The Other McCain

"One should either write ruthlessly what one believes to be the truth, or else shut up." — Arthur Koestler

Testosterone-Deficient Gamma Male Whines About the ‘Friend Zone’

Posted on | April 20, 2014 | 205 Comments

Chris Tognotti (@ctognotti) offers a lesson in Darwinian selection by the obverse example of How to Fail:

Why Don’t Women Like Me Back? On Always
Being the Guy Who’s Just a Friend
Hello. My name is Christopher Tognotti, and I’m no good with women.
This is a slight generalization, perhaps, but that’s how it feels. Whether I’ve been bright-eyed or gloomy, fat or slender, young(er) or old(er), the ladies have never seemed to love me quite as much as I love them. My days as a fit gym employee involved no more fulfilled loves than my days now as a portly writer.
Let me lay it on the line: At nearly 28 years old, I’ve never been in a proper relationship. Even further — I’ve never actually been on a date with anyone I felt a real flare of passion for.

OK, here’s your first big clue: Tognotti’s complaint is not that he gets zero action, but rather that he can’t get any action from girls he actually finds attractive. His problem, therefore, is that he imagines himself entitled to be with good-looking women, rather than being forced to make do with the ordinary-looking women who are actually interested in him. Tognotti continues whining:

I’m not virginal in any other sense, but at least for me, the emotional droughts feel much worse than the sexual ones.
Many people I know can measure out sections of their adult lives by the benchmarks of sustained, serious relationships, and that’s an ability I find myself brutally envious of. I’ve cried over the feelings and experiences I’ve longed to have, and cried to the people who, one way or another, haven’t provided them.

(Crying over your feelings? Are your testicles malfunctioning?)

That’s not to say I haven’t spent time with women I’ve liked or fallen for. I’ve been more or less surrounded with women since my childhood, having always gotten along more easily and naturally with girls than boys.

(Because you’re a total Gamma.)

As you might expect, I’ve sometimes found myself smitten; a situation considerably more perilous when the person you desire is also your friend. Which is to say, someone with whom you might be wrecking something that’s already pretty good.
I have a handful of images frozen in mind of the moments at which I’ve told people how I truly felt about them. I’ve become adept at reading the language of rejection: It’s most often been the eyes where the answer comes first, while the face stays still. You’d be shocked how easily the thought I really like you as a person but I’m not attracted or interested in dating you can be conveyed with just the flicker of an eyelid.

(It can also be conveyed with a restraining order.)

“Local heterosexual white man dissatisfied with love life.” I know, some headlines aren’t as grabbing as others. There is at least one way in which I’m not dissatisfied however: my own ability to weather life and love’s disappointments, and to never blame the women who reject me in the process.
Perhaps you’ve heard this story before, of a self-proclaimed “nice guy” who feels miffed by the romantic inattention of a close female friend. But assumptions that the alleged “nice guy” may be making — feeling aggrieved, maybe even angry, that she couldn’t be more open-minded, or see how great a couple they’d be — fall perilously short of anything describable as “nice.”

(At least you acknowledge this problem. Too many “nice guy” types fail to acknowledge the element of envious selfishness in their resentments of romantically successful men.)

Vehemently complaining that a woman is dating somebody else instead of you hinges on the assumption that she’d want to date you otherwise. I understand the impulse, even the drive to convince oneself that such a romance could flourish.
And it’s true — friendships can sometimes lead to pretty awesome relationships — or so I’m told. But if a man is basically complaining that female friends aren’t actively seeking to repay their platonic kindness with sex, then let me say, clearly and loudly: that attitude is full of sh*t.
Sometimes, the answer to the question “why don’t they love me?” is best given simply: because they don’t. The amount of mental exhaustion I’ve put myself through in dodging this truth is embarrassing in retrospect.

(Almost as embarrassing as this column is, in the present tense.)

