Lewis: Promiscuity’s Women Victims

Sometimes when I’m wondering what C. S. Lewis post to write on Saturdays, I turn to an excellent compilation of his works, The Quotable Lewis, edited by Wayne Martindale and Jerry Root. Often it sparks further thoughts on one of Lewis’s insights.

This morning, I happened upon a relevant Lewis quote from his essay “We Have No Right to Happiness,” which he wrote near the end of his life. While 1963 may seem to be a long time ago to some, I remember the year well and the changes that were occurring in culture as sexual mores were moving more rapidly away from Biblical standards.

With all the latest revelations about sexual harassment (new accusations are popping up daily), Lewis’s comments in this essay are even more applicable in 2017 than they were in 1963.

A society in which conjugal infidelity is tolerated must always be in the long run a society adverse to women.

Women, whatever a few male songs and satires may say to the contrary, are more naturally monogamous than men; it is a biological necessity.

The more radical among us today would dispute that immediately. Biological necessity? Are you saying men and women are different? Yes. Lewis and I agree on that. What’s amazing is that it can be a matter of dispute at all.

Lewis continues,

Where promiscuity prevails, they will therefore always be more often the victims than the culprits.

Don’t the latest reports from all spheres of our society—politics, entertainment, sports, etc.—bear this out?

Also, domestic happiness is more necessary to them than to us. And the quality by which they most easily hold a man, their beauty, decreases every year after they have come to maturity, but this does not happen to those qualities of personality—women don’t really care twopence for our looks—by which we hold women.

Lewis is attesting that men can be truly superficial, attracted to women primarily by the external appearance and tempted to lose interest when that external appearance declines over time. Yet women, he asserts, are far less trapped by the external appearance of men. They seek something more substantial.

Thus in the ruthless war of promiscuity women are at a double disadvantage. They play for higher stakes and are also more likely to lose.

This has led many women to want to compete with men to see if they can be just as superficial, sex-obsessed, and crass. I find Lewis’s reaction to that attempt to mirror men’s foolishness to be just the right attitude a Christian should have:

I have no sympathy with moralists who frown at the increasing crudity of female provocativeness. These signs of desperate competition fill me with pity.

In their quest to be more like the men, women have demeaned themselves. They have lowered themselves to that same abysmal standard.

God calls both men and women to look past the externals and concentrate on what really matters: hearts that are truly seeking to follow Him. Those who have those hearts will never treat one another in despicable, self-serving ways.

Personally, I welcome the current revelations of sexual improprieties as exposure of the sinfulness of mankind, both men and women. It mustn’t stop there, though. Recognition of sin must go on to genuine repentance and being set free from that sin.

And that happens only through the Cross of Christ.

Sexual Harassment: The Christian Response?

What began with Hollywood mogul Harvey Weinstein has turned into a daily report of the latest sexual harasser: Roy Moore (I’ll come back to him further down in this post); Al Franken; Charlie Rose; a New York Times reporter I don’t know; indications of a $17 million slush fund to bail out congressmen who are accused of sexual improprieties.

That last one is the news I woke up to today. Democrat Congressman John Conyers of Michigan, who has been in the House for 50 years (you read that correctly) has habitually used his office to press women for sexual favors. Color me not surprised.

People who get into positions of power often try to use that power for their own personal desires. That’s as old as the entire history of mankind. It’s called sin.

As a Christian, while I’m grieved that so many are being exposed as abusers of their power, I’m also gratified that they are now being called to account for what they have done. The politicians among them, though, may not suffer as much as those in the private sector who are being snared. Will Al Franken and John Conyers really have to resign, or will their Democrat colleagues circle the wagons to protect them?

In my view, all politicians who are caught in any kind of wrongdoing should step down and let someone else take their place. Of course, I’ve said that all along, as it should have happened nearly twenty years ago with a sitting president:

Now, when it no longer counts, some Democrats are speaking openly about how Clinton should have resigned. What’s the reason for this newfound courage? Could it be that Clinton, Inc. is no longer the power base it once was? It’s safer now to critique the Clinton brand after Hillary’s latest humiliating loss.

Let’s be honest: Bill Clinton was and is a man who has never said no to his sexual appetite. And while the country has been fixated on a different Southerner, there has been a case of historical amnesia about the former Southern president.

