Get PJ Media on your Apple

PJM Lifestyle

Biblical Feminism and the Dirty Male Myth

Newsflash: Men aren't genetically perverted!

by
Susan L.M. Goldberg

Bio

October 13, 2013 - 1:00 pm
Page 1 of 2  Next ->   View as Single Page

discriminatemen

In a thoughtful reaction to the Vanity Fair article “Friends Without Benefits,” Adi Robertson writes:

“If we were actually interested in looking at how boys are “taught” to expect sex, we might consider asking a few of them. But instead, we treat them like mute forces of nature, incapable of empathy when given access to sexting. We assume that men exploiting women is inevitable the moment we let girls onto the internet or out of the house.”

It was a blip of an argument buried in a thesis against blaming social media instead of the “misogyny and hatred it reflects” when it comes to sex-related crimes and bullying among teens. What the author did not fully address is the misandry inherent in any discussion relating to teenagers and anything remotely associated with sex. Ironically, I hadn’t ever heard the term “misandry” until I began researching modern feminism. “The hatred or dislike of boys or men” is quite common in the feminist world, often expressed through a series of Steinem-esque stereotypes that define the male sex as inherently oppressive of women and sexually perverse.

“I feel like I’m a rapist,” one male college student once told me. “I go into my film theory class and suddenly I’m just some perverted white guy who wants to have sex with anyone and is going to attack them to get it. I feel disgusting.” His wasn’t the only liberal arts experience laced with misadronisitic notions. I faced my own battles with feminist professors who taught quack phallocentric theories about (white) men controlling money, dominating their wives, and forging an aggressively abusive path through life.

Comments are closed.

All Comments   (5)
All Comments   (5)
Sort: Newest Oldest Top Rated
OK some points with King David.
to "daveinga"; Read the bible, Michal loved David, and if you look closely at the bible, she never had sex with the person her father gave her over to and she remained loyal to David.

Now in regard to other things, in Judaism this is how the Bathsheba event went down. David found out from Prophesy that his dynasty would come from her (Solomon was one of her children with David). So David went to fulfill what he believed was even though she was married. This was wrong and the Prophet rebuked him. But in Judaism while what David did was wrong he technically did not sin. In Judaism before a man goes off to war he gives his wife a conditional divorce that if he dies or is MIA for more than a certain period they are retroactively divorced (MIA so she can marry again, and so on) Since Uriah had gone to war, and had given such a conditional divorce, then since he died, retroactively David did not sleep with a married woman, it was only sex out of wedlock which is a more minor sin (remember he still was a man and he had a prophesy that his dynasty would come from her) but because itt was a minor sin and it looked wrong to the masses, David was rebuked and that child was stillborn. But yes David was a man, he was not perfect, but that is why we should study him. There are great men and women in the bible to look to for role models. for men you have Moses, Aaron, Jacob, Isaiah, Job, Daniel, etc. For Women we have Sarah, Rebbecca, Deborah, Hulda, etc. We learn from what they did great and their errors, they were human too and that is what we should take from them
42 weeks ago
42 weeks ago Link To Comment
David was (ironically enough, given his renowned battle with Goliath) larger than life in many ways. His glories were glorious indeed; and his sins were sinful enough to earn quite the rebuke from God himself (who refused him permission to build a Temple, leaving that to Solomon instead).

But David also knew that he was not the final authority. He himself was not above the law, as was made clear when the prophet Nathan rebuked him for his actions vis-a-vis Bathsheba.

I do not think King David is "the ultimate male role model" from the Bible. By modern standards, few of the heroes of ancient times are all that heroic... and usually, Modes, not David, is the Old Testament role model used. (Of course, Moses had his own issues, and had them aplenty.)
44 weeks ago
44 weeks ago Link To Comment
who said David was an ugly little runt? he fought in many battles and was said to be 'a man after the Lord's own heart'. David's child Bathsheba carried died as a punishment for their sins. I remember reading that David was called a mighty man in later chapters. some say that oft used term 'mighty man' was sometimes a reference to some really, really big warriors (giants) of the day.

Michal, Saul's daughter whom David killed many of Saul's enemies to win in his youth, was later given to another man by Saul. her other husband loved her greatly and cried when David reclaimed her. it says he followed behind and cried as they took her away. I got the opinion she never really took to David. she hated that her father's house had been decimated, and despised David for being her father's replacement. seems to me it was pure (evil) jealousy that caused her to talk against David. the Lord was well pleased w/ His servant David as he danced before the Arc.

the reason David spent so much time in caves in his youth, w/ his army of followers, was because Saul (the king) had heard that the Prophet had blessed and anointed David to replace Saul as king. David had to finally leave and live elsewhere until it was reported Saul was dead.

universities/colleges appear to have let the desire for fed. funds drive their academic fall from grace. that recent female appointee to the e.p.a.(?) took office and immediately started dictating what the science was going to be. 'I hope there aren't any global warming deniers still in any of my departments'. yeah, real science types there, for sure.

no ma'am, just us gov. follow alongs here.

I hope these wacko lefties know more about their (affirmative action fueled) field of expertise than they know about science and math, which looks to be next to nothing.
44 weeks ago
44 weeks ago Link To Comment
Remember that to the Left, there is no such thing as Misandry, because to admit that would destroy the usefulness of Political Misandrist Feminism.

Even Chrome refuses to accept misandry as a word, because google is that far to the Left.
44 weeks ago
44 weeks ago Link To Comment
David really wasn't trying to steal Bathsheba from Uriah.

He slept with her and she got pregnant so he conceived of a plan to get Uriah to sleep with her so she could claim the child was his.

Unfortunately, Uriah did not go along with -- a fine illustration of your point that we are not all hound dawgs -- due to his preoccupation about what was going on at the front, which was rather noble.

So David's motive for having Uriah killed was to protect Bathsheba not to steal her. It doesn't make it any less wrong but, at least to me, it does make the king a little less contemptible.
44 weeks ago
44 weeks ago Link To Comment
View All