I owe immeasurable amounts of my life’s happiness and well-being to women who’ve never been anything but my friends. Those relationships, and the experiences shared within them, are not consolation prizes, or pathetic stepping-stones. Unless, of course, you decide to treat them as such.
I’d love to end this on a note of some burgeoning optimism. But in truth, I can’t. It simply wouldn’t feel true to my heart, my state of mind, or my expectations right now.

(This need you feel to be “true to your heart,” much like your pathetic gratitude for mere friendship from females, is almost certainly symptomatic of a testosterone deficiency.)

But I’m buoyed by the knowledge that all things change in time, and that what (or who) waits around the corner could also be a pleasant surprise. It might sound small, but if dime-store optimism is the best I can muster, I’ll try to take it, every time. In that way, I’ll always be a romantic.

You’ll always be a loser, too. Look, I don’t have time today to run a Game Seminar for Losers, so let me cut to the heart of your problem, Chris: You’re overestimating your range.

Suppose a guy’s overall attractiveness — including all possible factors, including income, personality, etc. — is 5 on a scale of 10.

As a general rule, a 5 male’s romantic prospects are seldom going to include women who would rank as high as an 8. The best such a guy can realistically hope for is to catch a 7 in a vulnerable moment and if he doesn’t want to be hopelessly lonely while waiting for that lucky shot to come along, Mr. 5 would be wise to seek companionship among females ranking 5 or below. The very nature of Chris Tognotti’s “nice guy” complaint tells you that he’s not playing that way.

When Tognotti says he will “always be a romantic,” what he means is that he will keep hanging around good-looking women who are entirely out of his range, hoping someday to fulfill his unrealistic fantasy that they will reciprocate his interest.

The problem is not their superficiality, but his.

He’s basically a stalker, a romantic voyeur, dishonestly using the “friend zone” as an excuse to get close to women in a non-sexual context, secretly hoping that he can then exploit this proximity to convert a girl friend into a girlfriend. But when he finally works up the gumption to express his secret purpose, not only are his overtures unwelcome, but his female friend feels understandably betrayed: If she had known his interest in her was erotic, she never would have let this pitiful scrub into her “friend zone” to begin with.

So, if I had to give Chris Tognotti any one piece of advice, it would be this: Next time your “romantic” nature leads you to pursue a phony friendship with a girl who’s way out of your league, first find out if she’s got a fat friend, and date the fat girl instead.

You need to come to grips with your own inadequacy, Chris. Unless you do that, you’ll probably end up as a serial killer.

Also, visit an endocrinologist and find out what’s causing your testosterone deficiency. This weeping nelly act is not attractive.

 

Category: humor

If Bundy Had Married His Cattle, Lefties’d Celebrate “Diversity” #BundyRanch

Posted on | April 20, 2014 | 18 Comments

by Smitty

Stacy had picked up this story a couple of days ago, when the BLM backed down. For now. Per ABC:

A group of armed militia and protesters, some sporting nametags reading “domestic terrorist,” remain camped out on a cattle ranch in Nevada, where they have been purportedly defending the property since a tense showdown ended with the federal government last week. A 20-year struggle between rancher Cliven Bundy and the Bureau of Land Management over decades of alleged illegal cattle grazing on public land ended last Sunday, with the government backing down from a controversial week-long cattle round-up.

Harry Reid was his usual conciliatory self, as Instapundit notes:

Yes, Protestors at Bundy Ranch Were ‘Domestic Terrorists.’ That’s a lie, but it’s a dangerous one, since it seems to pre-justify government violence while egging on tension. That’s unwise. If they decide to actually become domestic terrorists, Harry, I expect you’ll be among the first to know.

for which standard Ed Driscoll offered a more thorough test:

We’ll know they’re domestic terrorists when Rolling Stone runs dreamily-lit photos of them on their cover, Robert Redford makes a movie about them, and an ambitious young leftwing politician launches his career in their front parlor.

The ‘terrorist’ line suggests a couple of gags:

 

Could Bundy himeslf make a worse Senator than Elizabeth Warren?

Can that mighty herd displace Harry Reid in the Virtuoso Crapflooding department?

