Buying the Old Lie

Here is a link to an ugly, misogynistic post on a Yahoo group called "Christian Anti-Feminists."  The central premise of the site is the lie that there is no such thing as a Christian feminist.  (Many of us DO indeed exist, daily praising and serving Christ the Lord, so we prove they're lying.)

The lie in this post is that feminists hate virgin marriage.  The writer claims that teen girls having boyfriends is evil because the girls corrupt the innocent teen boys whom they make into boyfriends. The writer claims that girls who have boyfriends, do so in order to not be virgin wives; he claims that such girls take boyfriends precisely in order to destroy their dreams of being "wives and mommies" and their sexual experiences make them want to be independent and compete with men in the workplace.  He blames these girls for boys' subsequent sexual sins as well.  The poor, innocent boys are powerless to stop sinning sexually once the evil temptress girls initiate them into sex.  The girls are intent on multiple sexual partners and fully intend to dump the boys after ruining them.

It's the old, old lie that women corrupt men with sex, retold so as to blame even younger women than is usually the case with that old lie.  And of course, feminism is ultimately to blame.  "Lesbian feminism," to be precise; the writer seems to see lesbians behind feminism, and feminism behind every woman except those who marry as virgins.  These feminists are the "evilest of people."

A chilling paragraph in this post is what prompted me to call attention to it here:

"Boyfriends" -one of the West's most media-promoted and socially celebrated inventions, is in reality one of the most man-demonizing, evil and family undermining practices that the feminists have ever brought about. Age discrimination against men made into law, forbidding marriage and stopping lasting families for those that would have them.

Is there really that much difference between this sentiment, which seems to claim that men should be able to marry underage girls, and the hideous sentiment of NAMBLA concerning men and underage boys?  Really, the only difference seems to be that the writer advocates heterosexual sex, within marriage, for the man and the underage girl.  I rather doubt, based on his claim that boys are too immature for sex, that he's claiming BOTH parties should be underage.

So to sum up, girls in their early to mid-teens are sexual temptresses even to older boys and young men.  And it's there, for all the world to read.  What it shows me is how poisonous unrepentant hatred is to the one who hates (in this case, hatred of women masked by religiously-correct hatred of feminism).  What bitter fruit comes of such hatred!  I for one am glad that there are laws in place protecting 13-year-old girls from being "given in marriage" to 20- or 30-year-old men.  In "statutory rape," it's important to remember that "statutory" is the adjective; "rape" is still the noun.

Sigh.  This venomous post is all a twist on the second-oldest in the Book, that of blaming someone else for one's own sin.  A part of me thinks it's high time that WOMEN started demanding virgin husbands, and blaming all the patriarchalists and MRAs for the dearth of virgin men.  But then I remember, that attitude itself is sinful and selfish.  Giving these misogynists a taste of their own medicine is not my place.  My place is to call a lie, a lie; a call to repentance is in order for those who are telling the lie.

So, to those who've bought into the lie that feminists hate marriage and families: Stop spreading the lie!  Women are not to blame for men's sins.  Men are not to blame for women's sins.  Feminists are not to blame for non-feminists' sins.  EACH of us is responsible to confess our sins to God, who stands ready to forgive us and empower us in the Holy Spirit to live in newness of life.  Lay down that hatred; let Jesus remove it from your heart and replace it with love for your fellow human beings.  "Go and sin no more!"

Comments

[Jenna]

Thank you for pointing out that sadly hilarious posting. I would never have believed it if I hadn't read it for myself. What makes the hilarity so sad is that THE AUTHOR ACTUALLY SEEMS TO BELIEVE THIS TRIPE! I, too, think that his contempt for statutory laws is chilling and quite revealing. I think that this may well be a pedophile in disguise, or in the making, fantasizing about having a barely-pubescent virgin all to himself. Meanwhile, he grows ever more enraged watching the objects of this deep desire spurn his offers to make them "wives and mommies" (Imagine the nerve!) and turn to healthy, INNOCENT interactions with children their own age. My advice to the world at large is to find out who this creep is and keep him away from your daughters!

[wiggles]

I thought it was the girls who were "ruined" by penile insertion. The boys who do the inserting are either disappeared or congratulated. That's the way I've always seen it work. I suppose if an antifeminist has to flip a millennia-old double standard on its head in order to blame girls for something, he's not going to let a little thing like consistency get in his way.

As for this:
he claims that such girls take boyfriends precisely in order to destroy their dreams of being "wives and mommies"

There might be some truth to that in some instances. If virginal marriage is presented as an obligation, as is still often the case (probably for any daughters of the people in this yahoo group for instance), and she doesn't want to get married, it's not unfathomable that she'd see tossing off her virgin status as her only means of escape. Of course, the one to blame for that is not the girl but whoever is reducing her to the trade-in value of her reproductive organs.

[margaret]

flipping-the-tables, tit-for-tat revenge certainly will not work on any hardcore misogynist, but the very idea of demanding virgin husbands and suggesting a meat market of men shows the old system for the ridiculous thing it is, and might get some fence-sitters to actually think