Every now and then I really tick feminists off, which is funny, because most people who know me think of me as rather a feminist, at least in Christian circles. I like to think of myself more as common sense, personally.
But whether it's my opinions on daycare or that women should at least try to look pretty for their husbands, I tick off lots of people who think I'm trying to keep us in our place. And that's not my point at all.
My goal is to help women live the abundant lives they were created to live, and that means embracing relationship, finding their purpose in Christ, and pressing forward to making this world a better place.
We don't do that by being stupid and making excuses. And let me tell you about the things I say that are often taken as the most offensive. Usually it concerns the idea of modesty: that women don't understand a man's sex drive, which is so closely linked to sight. And when young teens dress in a revealing manner, they are inviting guys to think of them in that way. Those guys aren't thinking: wow, she's pretty! They're thinking, "Wow, she has nice ---- ". Get it?
It was this column that set it off. Since writing it, I've received a ton of emails accusing me of saying that if these girls get raped, it's their fault. Of course I don't believe that! The blame lies solely at the feet of the guy who raped her, and he should be punished to the full extent of the law.
But does it follow that just because the guy SHOULD be punished, and just because it IS the guy's fault, that girls should therefore dress however they want? I don't think so, because it's just plain stupid. And I don't abide by stupidity.
When I was in university twenty years ago, the administration pushed a "No means no" campaign. The emphasis was on insisting that males obtain proper consent before having sex. If the girl was drunk, she couldn't give consent, and it would be considered rape. Everywhere you went on campus were "no means no" posters, with pictures of alcohol.
I always wondered, "why would a girl go to a house where there are a bunch of buys and drink that much in the first place?" Does that mean that it's her fault if she gets drunk? Again, no. But just because it's not your fault doesn't mean it's not dangerous. God won't hold you responsible for what someone else does to you, but that's no reason not to raise our girls to be smart.
We're spending so much time trying to ram it into boys' heads that if they force sex on a girl who is drunk, or high, or hasn't explicitly said yes that it's rape, but we've stopped telling girls that you shouldn't go to a boy's apartment alone, you shouldn't consume alcohol in a guy's place, you shouldn't walk home in the dark alone, you shouldn't accept a ride from someone you barely know (and often even from someone you do know).
Most sexual assaults, after all, happen between two people who already know each other. They're not random strangers grabbing you from behind. And what that says to me is that many sexual assaults could be avoided if the girls acted smarter. Please understand: I'm not saying that if a girl is assaulted it's her fault. But I am saying that perhaps we should teach our daughters some basic common sense things that our mothers knew, but that our generation stopped being taught because it violated feminist principles.
Here, then, is the list of what I am teaching my daughters:
1. Never go near a guy in a parked car. If he wants directions, stand far back and talk loudly. If you think you're being followed by a car, turn around and walk in the opposite direction (ie. towards the car). Don't go near a woman asking directions in a parked car, either. My fellow Canadians will remember Kristen French, who was nabbed by Paul Bernardo and Karla Homolka when pretty Karla stopped and leaned out a window with a map to ask her for help. I tell my daughters to be wary of all cars, even those with women.
2. Never consume alcohol. Period. If they want to drink once they're married, I'm fine with that. But it compromises your judgment, and you need that. To other kids who are not my daughters, and who are not so inclined to listen to me, I would say: do not drink outside of your own home/apartment. Never drink unless you are in the presence of at least one other female who is not drinking as much as you are.
3. Don't be alone in a boy's room. Don't let him into your room. If you're engaged, and you're older, keep the door open. Live with roommates and make sure they're around. And if you ever get weird vibes with a guy you're dating, leave.
4. Try as hard as you can not to accept rides from people you don't know very well. Try to make sure there are girls in the car, too. If that's not possible, or if it's a guy you've been dating for a while, don't drive for the sake of driving. Drive because you have somewhere to go and you're expected there at a certain time. Other than that, try to walk. It's cheaper and healthier.
5. Watch what you wear. Give off the impression that you want to be treated with class. Don't give off the impression that you're interested in sex, because that's how people will start to see you. Dress to attract the kind of person you want (though of course we have to remember that many people who rape appear like upstanding citizens).
