The woman shall not wear that which pertaineth unto a man, neither shall a man put on a woman’s garment: for all that do so are abomination unto the Lord thy God.
— Deut 22:5, KJV
Yesterday Drudge linked to an article in the Sun about Britain’s first woman to fight on the front line.
GUARDSMAN Chloe Allen has become the British Army’s first female frontline soldier — after being born a boy called Ben.
The 24-year-old joined up four years ago as a man, but changed her name officially last month.
I tried to describe the full absurdity of the story to my wife and daughter last night, with a tattooed man speaking in a deep voice about how honored he is to be the first woman to break through this barrier.
Sporting long polished nails and with silver studs in her ears, she said: “It’s a great honour to make history.
“I’m just looked at as a normal person.”
I finally decided to show them the video embedded in the article, since I really can’t do it justice. After watching the video my wife was sure it had to be satire, and that I was pulling her leg.
But this is the age we live in, the age of cross-dressing. It is entirely fitting that the “first woman” to fill this role is a man in the earliest stages of disguising himself as a woman, because putting women in combat has always been about cross-dressing. When feminists first pitched the idea in earnest, surely nearly everyone had cross dressing in mind, albeit from the other direction. Who among them would have realized that the culmination of their work would be a man pretending to be a woman pretending to be a man? The desire was for women to pretend to be men, to wear the garb of men and take on the role of men. This kind of cross dressing is now entirely normal in our society, just as Ben hopes his apparent change into Chloe will also be accepted as normal.
This morning my wife showed me the cover of the Fall 2016 USAA Magazine. It features a closeup of a butch woman (Star Cazador) in a Sheriff Department uniform with the caption:
PROTECT AND SERVE
Marine training helped define this law enforcement officer’s mission.
I can’t find the cover image on the web to link to, but it is the top photo here cropped to only show Cazador. If your browser permits you to blow it up until she takes up the entire frame, you will get a pretty good idea of the cover of the magazine.
Most who see the photo will see nothing wrong with Cazador donning the dress and posture of a man, because this is perfectly normal in our society; it is seen as a virtue for a woman to do this in our age. This is even true for most of the people who can still spot the absurdity in Britain’s first female front line soldier.
But now that we have as a society come to not just accept but celebrate Cazador’s cross-dressing, we are also being taught to both accept and celebrate Ben Allen’s cross-dressing. Just as it was crucial for feminists to teach adults to encourage girls to want to grow up to be men at a young age, Social Justice Warriors are now busy teaching us that boys should be taught to want to grow up to be women at a young age. This is all around us, but for just one example see the NY Times article Drudge linked to on Friday: From He to She in First Grade
When our son turned 6, my husband and I bought him a puppet theater and a chest of dress-up clothes because he liked to put on plays. We filled the chest with 20 items from Goodwill, mostly grown-man attire: ties, button-down shirts, a gray pageboy cap and a suit vest.
But we didn’t want his or his castmates’ creative output to be curtailed by a lack of costume choices, so we also included high heels, a pink straw hat, a dazzling fairy skirt and a sparkly green halter dress.
With this as only the beginning of her and her husband’s passive aggressive prodding, they are proud to announce that their son now considers himself a girl. This life altering change of identity was pushed on him at such a young age he could not have hoped to understand what his parents were softly coaxing him towards. After his first three days in first grade his parents had worked their magic, as his mother proudly explains:
“I already decided about that,” he said. “I never think about that anymore.”
It had been three days.
But it was also true. He had already decided. He didn’t think about that anymore. And he — she — never looked back. She grew out her hair. She stopped telling people she was a boy in a skirt and started being a girl in a skirt instead.
We are much farther down this path than nearly everyone is aware. Even those who are fighting against this latest SJW crusade are almost entirely unequipped to perceive the true insanity of it. As Cane Caldo brilliantly observes:
The tailspin of America has only accelerated, and it is accelerating at a quadratic rate. Whatever our ethnicities or religions, we now have two groups of people in America: Those who think men who dress as women should disrobe with little girls, and those who think they should disrobe with little boys. (There is no debate about the wrongness of trans-sexualism. There is no concern for the boys.) How did we come to this?
Crossdressing is the spirit of our age, with even modern (conservative) Christians fully caught in its thrall. The instructions to husbands and wives in the Bible make modern Christians deeply uncomfortable, but all of this is solved by the simple act of embracing cross dressing. Switch the roles of husband and wife, and modern Christians absolutely adore headship and submission.
Pingback: Age of Cross-dressing | Aus-Alt-Right
These people are demented.
Sigh – so true and yet so wicked.