Clearly, Bundy is a proxy for all Tea Partiers. This is really all about flogging the base in preparation for November. The rule of law is at stake in this case, as noted at Powerline:

. . .the question of whether Bundy and/or his supporters would be justified in engaging in armed resistance if the federal government attempts to carry out the court orders with which they disagree.

I say that armed resistance would be wrong. As John explained, “legally, Bundy doesn’t have a leg to stand on.” Legally, he is required to pay the grazing fee and limit the grazing of his cattle. His claim that the federal government doesn’t own the land in question is simply wrong and has been rejected by the courts.

Bundy can refuse to pay the grazing fee, just as I can refuse to pay my taxes. But in a nation governed by the rule of law, non-compliance with the law has consequences. Armed resistance to those consequences is, as I say, wrong.

It would be great to try to connect Bundy to Rosa Parks, but I don’t see much overlap. No, this is clearly about distracting from the failure of ObamaCare, and prepping the troops for November.
Thus, let the conservatives be more energized, and let Reid be hoisted on his own foul petard in the next Congress.

Category: Democrats, Nevada

World’s Youngest Blogger: It’s Around Here Somewhere, I Think

Posted on | April 20, 2014 | 7 Comments


T-shirt says: “If found, please return to mommy”

Category: World's Youngest Blogger

The Mirage of Integration

Posted on | April 20, 2014 | 41 Comments

It was Dick Gregory, I believe, who defined “integration” as the period of time between when the first black family moves into a neighborhood and the last white family moves out. The recent report that New York City’s schools are the most segregated in the country might be seen as confirmation of that cynical jest.

Are we to assume that the enlightened and sophisticated white liberals of New York are secretly more racist — “RAAAAACIST!” — than they would have us believe? Our suspicion of pharisaical hypocrisy on their part may explain why liberals are always able to hear those coded racist “dog whistles” that nobody else can hear. Perpetual outrage at the alleged racism of Republicans functions as a means by which white liberals soothe their guilty consciences and tune out the cognitive dissonance that results from the unbridgeable chasm between their professed egalitarian beliefs and their inevitably elitist lifestyles.

Jelani Cobb is dismayed by the evidence of liberal hypocrisy:

There may be no better example of the ongoing scandal of school segregation than the New York City public-school system, which a recent report by the Civil Rights Project at U.C.L.A. found to be one of the most segregated in the country. Black and Latino students in New York have become more likely to attend schools with minimal white enrollment, and a majority of them go to schools defined by concentrated poverty. . . . New York is simultaneously the most diverse city in the United States and the most glaring indicator of integration’s failures.

Perhaps the question we should ask is not “Why has integration failed?” Rather we might ask, “Why did anyone ever imagine integration could succeed?” Meanwhile, Jelani Cobb confirms Dick Gregory’s cynical observation:

When I graduated from Jamaica High School, in Queens, in 1987, the school was recognized for both its high academic performance and its diverse student body, which mirrored the polyglot neighborhood that surrounded it. (In 1985, it was honored by the U.S. Department of Education as one of the nation’s “outstanding” public secondary schools.) Among my four closest African-American friends from high school — only one of whom had college-educated parents — two went on to get Ph.D.s, and the other two have M.B.A.s. By 2009, however, the graduation rate had slumped below fifty per cent, and the school was slated for closure by the city, owing to its poor academic achievement and high levels of violence. It had already long ceased having the mélange of ethnicities that I remembered. But the reversion toward segregation was not the cause of the school’s academic decline: both were symptoms of the concentration of poverty that has come to define public schools across most of New York City.

Over a period of roughly 20 years, then, this district in Queens went from being “diverse . . . polyglot” in its “mélange of ethnicities” to being overwhelmingly black. And during the same period, Jamaica High went from being an “outstanding” school to being a place of “poor academic achievement and high levels of violence,” where more than half of students drop out before graduation, a phenomenon attributed by Cobb to “the concentration of poverty.”

