Earlier this year there was a
media firestorm about Mike Pence’s “rules” for his engagement with women who
are not his wife. Waaaaaaay back then (a
mere, what, six months ago?), feminists crushed him for his “anti-woman”
ways. Soraya Chemaly at the Huffington
Post for one: Mike Pence is why we should stop excusing religious
sexism.
In light of the current Harvey Weinstein, Kevin Spacey, Judge Roy Moore,
and numerous politicians in Washington sexual scandals, where are the
apologies, the mea culpas, or at least some sort of well, gosh, gee-wiz, maybe
just maybe there’s at least some slim possibility that what Mike Pence has been doing for years actually
WORKS!!!!
Here’s what Soraya Chemaly has had to
say about Pence now: What School Dress Codes have to do with Harvey
Weinstein.
Oh wait, no, that’s her explanation of why school dress codes are part
of the reason society objectifies women.
What has she said about Pence’s rule . . . . . . . . . . .
Do you hear the crickets chirping? Is hell freezing over? White noise? [Insert your own favorite cliché
here]. She has said absolutely NOTHING.
Nor will she. Hopefully you are asking, why won’t she? Because she’s at least smart enough to
realize that if she tries to talk about Pence right now she’ll have to twist
herself into a kind of word pretzel that will defy all rationality.
Ms. Chemaly and others like her see
the world through a hyper-feminist lens.
Everything, everything, everything (did I mention everything?) revolves around
almost all men (with rare exception) doing everything they can to dominate
women and keep them down. Sure, some men
have moments where they “get it” but for the
most part men are simply sperm machines who really fulfill no other
function. In Ms. Chemaly’s world almost
all men spend their time figuring out ways to keep women oppressed and
objectified. So Ms. Chemaly can, in all
seriousness, claim that school dress codes are nothing more than a part of the
male domination machine designed to keep girls in their place.
The broader point here is
inescapable. Ms. Chemaly and those who
think like her have fallen into a most bizarre place morally. Mike Pence is a cad because he goes out of
his way to avoid situations which might tempt him or a woman who is with him
and is not his wife to see each other in a romantic and/or sexual light. Seems to me every feminist ought to be on
board with guys exercising whatever means are required to keep things on the
level. But this is not good enough for
the Ms. Chemaly’s of the world. No, apparently
men must actually put themselves into positions to be tempted then never give
into temptation to prove their worth. So
when a guy like Harvey Weinstein takes advantage of his power and obtains
sexual favors from women in exchange for movie roles, it’s just proof that men
can’t be trusted and are simply power hungry and care only about using or
abusing women for their own ends. Both men are wrong and morally bankrupt in
Ms. Chemaly’s world.
Here’s the problem: the man Ms.
Chemaly (and I presume others like her) seeks doesn’t exist. She’s living in some fantasy world where
biology simply doesn’t matter. So, I
guess (I don’t know) Ms. Chemaly
would be okay with a voluptuous teenage girl showing up at school in a halter
top and shorts which cover only part of her derriere? Teenage guys are then, I guess, just supposed
to “exercise self-control” and avoid thinking even one sexually charged thought
when they see this young woman? Look –
from a biblical standpoint I would urge all young men to get away from such a
young woman as quickly as possible in order to avoid temptation – even the
temptation of just thinking about her in a sexual way. But the bizarre rub is that Ms. Chemaly apparently (again, I don’t know) would
argue that’s not what young men should do.
I guess she would argue they
should feast their eyes on this young woman, all the while simply thinking
about . . . I dunno Baseball? Apple pie?
Chevrolets? Even secular thinkers
get that biology just doesn’t work that way.
The bible tells us to “flee” from
sexual immorality. Paul told early
Christians it was better to get married than to burn in sexual lust because he
knew the result would be immoral behavior (consensual or otherwise).
So Mike Pence is “fleeing” because
it’s a solid answer to the problem of lust.
It’s an actual recognition that women deserve better treatment than to
be seen as sexual objects. It doesn’t
mean that every woman Mike Pence sees is somehow mere eye candy. What it does mean is he holds women in
sufficient regard, including most especially his wife, that he doesn’t want to
put anyone in an uncomfortable or compromising position.
Harvey Weinstein, on the other hand, has
no such scruples and gave into his biological “burning.” He deserves the scorn he is receiving. It is worth
noting that some of Weinstein’s victims engaged in quid pro quo consensual
acts. This does not justify Weinstein’s
conduct, but, yes, it does call into question the morality of the women who
engaged in such acts. I get there was
pressure to say yes, but at some level isn’t this just the reverse of the very
kind of argumentation Ms. Chemaly makes about how men should just “control
themselves?” Shouldn’t women just say no
at that point and walk away? Or is it
morally acceptable to voluntarily give into sexual predation to get the job,
then complain about voluntarily giving into sexual predation to get the job? This kind of thing doesn’t happen in the
Mike Pence scenario. Hmmm.
In an ideal world none of this would
be an issue. But we do not live in an ideal world and, here’s the problem for
Ms. Chemaly and her hyper feminist true believers: we will not live in such a
world until Jesus returns. In the
meantime, sin rules the day and the best we can do is find ways to work around
it. Ways that work. Maybe the way Mike Pence does it?