Cane asked: How did we come to this?
Man essentially told God to butt out and to go take a flying hike. God, ever the gentleman, said “Fine. Far be it from me to hang around where I’m not wanted. We’ll go ahead and let you do things your way. Let’s see how that turns out. I’m outta here. Enjoy.”
The rest is history, and here we now are.
Related :
Zoos teach children dangerous gender stereotypes.
When one visits a zoo and observes gender, one can either conclude that :
a) Nature created two genders for a reason, and observing a variety of animals explains many observable realities about human gender interactions.
b) SJW views about gender fluidity (but that too only in a direction that absolves women of risk and cost) are right, and nature is wrong.
Well, a creature that nature has designated as evolutionary waste matter (i.e. an SJW), that serves merely as a wastebasket vehicle from which detritus can be expunged, will naturally conclude that nature is wrong.
I’m sure that 6 year old’s parents are blank slaters who also have the amazing ability (hypocrisy? self-delusion? It’s your call) to convince themselves that first graders can have full-formed. coherent identities resistant to even subtle parental influence. SCIENCE!
I recently attended a service at two new churches. At the English church there was a grand total of one woman (that I noticed) who was not living in open rebellion against God (men’s clothing Deut 5:22 or cutting her hair (short) 1 Cor 11:1-16, etc.). It’s too bad we see behaviour the Bible labels as detestable or disgraceful to be acceptable.
In the Russian church, there were a significant portion of the women who chose to have masculine clothing or hair lengths, one woman even doubling up and doing both, but the majority act in accord with Scripture. Whether those choices are due to a desire to obey God, or due to cultural reasons I cannot say; 1 Sam 6:17 says “man looks at the outside but God looks at the heart”.
One woman was even wearing a head covering during the service (1 Cor 11)… imagine that! How oppressed she must feel to have to cover her head in return for having Christ endure torture and crucifixion to provide eternal salvation and escape from the lake of fire to us.
Take a wild guess which church I went to today, to meet with (genuine) believers.
Pingback: Age of Cross-dressing | Reaction Times
Jody Allard : “My teen boys are oblivious to rape culture.”
Great to see a ‘feminist’ idiot so frustrated that her sons did not become manginas…
Jody Allard : “My teen boys are oblivious to rape culture.”
Great to see a ‘feminist’ idiot so frustrated that her sons did not become manginas…
About a year ago I moved to a different part of the country, and started checking out Saturday evening (vigil) mass at a couple of different Catholic churches. It was amazing and refreshing. I love seeing old-school women who are dressed modestly, with heads covered, doing what they’re supposed to do. One must note that such women always have a nice looking alpha man on their arm, who appears to be a good earner (often blue collar, but still a good hard worker). None of them want for anything, and often they have nice looking kids with them too.
These are good places to be, among nice people with good values. It’s a shame that they’re mere islands of sanity in a sea of filth, but at least these pockets of decency exist.
That interview would have passed as a Monty Python skit a few decades ago. We really do live in Bizarro world.
“…the gods of the copybook headings with terror and slaughter return” R.Kipling
First thought: This HAS to be a planted story from The Onion.
http://www.jack-donovan.com/axis/books/a-sky-without-eagles/
The military is not even the best place to see this backfire on the Femtwats..
I want a man, who senses that his marriage is some months away from implosion, start the process of ‘identifying’ as a woman, so that a judge grants him joint custody (at least), as well as exemption from some part of cash and prizes…
@Anon: That’s actually a clever plot for a movie. There was a movie from the 1940s or thereabouts in which a New York (?) wife wants to divorce her husband, and he thwarts her by feigning insanity, as the state law at that time required that the judge leave the case in limbo while waiting to see if the defendant to the divorce would regain his sanity within a stated period of time before proceeding. I’m not sure what the law actually was in New York at that time, but they may have adopted this method for dealing with WWI psychiatric cases and the law may still have been on the books in the 1940s. Traditionally, New York had very tough divorce laws, and up until the 60s or later you had to prove adultery or insanity, as those were the only grounds for divorce.
I have been troubled by Joan of Arch’s trial for a number of years. Most of the trial you do not hear what the judges are thinking. Only at the end they state their condemnation because give no support for their conclusions.. In some areas things became more clear to me because other books written at the same time. But in the area of dress I still can not figure out what the big deal was. Christians we know do not as a rule follow the law of Moses. So picking out one rule to condemn someone with makes little sense unless they were thinking like Thomas Aquinas about some laws still being binding because they are Natural Law.
In any case the dressing thing does not seem to me to be as bad as the problems that arise in Leviticus chapters 18 and 20.