Well, what happened? And why did it happen? Was the change in demographics — and the correspondent “academic decline” described by Cobb — a result of intransigent white racism? Was any particular public policy implicated in this decline? The Wikipedia article about Jamaica, Queens, describes the population as 48% black, 22% Hispanic, 20% white and 10% Asian. The article also describes immigration as a major factor in the changing demographics of the community.

Is it possible that, rather than bemoaning white racism — which certainly has not increased as a factor in the past 20 years — those who desire more integrated schools should instead focus their attention on the ways in which our nation’s immigration policies contribute to increased segregation? Many who have studied this phenomenon have pointed out that an influx of impoverished immigrants, whatever its impact on the nation as a whole, has a profoundly negative influence on the prospects of low-income groups, who are forced into economic competition with the new arrivals. But if Jelani Cobb paid too much attention to such research, he might begin to have doubts about liberal proposals to grant amnesty to illegal aliens and, if he ever took a strong public stand against amnesty, then white liberals would call him a racist, too.

Welcome to 2014, Mr. Cobb. We’re all racists now.

 

Category: Education, New York, Racism

Florida Girls Pimped Out at 14

Posted on | April 19, 2014 | 11 Comments

Story Number One:

The Lake County Sheriff’s Office arrested 44 people in a prostitution sting that led them to a 14-year-old girl who deputies said was being sold for sex.
Investigators said Gregory Foster showed up to the sting with a 14-year-old girl he had kidnapped from Orange County. Detectives said Foster and the girl had been talking on Facebook and met at a gas station. . . .
Investigators said the young girl was to be Foster’s money maker. It was the girl’s first night out, deputies said. . . .
The sting, titled Operation Holler Back, lasted three days. Agents used websites like Craigslist and Backpage to arrange appointments for paid sex then met the suspects in a Lake County hotel.
Some of the 44 people arrested were alleged pimps, alleged prostitutes and alleged drivers, deputies said.
Foster is charged with kidnapping, human trafficking, possession of marijuana and possession of paraphernalia.

Story Number Two:

Three people from California have been arrested, accused of trafficking a 14-year-old from Orlando for prostitution.
Vincent Hudson, 44, who went by the alias “Goldie,” was arrested in addition to 22-year-old Patricia Poulson who went by “Moët Diamonds” and 20-year-old Jessica McCrary who went by “Amber Snow,” according to officials.
All three are from California.
The indictment said between Nov. 8 and Dec. 18 of last year, the three recruited the victim from Orlando, and then took the minor to Louisiana and California to engage in prostitution, officials said. . . .
Hudson was charged with conspiracy to commit sex trafficking of a minor, sex trafficking of a minor, transporting a minor to engage in prostitution, and two counts of commission of a felony offense involving a minor when required to register as a sex offender.
Poulson and McCrary are charged with conspiracy to commit sex trafficking of a minor.
If convicted, they each face as much as life in federal prison.

Now, these are two separate cases, but were reported on the same day by the same Orlando TV station. If 14-year-olds are being trafficked so routinely that you get this kind of coincidence, how many 14-year-olds are being pimped out in America?

 

Category: Crime, Florida, Sex

California’s #RapeCulture: Monster Gets Early Prison Release, Kidnaps Girl, 16

Posted on | April 19, 2014 | 38 Comments

This is what happens when you elect Democrats:

A man on probation as a “non-violent offender” under California’s prison realignment program has been charged with kidnapping, raping, and torturing a 16-year-old girl in South Los Angeles, and detectives suspect he may be connected to three other recent murders. Robert L. Ranson, 30, was arrested in late March after the girl escaped from a U-Haul van in an alley near Imperial Highway and New Hampshire Ave., according to police and booking records. The girl was covered in gasoline and said her attacker, later identified as Ranson, had tied her hands and taped her mouth, and was trying to light her on fire when she ran away, naked.