Now I must talk about Roy Moore, the Republican candidate for the Senate from Alabama. I’ve been silent in this blog about the allegations swirling around him, waiting for the dust to settle and to give him whatever benefit of the doubt I can.

In the nine years that I’ve written this blog, I don’t believe I’ve ever mentioned Moore. He made a name for himself as a staunch defender of the Ten Commandments being displayed in his courtroom and as a judge who said Alabama doesn’t have to abide by the Supreme Court decision on same-sex marriage.

As a result, he became a champion of Christian conservatives. Many Christian leaders in the conservative movement have counted him as a friend. All of these reasons are why I’ve been hesitant to write about the allegations.

Yet while I certainly am not the final word on Roy Moore’s guilt or innocence, I’ve followed the story closely and feel compelled to say that the accusers are credible and Moore’s defense, such as it is, has been less than stellar.

Even in an atmosphere where the questions were not from the mainstream press—how can anyone in the Trump tradition find a more friendly interrogator than Sean Hannity?—Moore couldn’t come right out and say that he never dated teenagers when he was a man in his thirties.

His entire defense is simply a misdirection: it’s all a vast conspiracy by the Democrats and their media allies; ignore all the evidence backing up the accusations; they’re just out to get me.

That sounds pretty Clintonesque to me, shades of Hillary’s “vast right-wing conspiracy” back in 1998-1999.

Well, says Moore, I never dated anyone that young without asking permission of their mothers first. How about not dating anyone who is underage? Did that ever occur to him?

Frankly, I find it nearly impossible to believe his protestations. Two of his accusers say they voted for Trump; others who know them attest that they have told their stories over the years but were afraid to stand up publicly against Moore because of his high position in government; many others in the community where he lives are now going public with his old habit of cruising the mall and restaurants, looking for teens to date.

The Republican party, cognizant that he is a drag on the image of the party, has largely abandoned him, and I don’t blame the leadership at all for doing so.

What pains me the most is the cavalcade of Christians who stand by Moore for no other reason than they are more attracted to the conspiracy theory he’s spinning than the actual facts that are coming out about his past.

Well, I’m told, we all have things in our past. He’s changed. My response? First, one of the accusers, who was not one of the teens targeted, notes that her bad experience with him was in 1991, after Moore was married. Further, if he’s truly a new man in Christ, why not come clean and simply say that was his former self? No, he just sticks to the conspiracy story.

My biggest concern in this Moore controversy is that Christians come out of it with their integrity intact. I feel the same way about what is happening now as I did with Christians boarding the Trump train.

How much are we willing to put up with before we realize we are supposed to stand for righteousness?

The Unholy Political Trinity

Sometimes, the media can’t ignore news they would rather not trumpet, particularly in the case of bad behavior by Democrat politicians. They’ve been hit with a double whammy lately, although, as I will explain further on, to me it’s a triple whammy.

Anthony WeinerIt all began with Anthony Weiner, who has to be one of the most clueless men on the planet. After being disgraced in 2011 for his mania for exposing himself via cellphone pictures and explicit sexting, he’s at it again. His earlier foray into public depravity led to his resignation from Congress. Yet now he’s back repeating that identical behavior even while running for mayor of New York City.

The idea that he should even run for mayor after his previous actions is ludicrous in itself. What is it that makes him think he is so indispensable as a “public servant”? Well, when you love yourself more than anything or anyone else, it’s not hard to be deluded.

I Love Me

Even more astounding is that prior to the latest revelations, he was actually leading in the polls. That could only happen in a place as jaded as New York City perhaps. But Weiner appears to be too far gone even for a post-Christian culture such as NYC; he’s now last in the polls. That offers some measure of encouragement, however slight. Voters with integrity would have realized from the start he should be finished as a politician.

Weiner Text

 One shudders to think what could have happened in the 1990s:

This Technology

Bob Filner The second member of the current unholy trinity is San Diego mayor Bob Filner, a former Democrat congressman. “Filthy Filner,” as he is now dubbed by his critics, is facing accusations from ten women for inappropriate touching and fondling. Calls for his resignation have gone unheeded. Incidentally, few of those calls have come from Democrat party leadership. They’ve remained rather silent. And what about President Obama? Why has he said nothing? He hasn’t been reluctant to insert himself into other events disconnected from the presidency. Now that there is a sex scandal in his own party, he has nothing to say?