My own take on this is this: Thomas Aquinas was in need of getting the Old Testament and New Testament to not conflict. So he used the idea of Natural Law that Saadia Gaon came up with.
Take a look at the Kant Fries school of thought, where Dr Kelley Ross notices that the disparagement of Divine Law has gotten deep with Western thought ever since then. To me what the Kant Fries school says makes sense. To me Divine Law is on a higher level than Natural Law.
To me it seems you do not need to justify the laws of Moses by means of natural law. Divine Law can stand by itself.
As for Joan of Arc my basic feeling is הוראת שעה. [A prophet can get a revelation to break a rule for a time for the needs of the hour and also a beit din can do the same thing–according to the needs of the time.] She got a revelation that she needed to dress like a man and wear battle armor and go into battle and bring all France under the rule of Charles the rightful king of France. Why is that any different that Eliyahu [Elijah] on Mount Carmel or any of the prophets that had a specific prophecy to accomplish some mission and part of the prophecy involved doing things not according to the Law of Moses.
But what are the needs of the time? That is where the idea of Saadia Gaon and Maimonides becomes important. For we know the Mitzvot are given with certain goals in mind. שלום המדינה,להתרחק מעבודה זרה לתקן את המידות וכולי.[Peace of the country, to get as far from idolatry as possible, to correct ones character traits etc.]
That should be “one’s” at the end of my note. Sorry.
@Avraham rosenblum
The text of Deut 22:5 says that God finds people who do such things “detestable”. Regardless of whether a person thinks God is more “enlightened” now, with respect to having a bunch of laws, I think that if I know God finds an action detestable, and I love and am submissive toward God, then I will not do that action, regardless of whether he gives a command to flat-out forbid it. Would you deliberately try to piss off a commanding officer for whom you had a deep respect?
For the natural law that you suggest, the 1 Cor 11 passage does appeal to that, starting in verse 14. “Does not the very nature of things teach you that…”. Yet most “Christian” women disobey that chapter too, despite it both being in the NT and appealing to natural law.
In addition, we are supposed to think of others, and not just ourselves. (Phil 2:3-8). I think this applies to all non-feminized men, but y’all can feel free to push back. For me at least, I find a feminine woman attractive, and a masculine woman either unattractive or repulsive, depending. And the female responses to seeing a man wearing women’s clothing suggests this revulsion for cross-dressing is not just me. So if a wife knows her husband prefers a woman, but she deliberately and consistently chooses to be masculine, should I think this woman is striving to be the best wife she can? Or should I think she has contempt for her husband?
And if a woman is not married yet, but thinks deliberately being ugly is the way to attract a man, why would I be interested in that, even if I was non-religious?
Josh 24:14-15 ends with “but as for me and my house, we will serve the Lord”. If she is living with contempt toward God, she is not welcome. Besides, she is ugly. (see Dalrock’s articles on ugly feminism.)
>Christians we know do not as a rule follow the law of Moses
Your statement is unfortunately true. I prefer to think that if God (or any other authority figure) cancels his prior standing order then it is void, but otherwise it remains. God did fulfill or cancel several commands, but not all. See Rom 14 for foods, special/holy days; Heb 4-7 for sacrifices, etc. But for commands like “do not murder”, “do not commit adultery”, homosexual acts, cross-dressing, etc., I am not aware of God deciding that these things should now be celebrated and embraced.
God also made clear that we “now” have salvation through faith in Christ’s sacrifice instead of through the sacrifice of animals, but this is not a change from the OT. Even in the OT, God stated he did not want the sacrifices; he ordered them, but it seems the the ritual itself was not the goal. See Hosea 6:4-6 and Amos 5:21-24. Perhaps the goal was to make clear to his people that they were not perfect, and needed God’s forgiveness….
“With this as only the beginning of her and her husband’s passive aggressive prodding, they are proud to announce that their son now considers himself a girl. This life altering change of identity was pushed on him at such a young age he could not have hoped to understand what his parents were softly coaxing him towards”.
Got it in one, Dalrock. This is exactly what “progressive” (reprobate) parents do. Were this genetic, we would have seen a genuine genetic ratio show up in the population by now for sure, as with Klinefelter Syndrome, Turner Syndrome, Fragile X Syndrome or any other genetic defect. But “gender dysmorphism”, like homosexuality, has shown up on the scene in explosive numbers, mysteriously when the social constraints repressing it have been relaxed – as they have been in every “advanced” civilization, just before that aforesaid civilization falls.
The most disgusting – and sad – part of this is that the children trust their parents implicitly.