Ranson is also a suspect in three murders. You may ask: “How is this psychopath a ‘non-violent offender’?” Here’s your answer:

According to state prison officials Ranson was released from prison in Susanville in June, 2013 and returned to Los Angeles for supervision by probation officials. He was considered a non-violent offender because his most recent prison term was for possession of a firearm by a felon. Ranson had previously served time for two carjackings and an assault with a firearm, prison officials said.

So, despite convictions for serious violent crimes, including carjacking, Ranson was classified as “non-violent” under a system where only your most recent conviction is considered relevant. And possession of a firearm by a felon? That’s “non-violent.”

There are layers of irony here. At Occidental College, radical feminist Professor Caroline Heldman is stoking “rape culture” paranoia, but the same left-wing mentality supports Gov. Jerry Brown and his early-release program for “non-violent” offenders.

It’s only about a half-hour drive from South L.A., where this poor 16-year-old girl escaped Robert Ranson, to the campus of Occidental College, where rich girls scream about “rape culture.” Whatever any girl at Occidental has suffered, I’m reasonably sure none of them have been kidnapped, tied up, tortured and covered with gasoline by a psycho convict who tried to light them on fire.

If Jerry Brown’s “non-violent offenders” ever started preying on rich girls — like those spoiled-brat feminists at Occidental, where tuition is $46,952 a year — maybe California Democrats would care.

 

Category: California, Crime

FMJRA 2.0: Shout

Posted on | April 19, 2014 | 6 Comments

— compiled by Wombat-socho

RadFems vs. Trannies: Will Feminists Let ‘Gender Queers’ Boss Them Around?

Shocking: Brandeis Feminist Faculty Led Petition Against Ayaan Hirsi Ali

Kook Nation: Crazy Lady Who Threw Shoe at Hillary Clinton Is Crazy

The Imperfections of Victimhood

This Is Not The Time To Go Wobbly On #ObamaCare: Abort It With The Prejudice Of All Stone-Hearted Feminists Combined

Ersatz Children

Professor Herf Gets It Right

Bundy Wins Ranch Standoff

Sex Roles: ‘Me Tarzan, You Jane’

Found scribbled on the back of a 1040X

Jew-Hater Kills Jews

Teachers Gone Wild!

Police: Woman Killed Six of Her Own Babies, Hid Bodies in Garage

How Many Women Did Suspected Serial Killer Felix Vail Murder?

The Homeless Menace: Police Say Four Women Murdered by Sex Offenders

Anti-Israel Extremist @MaxBlumenthal Cited by Overland Park Jew-Killer

Oh, Noes! @AmandaMarcotte Needs New Theory to Explain Secular Misogynists

RNC Sues IRS for Stonewalling

Apartheid in New York City

Police: Florida Teacher Told Boy’s Mother ‘No Regrets’ for Sex With Student, 17

Silly Ex-SECDEF Thinks He Has The Right To A Coherent Tax System

Confetti Bomber: Kooky Art Student Arrested After Boston Marathon

How @ClaireShipman Ironically Proves Phyllis Schlafly Right About the ‘Pay Gap’

‘Repeated Requests for Phillips to Stop Masturbating and Ejaculating on Her’

For Which He Cannot Be Forgiven

New York Times: Not Fit to Line the Cage of Any Self-Respecting Parakeet

MSNBC’s War on Women: Why Has Network Abandoned Wendy Davis?

IRS Scandal: Smoking Gun?

In The Mailbox, 04.17.14

Gay Movie Director Drugged, Raped Teenage Boy in 1999, Lawsuit Alleges

British Jury Acquits Lesbian, 40, Who Had Drunk Sex With Girl, 15

Arianna Huffington’s Lesbian Daughter Recovers From Cocaine Habit

Self-Awareness, @AmandaMarcotte? Irony? Some Logical Coherence, Perhaps?

Hollywood Pedophilia Scandal: Did Democrats Know About Gay Donors?

Top  linkers this week:

  1. Batshit Crazy News (25)
  2. Regular Right Guy (22)
  3. DaleyGator (5)

Thanks to everyone for their linkagery, especially those of you who linked over the last fortnight when I was too busy in the tax mines (or Minnesota) to deal with the FMJRA.