6. If you walk in the dark, walk with your keys in one hand and your cell phone in the other.
7. Live with other girls. Don't live alone. Always have a roommate.
8. Make sure someone always knows where you're supposed to be, and what time you're supposed to be home.
9. Have a code word you can say to your friend or parent on the phone when you are in trouble.
Will these rules mean that they won't be assaulted? No. Nothing can guarantee anything. But I still think it's better to be wise and overcautious than to be silly and dangerous when it comes to something as serious as sexual assault.
So, to reiterate, if someone attacks you, that is never your fault.
At the same time, though, we should all try as hard as possible to avoid danger. We can never eliminate the risk, but we can reduce it. And if it's possible to reduce it, then isn't that a worthy goal?
None of this should have any bearing on feminism. I know at one point women were blamed for rape based on what they were wearing, because they "asked for it", or based on their profession, or even based on the fact that they were married to the potential rapist (a husband can't rape his wife, after all, so the thought went). All of these things were archaic and evil, and I'm glad they're gone. Rape is rape.
But again, just because the guy should be held morally and legally responsible for rape does not mean that women should just assume they can do whatever they want and thus be safe. The world doesn't work that way. Whether we like it or not, we are the weaker sex. We are vulnerable. It's up to us to be smart and reduce the risk. No, we can't eliminate it. But I'd rather teach my girls at least how to reduce it, instead of saying, "rape is never your fault!", and leaving it at that. I want to prepare them for the real world. Don't you?
In April, 8-year-old Victoria Stafford disappeared from her Woodstock, Ontario home. I'm not sure how many of my American readers heard about her, but her picture was plastered everywhere across my home province of Ontario. We were all praying for her to come home safely.
Last week they made an arrest in the case. An 18-year-old neighbour and her 28-year-old boyfriend were taken into custody. Of course, we don't know for sure whether they did it or not, but the more I read details of the case, the sadder I became.
The mother was the focus of a lot of gossip over the month that Victoria was missing with no apparent leads. A single mom, she had left her husband several years earlier, and had in the interim become addicted to Oxycontin, a drug that the 18-year-old suspect was also addicted to.
She also had an off-again, on-again boyfriend. And the father, who is heartbroken obviously, has confessed himself that he was not involved enough in Victoria's life for the last few years.
Then let's turn to the accused. The 18-year-old Terry-Lynne McClintic was the daughter to a single mother who was formerly a stripper. She was actually the biological daughter of another stripper, but was adopted by her mother as a baby. The adopted mom and her husband split up when the accused was only 3, and she hasn't seen her adopted father since.
The 28-year-old, Michael Rafferty, was also the son of a single mother with a live-in boyfriend. So all over the place we have marital breakdown, occasional drug use, cohabitation, alcoholism, and addictions of various sorts.
It is hard to raise a child alone. We were not meant to do it. Not all single parents are drug addicts, or incompetent, or sexually permissive. I know my own mother certainly wasn't. But the fact is that a child, living with a single mother and her live-in boyfriend, is 25 times more likely to be sexually abused than a child living with both biological parents. And a child is far more likely to be the victim of a crime if they grow up in a single parent household. The home is just more chaotic, and there's one less adult to keep an eye on things.
And people are also far more likely to commit crimes if they come from broken homes. There aren't very many on death row who grew up with both biological parents.
This isn't set in stone. My home province of Ontario was rocked a decade and a half ago by the case of Paul Bernardo and Karla Homolka, a young, good-looking, professional married couple who kidnapped, raped and murdered Kristen French and Leslie Mahaffey. I don't even have to look up any of the names, I remember it so well. Both murderers were from intact families. Kristen and Leslie were also from exemplary families. It made it all so horrible. Evil can come in any package and can hit anywhere.
But just because it can doesn't mean it's equally likely. And crime is more likely to befall those who live in broken homes, and more likely to be committed by those who come from broken homes. Dysfunction stalks dysfunction.
It's not fair, but I think we need to acknowledge it. Marriage matters. It is not just a private affair; it is a public good. It gives stability to children and breeds responsibility and commitment. I'm watching what's happening to extended family where marriages have broken down, and life is much harder for everyone.