Progressives have long berated Christianity for “shoving doctrine down children’s throats” and “brainwashing them when they can’t say no”. They now have graphically demonstrated their own hypocrisy regarding their ideology when it comes to children.
all called out long, long ago. from 1871:
http://2m2l2d2d.blogspot.com/2015/12/the-trenchant-rl-dabney-predicts-future.html
“The fantastical project of yesterday, which was mentioned only to be ridiculed, is to-day the
audacious reform, and will be to-morrow the accomplished fact.
…
The assimilation of the garments of the
two sexes, their competition in the same industries and professions,
and their common access to the same amusements and recreations,
are social changes which the “strong-minded” expect to work, each
Women’s Rights Women. 323
one for herself, when once the obstructions of law are removed from
the other points.
One result of the reflection which we have been able to give this
movement, is the conviction that it will prevail in the so-called
” United States.” This is foreshadowed by the frantic lust for innovation
which has seized the body of the people like an epidemic. It is
enough with them to condemn any institution, that it was bequeathed
us by our forefathers ; because it is not the invention of this age, it is
wrong, of course. In their eyes no experience proves anything, save
the experience which they have had themselves. They do not suppose
that our fathers were wise enough to interpret and record the lessons
of former experiences. That certain things did not succeed in our
forefathers’ hands is no proof that they will not succeed in our hands
for we are “cute,” we live in an enlightened age, and understand how
to manage things successfully. The philosophy of the Yankee mind
is precisely that of the Yankee girl who, when she asked for leave to
marry at seventeen, was dissuaded by her mother with the statement
that she ” had married very early and had seen the folly of it.” ” Yes,
but, Mamma,” replied the daughter, ” I want to see the folly of it for
myself” Your Yankee philosopher is too self-sufficient to be cautioned
from the past. He does not know history; he would not believe its
conclusions if he did; he has no use for its lights, having enough
“subjective” light of his own. To such a people the fact that a given
experiment is too absurd to have been ever tried before, is an irresistible
fascination: it is a chance not to be neglected.
…
Such is the logic of the Women’s Rights party, from Radical
premisses. Its prospect of triumph is greatly increased by this, that
its Northern opponents (the only ones who have any power to oppose)
have disabled themselves from meeting it by their furious Abolitionism.
The premisses of that doctrine, to which they are so irrevocably
committed, now shut their mouths. It is vain for the rabid negrophilist,
Dr. Horace Bushnell, to write a book at this date against Women’s
Rights as the “Reform against Nature.” He cannot consistently
oppose it; he has himself naturalised the false principles from which
that “reform” will flow. The true principles from which its folly might
have been evinced, the principles held by us “Rebels,” he has trampled
down with the armed heel, and drowned in blood and buried under
mountains of obloquy and odium and slander. He cannot resort to
those sound premisses. To meet the argument of these aspiring
Amazons fairly, one must teach, with Moses, the Apostle Paul, John
Hampden, Washington, George Mason, John C. Calhoun, and all that
contemptible rabble of “old fogies,” that political society is composed
of “superiors, inferiors, and equals”; that while all these bear an
equitable moral relation to each other, they have very different natural
rights and duties; that just government is not founded on the consent
of the individuals governed, but on the ordinance of God, and hence
a share in the ruling franchise is not a natural right at all but a
privilege to be bestowed according to a wise discretion on a limited
class having qualification to use it for the good of the whole”
this is Progressivism writ Large.
and the Conservatives now defend all of those “advances” made by Radical Progressives since 1870.
It may be inferred again that the present movement for women’s
rights will certainly prevail from the history of its only opponent.
Northern conservatism. This is a party which never conserves any-
thing. Its history has been that it demurs to each aggression of the
progressive party, and aims to save its credit by a respectable amount
of growling, but always acquiesces at last in the innovation. What
was the resisted novelty of yesterday is to-day one of the accepted
principles of conservatism; it is now conservative only in affecting to
resist the next innovation, which will to-morrow be forced upon its
timidity, and will be succeeded by some third revolution, to be
denounced and then adopted in its turn. American conservatism is
merely the shadow that follows Radicalism as it moves forward towards
perdition. It remains behind it, but never retards it, and always
advances near its leader. This pretended salt hath utterly lost its
savor: wherewith shall it be salted? Its impotency is not hard, in-
deed, to explain. It is worthless because it is the conservatism of
expediency only, and not of sturdy principle. It intends to risk
nothing serious for the sake of the truth, and has no idea of being
guilty of the folly of martyrdom. It always — when about to enter a
protest — very blandly informs the wild beast whose path it essays to
stop, that its “bark is worse than its bite,” and that it only means
to save its manners by enacting its decent role of resistance. The
only practical purpose which it now subserves in American politics is
to give enough exercise to Radicalism to keep it “in wind,” and to
prevent its becoming pursy and lazy from having nothing to whip.