Category: FMJRA Award

Lawyer for ‘Patriarchy’ Pervert Says Accuser ‘Is Just After a Paycheck’

Posted on | April 19, 2014 | 34 Comments

Doug Phillips and his wife Beall (left); Lourdes Torres (right)

The Doug Phillips sex scandal has reached a new low, now that the disgraced homeschooling leader and “biblical patriarchy” advocate has unleashed his lawyer to smear Phillips’ accuser Lourdes Torres-Manteufel as a dishonest money-grubber:

Long time home schooling leader and former Boerne church official Doug Phillips is fighting back today against allegations raised by his former nanny that he ‘groomed her to be his sex object.’
“This more seems like an attempt to kill a Christian movement than it does just as an attack against Doug Phillips,” Jason Jakob, who is Phillips’ attorney, tells 1200 WOAI’s Michael Board. . . .
“Mr. Phillips was gone all the time with vision Forum ministries,” he says. “He is not a pastor who would be with her on a daily basis.”
Jakob says Torres “is just after a paycheck.”

This attack on Torres is part of a pattern with Phillips: He claims that criticism of his actions are attacks on Christian belief, and threatens legal action against his critics. You can read how Phillips had his attorney send a disillusioned church member a letter threatening legal action for slander, libel and blackmail in 2006. I also strongly urge you to go read this article at World Magazine — be sure to read all four pages — which describes how Phillips threatened legal action against Peter Bradrick, Jordan Muela, and Bob Renaud, three Christian colleagues who attempted to hold him accountable.

That article points out that Phillips did not threaten Rev. Joe Morecraft, another pastor who sought to hold him accountable, for which I suggest a simple and obvious explanation: He wouldn’t dare.

People who know Rev. Morecraft will tell you he is a mighty man of God, one of the most respected Calvinist preachers in America. Doug Phillips could not possibly win a showdown with Morecraft. So the silence of Phillips in that regard is quite telling: Doug Phillips is a bully, who only picks fights with people he views as vulnerable. This fits with the narrative of Phillips’ behavior alleged in Lourdes Torres-Manteufel’s lawsuit, and in the telling of the scandal by other informed sources.

It is by no means surprising that these “other informed sources” are critics of the “patriarchy”/”quiverfull” doctrines that Phillips advocated, even though one might discern that (a) there are other advocates of the same doctrine who have not been stained by scandal, and (b) Phillips’ alleged behavior is similar to sexual abuse cases involving many other offenders, including lesbian hockey coach Heidi Ferber. Good luck blaming that scandal on “biblical patriarchy” doctrine.

What did Phillips (allegedly) do? You can read the sordid details: “Douglas Phillips used Ms. Torres . . . as a personal sex object. . . . Douglas Phillips repeatedly groped, rubbed, and touched Ms. Torres’s crotch, breasts, and other areas of her body; rubbed his penis on her; masturbated on her; forced her to watch him masturbate on her; and ejaculated upon her,” et cetera.

The question that arises is, “How did Phillips convince her to tolerate this?” And the answer is rather simple: He groomed her, he took advantage of his leadership status to impress her, he isolated her in a situation where she was vulnerable to his influence and, perhaps worst of all, he strung her along with a false promise of marriage. Here we will quote “other informed sources”:

Doug told Victim they were soul mates. He told her he loved her and had promised they’d eventually get married and have children together. During these years, the relationship with Victim ebbed and flowed. Doug worked very hard at keeping prospective courters away from his victim. Victim also affirmed her affections towards Phillips.

You see? If the “biblical patriarchy” movement is to survive this scandal, young Christian ladies need to be warned to avoid any man who speaks this “soul mate” language, especially any married man who tries to justify an adulterous relationship with such language.

What should outrage Christians — especially homeschooling adherents of “patriarchy” and “quiverfull” doctrines — is how this married man allegedly manipulated this girl, discouraging potential suitors, so as to keep her romantically available for himself.