Sometimes, of course, when a marriage ends, one partner really isn't at fault. We all know divorces like that, and I don't mean to malign these people. I think when a marriage ends, but you keep the ideals of marriage and family, you can still raise your children well in a stable home, even if it's harder. But when you give up on the idea of loyalty, continuity, responsibility, fidelity, and self-control, you open you and your family up for a potential world of hurt.
I'm sure I'll get blasted in the comments for my insensitive view on this whole thing. I certainly don't mean to blame Victoria's mother or father; the blame lies entirely with the two who did this despicable deed. But it's also important for us as a society to look at the root causes of dysfunction and talk openly about them. Talking as if there's no difference between single parenthood and marriage is just not true; it's a blatant lie. People may want to believe it's true, because they don't want to believe there is a right and a wrong, but that doesn't make it so. Children need both parents to be committed to each other. If we all did that, I think we'd find far fewer cases of abuse, violence, and general pathology.
Over at the Gates of Vienna, they're talking about a rape of a Belgian woman by a group of Muslim men because she wasn't wearing a hijab. That's right. Muslims, who make up a huge proportion of Brussels, are now trying to impose their standards on women.
A 21 year old woman was pushed against an ATM machine in the Brussels South station by two young men and raped last week. According to the victim, at least three travelers passed by, but nobody tried to help her.
Around 9pm Lola arrived at the South station in a train from Waterloo. She walked over to an ATM when suddenly tow you men asked her in a threatening tone why she didn't wear a headscarf as she should.
"You must know: my daughter has blond hair and blue eyes, that is wholly not a North-African appearance. It was the way of those two men simply to intimidate her, so that it would be easier for them to then abuse her," says Marc, Lola's father.
The father later said:
"Nobody had the courage to save my daughter out of the clutches of the duo," continued father Marc with rage. "According to Lola nonetheless certainly three men passed by, but nobody even got ready to stop. At 9pm at this time of year it's still far from dark and the South Station is is certainly not yet abandoned. Why did everybody leave my daughter to her fate?"
And in the Muslim mentality, men's sexuality is the woman's fault. She is provoking him, which is why she needs to wear the hijab. It's exactly the opposite of Jesus, who put the blame right at men's feet and told them it was better to pluck out an eye than to lust.
Anyway, the discussion in the comments started off with the observation that Belgian women only had freedom because the Belgian men agreed. Now Muslim men have taken over, and the women don't have freedom anymore. What the women really need is for the Belgian men to stand up for them again and protect them.
The problem is that women have been complaining about men acting like men and doing anything chivalrous for so long that men now don't feel the need to.
So we can't rely on men anymore because we blame them when they act aggressive, or when they try to protect us, because we say they're being patronizing. It's fine to say that when you don't need protection, but now that we do, it's too late. Feminism has written his own demise. Do these women think that they're going to be free once Muslims are the majority demographically in Europe?
Anyway, here's a quotation from a commenter:
If you want heroes, you'd damn well better start rewarding men for acting like them instead of punishing every last bit of functionally aggressive male behavior. Learn how to respect men who will not tolerate the abuse of women. Overly protective? Yeah, just maybe. Paternalistic? Perhaps, to a fault. Chauvinistic? Nope, just chivalrous.
And another:
If you want an instinctual response, you must first create the conditions for instinctual response.
We have taught Western Men not to act for about 40 years, and now complain that we get exactly what we taught them.
Gare du Midi is not unique. Virginia Tech, and many other situations in the US come to mind.
I think that's exactly right. Do you remember Virginia Tech, when nobody fought back except an elderly Holocaust surviving professor, even when the guy was reloading? Throw your keys at him, throw your coffee at him, throw your chair at him! You're not going to end up any more dead than you would have had you just sat there.
It scares me. I grew up as a feminist, though I'm not one now. I grew to hate it when men thought that I needed doors held open for me, or my arm taken when we were walking on a street. Now I'm glad my husband is around to play protector. That's what he was meant to do.
Unfortunately, that breed is rapidly dying, because our society has killed true masculinity. It's scary, and it really saddens me.
About Me: I'm a Christian author of a bunch of books, and a frequent speaker to women's groups and marriage conferences. Best of all, I love homeschooling my daughters, Rebecca and Katie. And I love to knit. Preferably simultaneously.
Stumble It!