Dale’s comment. But from what I can see he is fact defending the idea of natural law and also Divine Law where it has not been cancelled. That seems to me to be something like Thomas Aquinas.
As for the above comment about conservatism–Dr Ross also has noticed this problem. To me it looks like a conspiracy.See this ytube: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Axyy2RZ7RoA.
She in a powerful way describes this as coming from from the Frankfurt school. The idea was to delete American Values and in a vacuum of values they could impose their own values–i.e. Socialism and communism and one world government. This video seems to me to be the most intellectual rigorous approach to this problem that I have seen. I used to think it came from the KGB as mentioned by Bezmenov in his ytube video but it was pointed out to me that the KGB was too limited in resources to accomplish this by itself. Thus there has to have been inside help –as with the Frankfurt school.
Avraham,
The Christian must take into account the Law of Moses because of the words of Jesus in Matthew 28, where Jesus requires “teaching them to observe all I have commanded you.” In general this has led to three responses to the Mosaic law:
1. Everything is still in effect except what Jesus specifically set aside. This is the position of modern Theonomists, who are quite willing to apply the Mosaic legal codes and penalties, except where Jesus specifically spoke (as with his teaching on the Sabbath). Most theonomists would also set aside the kosher laws, since Peter was commanded to kill and eat unclean animals in his vision.
2, Only what Jesus particularly affirmed is still in effect – everything else was “fulfilled” by him. For instance, because Jesus extended God’s call to all nations, the Mosaic laws about food are no longer in effect (this is shown by the later Council of Jerusalem, which did not impose the kosher laws on gentiles).
3. Jesus affirmed the broad outline of the Mosaic covenant (love of God and love of neighbor), and his application of the Ten Commandments shows them to still be in effect, but not the specifics of the applications or penalties detailed so thoroughly in Exodus and other books.
But to the Christian, the Mosaic law is no longer the “law of righteousness” in the sense that we strive to keep it in order to be saved. Rather, Jesus saves us despite our sin, and our love for him drives us to please him by obeying his law (the law condemns the unbeliever, but is a mirror for the believer to see himself through God’s eyes). The end result of obedience may look very similar, but the motivations are very different.
As for natural law, I believe that the natural law (natural revelation) shows the glory of God and what sin is, but not the solution to our wickedness. We have ample evidence from the time before Christ that nations and kings recognized right and wrong (the code of Hammurabi, for instance). Natural law even went so far as to recognize that for certain evils sacrifice and death were necessary.
But the specifics of the Mosaic sacrificial system, or the salvation provided by Jesus, are not revealed in the stars or the human conscience, but only by the word of God himself, as given through the prophets and apostles. The purpose of the Scriptures is to record that revelation.
Natural law is the common ground believers share with unbelievers on right and wrong. But the depth of sin and rebellion can blind us even to natural law. We see this increasingly today, where people boldly deny the evidence of their own eyes and their own consciences.
Hmm. Thanks for that detailed reply. I was in fact only aware of Aquinas’s approach and still have his books my “need to do list.” I was not aware of other approaches.
What I found most difficult to believe after watching the interview with “Chloe” is everyone’s eager willingness to play along with his fantasies, referring to him as “her” and congratulating him on being a “female first.” I’m sure all of these cheerleaders would be quick to label as “bigot” any little girl who might be horrified if he walked into their restroom.
It used to be that transvestites would at least make an effort to look like or sound like the sex they were imitating, but this guy doesn’t look or sound remotely female, and it sounds like some kind of joke when, with a straight face, he calls himself “the first female …” And the bigger joke is that everyone goes along with it, no doubt congratulating themselves on how “tolerant” they are.
“I’m just looked at as a normal person.”
Ummmmmmmmm… no.
Man essentially told God to butt out and to go take a flying hike. God, ever the gentleman, said “Fine. Far be it from me to hang around where I’m not wanted. We’ll go ahead and let you do things your way. Let’s see how that turns out. I’m outta here. Enjoy.”
It wasn’t so much that everyone stopped listening to God and doing what He said, but that they started listening to Satan and doing what he said. When the spirit of God departs, the unholy spirits move right in.
This was the plot driver (only reverse the sexes) for Victor/Victoria. Yes, that was meant to be comedy of the absurd.
Churches have embraced the cross dressing, as Dalrock pointed out, in the home w/ the reversal of headship. But also in their own organizations as women have been given leadership roles in many “conservative” churches.