This beautiful young woman, who might have long since married and had children of her own, was instead (allegedly) kept in a condition of romantic limbo because of Phillips’ sinful and deceptive manipulation, so that she only married this month at age 29.

Never mind whether Lourdes Torres “affirmed her affections toward Phillips.” There’s an old country song about that:

It wasn’t God who made honky-tonk angels,
As you wrote in the words of your song.
Too many times married men think they’re still single.
That has caused many a good girl to go wrong.

Sure, it takes two to tango, and if Lourdes Torres developed some kind of crush on Doug Phillips, she wouldn’t be the first “good girl” to make herself vulnerable by admiring a married man. However, Doug Phillips was a grown-up, a married father in a position of authority and influence and, rather than avoiding this temptation, he seems to have become pathologically obsessed with the girl.

What the Doug Phillips scandal has done is to expose all Christian conservative traditionalists to renewed accusations that their doctrines of marriage and family life are aimed at wrongfully oppressing and exploiting women. As someone who has been fighting against feminist propaganda on almost a daily basis lately, I take this kind of embarrassment quite personally  The one thing a Christian conservative leader should never do is give Amanda Marcotte an excuse to gloat.

Not only is Marcotte gloating over Phillips’ downfall, but she’s even trying to drag the Duggar family down with him:

Amanda Marcotte just couldn’t resist a dirty jab at the Duggars.
In her scathing article at the Daily Beast [Thursday], the feminist blogger predicted the end of the Duggar Dynasty.
The popular TLC show “19 Kids and Counting” follows the semi-chaotic, but strangely normal and splendidly wholesome lives of Jim Bob and Michelle Duggar and their nineteen children. Their oldest son is married and has three children of his own; one daughter is engaged and another has a serious boyfriend. . . .
[T]hey aren’t the women-hating, female-abusing psychos Marcotte presents them as.
Her accusations stem from the shameful fall from grace of Doug Phillips, the leader of Vision Forum ministries. . . .
Marcotte’s accusations that somehow this means the end of the Duggars is simply ridiculous. Yes, the Duggars were part of the ministry and have ties to the homeschooling movement Phillips led, but that doesn’t mean the Duggars themselves abused women or had affairs.
In fact, Jim Bob’s and Michelle’s marriage appears tender and loving. Marcotte’s attempt to stamp Phillip’s indiscretions on nineteen other people has no merit.

You can read the whole thing by The American Spectator‘s Natalie deMacedo. It is an incorrect and perverse distortion of biblical teaching to claim that Christianity teaches women should be weak, helpless and dependent creatures. The biblical concept of sexual complementarity certainly leads to a vision of  cooperation, rather than competition, between the sexes — a vision at odds with the power-oriented radical egalitarian doctrines of feminism.

However, it is an error to have a legalistic (and, we might even say, idolatrous) attitude about sex roles, so that what should be a voluntary cooperation in the spirit of Christ instead becomes a burdensome compliance with a rigid set of rules. And quite honestly, when I see a Christian man who seems to be constantly lecturing about male “headship” and wifely “submission,” I suspect his motives to be rooted in a fearful sense of personal inadequacy.

“Who can find a virtuous woman? for her price is far above rubies. The heart of her husband doth safely trust in her . . . She will do him good and not evil all the days of her life. . . . She openeth her mouth with wisdom; and in her tongue is the law of kindness. She looketh well to the ways of her household, and eateth not the bread of idleness. Her children arise up, and call her blessed; her husband also, and he praiseth her. . . . Favour is deceitful, and beauty is vain: but a woman that feareth the Lord, she shall be praised.”
— Proverbs 31:10-30 (KJV)





 

 


 

Category: Family, Feminism, Marriage, Religion, Scandal, Sex
« go back — keep looking »

    About

    This is an area on your website where you can add text. This will serve as an informative location on your website, where you can talk about your site.

    Subscribe to our feed

    Search

    Admin