Have to Handle

What has Filner’s response been? Why, he’s doing what all the celebrities now do: he’s checked himself into a rehab center for sexual addiction. You see, it’s not really his fault; it’s out of his control; it’s a disease of some kind. His lawyer is even demanding that the taxpayers pick up the tab for his rehabilitation stint. Why? It’s the city’s fault for not providing Filner with proper sexual harassment training. You see, if he had had that training, he wouldn’t have done all these terrible things. Therefore, the city is to blame. Filner is the poster boy for how warped our concept of personal accountability has become.

Meanwhile, anyone remember how the Democrats were always talking about the Republicans’ War on Women?

 War on Women

Let’s be honest. The whole War on Women theme was a political ploy based solely on Republicans’ desire to limit abortion. Abortion, of course, is the ultimate war on women, as more than half of the lives taken by this barbaric practice are women.

Eliot SpitzerThe third Democrat politician in this triumverate is former New York governor Eliot Spitzer, who had to resign that position back in 2008 over his involvement with prostitutes. If not for Weiner and Filner, he might be drawing more attention. Spitzer also is trying to make a political comeback, running for comptroller of New York City. Are there really no other options for New Yorkers? Are the only ones available disgraced politicians trying to insert themselves back into power?

Even before Spitzer’s sexual escapades derailed him, I was wary of him. He was a determined foe of pro-lifers, even to the point of using racketeering laws against them. His downfall was richly deserved, and he hardly deserves a reprieve this time around.

The common factor in all three stories is the apparently insatiable desire to hold public office. These are men who are addicted to political power and don’t know what to do with themselves if they aren’t living off the taxpayers. They are part of a growing class that produces nothing of significance for the society, yet believes they are indispensable for the well-being of our citizens.

They are wrong. None of them should be in a position of political influence. Character does matter in politics, and it’s well past the time that voters should come to grips with that reality.

Well-Coordinated Strategy?

It’s never my intent to stay on one story for an entire week, but the Herman Cain situation calls for it, especially when new info keeps coming on those who are making the accusations. For those who say a Christian shouldn’t spend time on these tawdry details, I simply reply that if someone’s reputation is on the line, and those who are damaging that reputation have things to hide themselves, they are fair game. Seeking truth is not wallowing in tawdry details.

Yesterday, I noted the many problems in the life of Sharon Bialek that ought to give one pause before believing her. Now we learn that her live-in fiancé who is her sole means of support is getting ready to declare bankruptcy. In other words, it appears that she is in need of funds after all. Despite her disclaimer that she is not seeking to make money, she has to know that somebody will pay her for more “juicy” details. I’m getting the strong impression she’s not above making up some of those details in exchange for monetary gain.

Then there’s the odd case of Karen Kraushaar, the other woman who has become a public face in the accusations. We now know that after she filed a complaint against Cain while she worked at the National Restaurant Association, that she did the same thing at her next job in the government. Her complaint centered around unfair treatment because she wasn’t allowed to work full-time from home and because she was offended by an e-mail she considered sexist and abusive to women. The e-mail in question was a common one that simply compared men and women. You can find it if you search, but it’s not particularly offensive, and it’s not abusive, just humorous. It’s not really any worse than blonde jokes that go around.

What does this say about her sensitivities? Is she perhaps too easily offended by remarks that wouldn’t offend most other people?

Quite aside from her character relating directly to sexual harassment charges, there is another part of her history that interests me. She was a spokeswoman for the Immigration and Naturalization Service back when that agency broke into a house and forcibly removed Elian Gonzalez from his relatives’ care and returned him to his father in Cuba. To me, that was one of the most outrageous episodes in the Clinton era under the auspices of Attorney General Janet Reno. Kraushaar was the voice of the agency, proclaiming that it was doing the right thing. As I said, that is not related to the current charges she is leveling, but I think it does provide more evidence of the type of person Cain had to deal with at the NRA.

Meanwhile, new evidence is surfacing that David Axelrod, who is President Obama’s “go-to” guy for reelection, may be behind the release of the Cain information from the NRA. Axelrod has done this type of thing before on behalf of Obama; ostensibly, it’s why he won his senatorial seat. I won’t go into the details here, but you can check out the possibility by going to http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=47438.