Ultimately, I think it traces back to a lack of humility. We are to walk humbly w/ our Lord, doing as He commands. Yet, many an evangelical church taught that we have the critical mission of evangelism, and God can only complete that through the Church. So, young “conservative” Christians are taught they are necessary for God to complete His plan, essentially making them equal to God. Once that’s the case, Christians are free to do whatever they want b/c it’s all for the cause.
I’m just looked at as a normal person.”
Ummmmmmmmm… no.
I wouldn’t be at all surprised if, given the deterioration of British society, which is happening at a pace even faster than that on this side of the pond, this creature was indeed seen as “normal.”
There are a few natural law approaches and it makes sense to start from Aquinas. But my own approach is slightly different and more based on Maimonides in which Natural Law is a step that is necessary to bring to Divine Law– and that neither one can be known by reason. It is a kind of prototype to a later approach of Dr Kelley Ross of the Kant-Fries school. In any case, Natural Law is not nullified by the later revelation of the Law of Moses. So in essence this is not all that different from Aquinas.
That British soldier may very well be the most well played satire ever. Can’t you just see that dude and a bunch of his mates drinking beer one night and having a bet that he can become the first female soldier all the while changing virtually nothing. It would be a lot like that guy that got breast implants a few years back just to win a bet. He may be covertly showing the world how bizarre it has become.
Sorta funny to think about. Either way, zhe’s playing clown-world for all its worth.
Hmm,
Where did Jesus provide this list? Where was circumcision specifically set aside, for example? This violates the spirit of what the Jerusalem Council wrote.
Nothing in there about exactly what to wear. (Read the whole section for more detail, but this is the key part for this discussion.)
Dale,
So do you not wear mixed fabrics? Anything the law required was an abomination to not follow. Are you banned from eating shellfish? BBQ pork?
You must follow all of the minutia of the law then, if that is the standard. Far more details to follow than pants or dresses. Ironically, that was not even a question then as pants didn’t come about until years later.
I do believe the principle of a man not looking like a woman or a woman like a man is an underlying principle, but proclaiming pants are exclusively male lacks foundation since they did not exist when that was written. Jesus’ own garment would be considered more of a dress today, so clearly the argument of pants and suits for men is a western invention, not a Biblical one.
An open question as well is exactly how long must a woman’s hair be to be proper in this view? Where is the exact appropriate length? My mind has a vision of all the women in the first church having butch cuts, but I suspect that was not what you saw.
I find really short hair disgusting, but I won’t try to wrap my disgust with Biblical authority by itself, to the point of setting myself as the judge to all others.
This area could use a load of Monty Python skits on the religious police in the vein of “No one expects the Spanish Inquisition.”
You pack’o’bigots need to get educated. NBC to the rescue!
Oscar says:
September 19, 2016 at 10:06 am
Thank you! You’ve just furnished more proof of the wisdom of my decision to unplug myself from the idiot box, the first anniversary of which is next week.
EGADS, do people really voluntarily watch that crap?
The term cisgender cracks me up. They successfully came up with a term to marginalize 99.9% of the population. The irony is overwhelming sometimes.
I just can’t decide whether the “Lumberjack Song” or “The Mouse Problem” is the more appropriate Monty Python skit for this one. In a sane society, Or maybe the one at Ypres with Ginger.
But seriously, he’s meeting physical specs with eggs intact and just started hormone therapy. So either the British reduce physical qualification standards, or they’re going to drum him out soon.
As bob k mando quoted,
“The fantastical project of yesterday, which was mentioned only to be ridiculed, is to-day the
audacious reform, and will be to-morrow the accomplished fact.”
This statement may be far more prescient than the author realised. Nowadays comedy is not only used to mock the absurd, but it is also used to ease society into the idea of living with it. Modern comedy shows now feature men as perpetual children (2 1/2 Men, Big Bang Theory, anyone?), teens or toddlers (Homer Simpson, Peter Griffin?). The decent father figure sputtered to its end in Married with Children, as far as I can tell, where masculinity was itself the joke, and those on TV today who embody traditionally masculine attitudes almost always apply them in some kind of abusive or destructive way (outside of comedy, mostly) unless a woman chimes in. Yesterday Cliff Huxtable was a respectable dad who lived with his respectable working wife and they all lived happily together to the amusement of the viewing public. Today this is reality – except the amusement part (including Mr Cosby himself… couldn’t live up to the values he espoused, after all. Surprise surprise). Well guess what? Today we have Modern Family. Tomorrow…?
