The NFL: Moral Relativism and Violence Against Women

The National Organization for Women, I noticed, is calling for Roger Goodell, the commissioner of the National Football League, to resign his position.  They've got to have something to do, so this seems as good as anything to them.  The issue is getting a lot of attention because of the Ray Rice video now that is all over the media worldwide.  Ray Rice had knocked out his fiance on an elevator. He admitted it.  But now the world sees the punch in action.

Actually, I couldn't see the punch on the video, because Rice's hand moved so quickly.  I was certain he punched her because she turned into a rag doll.  But everyone already knew that.  Rice had admitted it.  They had already seen Rice drag her out of the elevator.  However, once they saw the punch in action, there was a reaction from the world.  They wanted greater punishment for Ray Rice than he received, now that they had seen the video.

Years ago, going door to door, I ran into a household where the wife was abusing the husband.  She was physically abusing him.  She was stronger.  He was emaciated, and she kept him docile and under control through physical abuse and various medications.  I talked to this man many times, because I cared about him, but there are women who beat up men.  I've read about it since then.

Before Rice cold-cocked his fiance (now wife), you could see her hit him twice.  It looked like she physically attacked Rice.  Rice warded off these punches, and then hit her once.  One time.  And it looked like it wasn't a big punch for him, just a quick, powerful jab, that put her down and out.

Let's say that this was a same-sex couple, someone like Michael Sam and his boyfriend.  Let's say his boyfriend punched him twice and he sloughed off both punches, and then with a quick, sharp jab, he knocked out his boyfriend on an elevator.  This would not be news.  There would be no uproar.  It would make no difference.  There wouldn't even be an arrest.  It was fisticuffs.  Sam's punch was provoked.  He couldn't be charged because he got punched twice, and the retaliation was self-defense. Self-defense.  We know this is how it works.

Supposedly, we live in an egalitarian society.  A woman can be President, Secretary of State, your Senator or Congressman.  Women are the equals of men.  This is supposed to be real.  This is supposed to be what women want.  They want to be treated equally.  For instance, if a woman punches a man, women want men to be able to punch back, because women deserve to be treated like men.  Equally.  True, right?

Wrong.  Women want it both ways.  They want to punch without being punched.  In other words, they want a selective egalitarian society.  Not exactly egalitarian, more slanted toward them.

Don't get me wrong.  I want women to be protected.  I just don't think women should have it both ways.  If they can punch, all things being equal, then they can get punched too.  Just because the man is more powerful and can knock her out with one punch shouldn't matter in an egalitarian society.

My problem is with egalitarianism.  This is what it turns into.  If you can't judge women to be lesser than men, weaker than men, of a different role than men -- in other words, complementarian -- then you have to be fine with men and women having fisticuffs and more women ending up hurt.  You've got to make up your mind here.

Violence against women is a product of moral relativism.  We want our women at West Point.  There is obviously a different standard for those women -- wink, wink.  But they're dressed up the same and subject to the same criteria -- wink, wink.  It really isn't happening, but this is what is talked about, when in the real world it isn't happening and it will never happen.  Why?  Because women are different than men. There is absolute truth and goodness.  It's bad when women are given the role of men.  When we make truth and goodness relative, then women are going to get hurt, which they are in many numbers of ways.

One more thing.  This is also a product of evangelical and fundamentalist churches where women dress like men. They have male hair cuts.  They wear blue jeans.  The churches have day care so that women can be bread winners.  The women are career oriented.  The churches allow all this because of pragmatism.  It is all over society and the churches are not stopping it, even the complementarian ones.   These churches are actually nihilistic in this way, because there is no truth, no way to determine truth.  So they let their women act and look like men, trangressing biblical teaching, meanwhile trying to keep this complementarian stance that is actually learned through actions and appearance.  So the moral relativism is accepted by the churches.  And those churches attack someone like myself for having that stand and talking about it.  However, the churches are being ruined and will be destroyed because of it.

Why isn't it "violence toward people" that is the issue?  Why does it make difference whether it is a man or a woman?  All of this blows the cover of egalitarianism.  This is God's world, which is why people still don't really believe it.  And they are showing that by singling out violence toward women. Of course, we abhor violence toward women, but moral relativism is a cause, if not the cause, of violence toward women.