On the positive side, there is an article that reveals a sophisticated software program that has been shown to be more accurate than lie detectors has concluded Cain is telling the truth, while Bialek probably is not. I’m no expert on this, by any means, but you can read that article at http://www.cbsatlanta.com/story/16002149/investigator-herman-cain-innocent-of-sexual-advances.

What does this all mean, in practical terms? The more information that emerges, the more I’m leaning toward Cain’s innocence in these matters. Smearing a man’s reputation is never difficult. All it takes is a well-coordinated strategy from people who are practiced in devising such strategies. Sadly, all the innocent person can do is stoutly deny the charges and hope others believe him. That’s so unfair that it perhaps calls for Cain to make a charge of sexual harassment against him. Wouldn’t that be an interesting turnabout?

The New Cain Accusation: Truth or High-Tech Lynching?

So someone finally came out with a specific accusation against Herman Cain. It cannot be dismissed out of hand. Cain is going to have to do something to prove his credibility simply because the media will never let up on this. Of course, that’s not the way it’s supposed to be. Accusers are supposed to have evidence. Even in this case of a specific accusation, no evidence was brought to the table. It’s another “he said, she said” scenario.

Politically, this is going to hurt Cain. As I noted in a previous posting, if he is guilty, he needs to step aside. But if he’s not, he has to take action. Karl Rove had a piece of advice for the Cain team last night. He said they should push for the records of the National Restaurant Association to be released, albeit with the names of the women omitted. Cain has said repeatedly that the investigation into those accusations at the time showed they were baseless. If that’s what the official records confirm, that will go a long way in vindicating Cain and putting the issue to rest. For the sake of finding the truth, I also would like to see that happen.

The new accuser, Sharon Bialek, hired Gloria Allred as her attorney. That’s a cautionary tale right there. Allred is infamous as a radical feminist celebrity hound who takes on controversial cases to advance her own leftist agenda. Shouldn’t that raise some type of red flag immediately? Then there’s Bialek herself. She claims to be a Republican, even having attended Tea Party rallies. Is that true? The media need to find out if that is the truth. Now, here’s the big question of the day: will the media vet the accuser as avidly as they have gone after Herman Cain? Someone needs to plumb the depths of her background and investigate her integrity. It would only be fair, wouldn’t it? And isn’t that what the media are supposed to do—get all the facts?

If they indeed fulfill their obligation to scrutinize Bialek, I will be one of the most surprised people around. For a large portion of the media, the game is over: they’ve made their point; they’ve damaged a candidate they didn’t want to see win.

Have they won?

The Pseudo-Controversy

The accusations against Herman Cain aren’t any more substantial today than they were last week. In the meantime, he had an interesting sitdown debate with New Gingrich on the issues of Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security. I wasn’t able to watch it, but the reviews I’ve read say it was worthwhile—a real opportunity to allow candidates to speak their minds in depth on issues without being subject to the whims of the broadcast media. No “gotcha” questions, just straight talk.

What’s difficult for some people to grasp is that it’s possible to be a black citizen in America and hold conservative views. Many think all blacks are completely sold out to liberal policies, so it astounds them when someone like Cain espouses conservatism, especially on economic issues and the role of government in society. It also enrages some. Such divergent opinions shouldn’t be permitted. Send that man to the back of the bus!

Or at least to the other water fountain. Let’s revive segregation! At least, that’s the way it appears at times.

I was watching the Huckabee program last night. His opening statement was about the way Cain has been treated by the media with respect to the unsubstantiated sexual harassment allegations. I wish I had a transcript of Huckabee’s statement, but it went something like this:

  • The media have tried to make a big deal out of nothing; they’ve worked hard to manufacture a scandal where one probably doesn’t exist.
  • In the past, the media have ignored genuine instances of sexual harassment and rampant infidelities—witness John Kennedy, Bill Clinton, and John Edwards, in particular.
  • Therefore, the media are very selective in deciding which ones merit extensive coverage, and wouldn’t you know, they always come out strong against any conservative who can be dragged down by either real wrongdoing or speculations of wrongdoing, while the escapades of liberals are scarcely mentioned.

Herman Cain should be given the benefit of the doubt, particularly since so many of his coworkers in the past have come to his defense, noting that he always treated everyone professionally, men and women alike.