It is no wonder that soldier story looks so much like a satire. Life, it seems, imitates comedy. This is the beginning of that spilling over into British military.
And by the way, he’s a he, not a she. I sexually identify as an Attack Helicopter but I don’t expect to be called Apache. /s
What’s the consensus on Jack Donovan here? He writes some good stuff on masculinity but he is gay? He’s hard for me to figure out.
And our heroine of eat, pray, love, is now starting a new chapter in her life.
Time to leave her male soul mate for her female soul mate.
Ahhh, love…….
http://www.elephantjournal.com/2016/09/what-elizabeth-gilberts-divorce-can-teach-us-about-relationships/
Yes, yes. Doctors have to take a guess at what our genders are. Goodness knows the complexity of physical gender was far too difficult to be mastered in a mere medical school curriculum. They can specialise in cancer, dentistry, anatomy, etc. but what genitals you have trumps ALL of that. So much so that it’s impossible to specialise in gender identification. Hmm. We need a special kind of expert for this. Cue the LGBTQ community with their honorary PHDs in feeeeeeeeelings.
Pingback: Whore Mother May I | Things that We have Heard and Known
Cane Caldo got it right on the money. All of this is going to accelerate until it collapses on itself. There are too many contradictions and mutually exclusive beliefs competing with one another.
Each myth builds upon one another. We got to this point because the fundamental myths provide the bedrock rationalization for everything that follows.
To give a political example, we got to the point where bakers can be forced to make gay wedding cakes because 50 years ago we decided to abolish freedom of association via the 1965 Civil Rights Act. Few see the connection, including conservatives, but it is provides the fundamental principle; the state has a right to force businesses to engage in commerce with others against their will.
A couple of years ago an acquaintance of mine asked me what I would have done if I were dating someone and found out that “she” had been born male and undergone a sex-change. I said that I would have immediately broken it off. He asked me why, and I answered, “Because I’m not gay.”
That answer seemed perfectly obvious and reasonable to me, since undergoing voluntary sexual mutilation does not – indeed, cannot – turn a man into a woman. A eunuch, to be sure, but certainly not a woman.
Being not just a regular lib-tard, but a Tumbrl-Class libtard, he wanted to argue with me, and posited that such a relationship would not be “gay” because the other party would be – in actual, objective reality – a woman. They’ve gone beyond “Feelz > Realz” and now embrace “Feelz define Realz.” (unless it’s something they disagree with, then they intersperse their ad hominem attacks with their precious cherry-picked “Studies show that…”). I think I mentioned something about XX/XY chromosomes and the differences in the corpus callosum, at which point the rest of the guys told him he was out of his mind and we changed the subject.
What’s especially funny is that he categorically rejects theistic religion (except for Islam, but only because Muslims hate Christianity and Jews as much as he does), and he claims to do so on the (faulty) grounds that “God cannot be proved.” He’s all about materialism when it comes to God, yet is not only willing, but eager to abandon something as easily physically-verifiable as biological sex when it runs afoul of whatever lib-tard talking point is under discussion (in this case, “gender”).
Needless to say, he’ll be “holding his nose” and voting for Hillary in November since Bernie Sanders flopped. He thinks of her as a “Moderate Conservative,” (no really, he does), so clearly his grasp on reality is tenuous at best.
So we have not yet reached Peak Blank Slate. The absurd notion that genetics plays no role in humans, that someone with XY chromosomes can have surgical mutilation & pretend to be a woman has become passe’.
Humans are merely blank slates that can be erased and rewritten on endlessly. Except for teh Ghey, of course, who are Born That Way. The contradictions are also endless. I’m reminded of the old question about how many paws a dog has. But that’s so old fashioned, I hate to bring it up.
Sure is nice to live in a time when the resources are effectively endless. Pity that churches have been, or are being, converged with the world one by one.
This is an important point. Much ink has been spilled on the topic of the decay of advanced civilizations, especially about how excess in one generation spawns decline in later ones, but what many people don’t seem to understand is that it is only possible to believe the counterfactual things they believe because only societies awash in resources have the ability to pretend that great falsehoods are true.
For example, we can dress women in uniforms and pretend that they are soldiers because the West has no peer-enemies – we have an excess supply of peace in the sense that we have not been forced to fight a military peer since the 1940’s. We can send women to medial school and dress women as M.D.s because our historically-excess medical technology allows a politically-tolerable level of mass medical care despite the fact that women doctors tend to avoid the more rigorous specialties and drop out of their medical “careers” to raise their children.
But the West is on a collision-course with its Wall as surely as any 32-year-old party girl is with her own. When Walls loom, priority tend to switch, and today’s firmly-held falsehood becomes tomorrow’s “mistake-in-retrospect.”
