagate through social media. This type of information carries less clout than word of mouth, because, in most cases, you know considerably less about the person writing it then you do about anyone you would talk to in the flesh. And yet, out of habit, we tend to attribute more importance to information that is in written form than we do spoken words. Recently, I talked to one of my fellow students, who was, quite frankly, a little bit racist against Jews. He cited "research" that he had done online. He claimed that there was a massive Jewish conspiracy that was all but controlling the United States. He also suggested that the Holocaust was perpetrated by Jews upon other Jews. Clearly, we can't swallow everything we hear online.

It's been said that "Just because you are paranoid, doesn't mean that everyone isn't out to get you." Well, laughs aside, maybe so. But most generally, there has to be a motive for wrongdoing. Unlike good people, bad people don't do what they do purely on principle. This is why I'm not a proponent of alternate medicine. Not because I blindly accept what I'm told, but because I believe that when you consider the source and the source's knowledge and motives, you can make the best decision about the credibility of that source.

Note: I'd like to clarify that my nutritional comments where not in reference to people who have allergies or whose bodies, for one reason or another, can't handle certain types of food. That is not what I am referring to. There are some foods that I myself cannot eat without incurring immediate and rather unpleasant consequences. So believe me, if you're one of those people, I feel your pain.