Is the “Cain train” going to be derailed by this? We don’t know yet. But if it ever is derailed, let it be on the basis of a vote on his ideas and qualifications for the office, including his character, but not on a “he said, she almost-said” controversy. It’s time to turn the page on this pseudo-controversy and get back to the business of choosing the next president.

Has It Really Come to This?

Do I know for sure that Herman Cain is innocent of all the charges swirling around him at this moment? No, of course not. I wasn’t there to witness what really happened. Do I know that he is guilty of all these charges, or even one of them? No again. But as I ponder the media frenzy over these allegations—anonymous thus far and undocumented publicly—I seek truth. If Herman Cain is guilty, he should step aside; if he is innocent, he deserves our support in this trial by fire.

I do know this: his campaign didn’t handle the initial allegations well. They seemed to be caught off-guard without a solid response. Cain himself then did what I believe was a decent job of explaining the situation. Some have decided he changed his story on the settlement issue, but I can understand the difference in his mind between a legal settlement that required him to sign a confidentiality provision and a simple agreement for severance pay for an employee. Sometimes we make too much out of a minor semantic problem.

The other criticism I have of how the Cain people handled the controversy was the leap they took in blaming the Perry campaign for leaking the story to Politico. Again, as with the allegations against Cain, that could be the truth or it could not. The evidence for Perry’s people being involved is circumstantial; no direct evidence seems to exist. Cain and his team should not have rushed to judgment. By doing so, they put themselves in the same place as Jonathan Martin, the Politico reporter who “broke” this non-story.

I call it a non-story because it is somewhat like the wind—difficult to grasp due to lack of substance.

It sounded worse the other day when a conservative radio personality in Iowa said that Cain’s visit to his station made a couple of his female employees uncomfortable. Yesterday we learned what Cain had done. He had called one of the women “darling” while asking if she could make him a cup of tea. Horrors! Sexual harassment at its worst!

Has it really come to this? Is this what we now call sexual harassment?

Another internet outlet “broke” a story yesterday about a woman whom Cain pressured to come to his apartment and who woke up in his bed. It was all the buzz. Then came the retractions. No one actually saw them get into a taxi. She didn’t wake up in his bed. Etc., etc.

I think Andrew McCarthy at National Review has the right perspective on all of this. He starts off his commentary by stating he is not a staunch Cain supporter, but he is bristling over the lack of integrity in the media on this matter. He notes,

Politico’s initial story was woven out of insufficient evidence, anonymous sources, and vague allegations that—even if you construed every possible inference against Cain—would amount to an impropriety that outfits like Politico would find too trivial to cover like this if the culprit were a left-leaning Democrat.

McCarthy then researched Martin’s reporting on Obama, and here’s what he found:

I’m looking for any indication anywhere that Martin did any reporting like this to vet candidate Obama—Ayers, Dohrn, Wright, Rezko . . . ? I’ve found a couple of pieces in which he suggests that raising Ayers and Rezko was unworthy, desperation politics; and I’ve found an item in which he attacked “Joe the Plumber” after he . . . elicited Obama’s damaging “spread the wealth” comment. But nothing so far that suggests Martin thought Obama should be scrutinized over the sorts of things he seems content to see Cain’s candidacy scuttled over.

The networks—CBS, NBC, ABC, CNN, MSNBC—have gone overboard in their coverage. They’re attempting to turn this into a scandal of Watergate proportions. Why? I believe they hate this candidate and fear he actually could defeat their true love—the current president.

Jay Sekulow, chief counsel at the American Center for Law and Justice, offered Cain some good advice on a news program last night. He said Cain should announce a press conference, make his denials as public and as strenuous as possible, and then fifteen minutes later, put his campaign back into high gear, focusing on the issues. Don’t allow this to drag on. Stop responding to all the bits and pieces that continue to drip, drip, drip out of what may euphemistically be called news organizations and get back to work.

As I write this, here are the facts up to the minute: no evidence has been brought forth other than anonymous accusations that Cain is guilty of anything remotely criminal or even disgusting. No legal action ever was taken against him for anything he did at the National Restaurant Association. We have accusations that are akin to wind, but their effect is to leave Mr. Cain twisting in that media wind.

I understand why some people are fed up with the political arena. And the media.