A couple of years ago an acquaintance of mine asked me what I would have done if I were dating someone and found out that “she” had been born male and undergone a sex-change. I said that I would have immediately broken it off. He asked me why, and I answered, “Because I’m not gay.”
Oh it’s going well beyond that, now.
The BBC had a documentary several months ago about a late teen male to female trans who did not have surgery (a large percentage actually do not have surgery apparently) who was upset tht a boy she met at the beach who appeared to be into “her” balked when he found out she actually had a penis. This was being portrayed in a very negative light, as if it were unacceptable bias and could only be equated with homophobia. Yep — that’s right. If you are a guy who likes girls, but you refuse to proceed with someone who says they are a girl but actually has a penis, you’re a homophobic bigot who is to be despised and ridiculed. We’ve moved beyond tolerance to the point where if you refuse to proceed because the other person has a penis, you’re a bigot. Just *being* heterosexual, in other words, is homophobic and bigoted.
Note that this is actually logical based on the “logic” of homophobia to begin with , and it was fairly easy to predict that this would be probed like this. It’s not clear whether this will actually become a broader meme or not at this stage (it has a LOT to go up against), but it’s nevertheless clear that trial balloons like that BBC report are already being flown.
https://www.theguardian.com/books/2014/apr/11/science-fiction-needs-to-reflect-queer-fluid-gender-identity
In the majority of Western culture we establish laws of age of consent because we believe that a 16 year old doesn’t know enough about their sexuality to make informed and cogent decisions about having sex. Thus we get statutory rape laws, etc. based on the notion that a minor is unable to make those decisions, particularly when their sex partner(s) are considered adults.
Yet, to a growing number of liberal-minded adults, a child as young as 4 years old (see the video) knows enough about their gender and sexuality to make the decision for itself (with the help of its parents) as to what gender it wishes to go through the rest of their lives as. Issues of gender being some social construct vs. biological determinism aside, what boggles the mind is that these people, these parents, are so ego-invested in damaging their child’s gender identity from 4 years old on that they will become emotional and hostile at the suggestion that they are doing so.
This is all very confusing until you consider that the latent purpose of convincing society on whole that a 4 y.o. can decide its gender and sexual identity for itself is really a push to normalize pedophilia in the future. If a 4 y.o. “instinctively” knows it was born the wrong gender or it is special because Mommy and Daddy are convinced and have him convinced he’s going to be gay, why wouldn’t a 12 y.o. be trusted with making its own sexual decisions with consent and sex with an adult?
Tangentially related PSA for those who recommended Khan Academy to me a while back:
Over the weekend our daughter ran across a grammar exercise on Khan which utilized a same sex relationship example for the student to figure out the question. Something like this (should have screen shot it, but…):
“Brittany and Sarah go to lunch with their wives on Saturday…”
Just so y’all know.
https://www.theguardian.com/books/2014/apr/11/science-fiction-needs-to-reflect-queer-fluid-gender-identity
Right, exactly. It’s articles like that and documentaries like the BBC’s where the real agenda becomes unmasked. The agenda never was tolerance. The agenda is to gay-ify the world. The idea is that if the world is free it will all be bisexual and gender fluid, because damn well if you aren’t you’re going to be considered a retrograde bigoted neanderthal, unemployable and a social pariah as well.
Some of that is wish thinking on Gay Inc’s part. It’s fanciful to me that most people will opt to be genderfluid and bisexual, even if this is being pushed by media to some extent (it already clearly is being pushed for *women* to be sexually fluid and genderfluid, but most women are still more or less feminine and, if they have had a lez experience or two, also straight). But it will be tried, however.
Just as an aside the World of Warcraft reference in that article is particularly amusing. My understanding is that the guys who play girl characters in those games aren’t doing it so that they can pretend to be girls, but because they prefer looking at girls, and they spend pretty much most of the time they are playing looking at their character. So pretty much the opposite of what he was saying there — rather than identifying as the girl character, it’s another kind of, ahem, “objectification” of the female form, and one they get to design to their own specific visual/erotic taste. I think in light of his misunderstanding of this, that the author of that article is almost certainly gay (not that the rest of the article doesn’t give that away, but only a gay guy would get typical straight male behavior so obviously wrong in such an obvious way, I think).
@Novaseeker:
I’m a pretty hard “don’t play female characters”-type in most games, simply given the nature of the activities it always seems off putting. The times you don’t get the option, especially as most things are 3rd person these days, you do get to spend many hours watching that wonderfully sculpted ass. It ain’t a terrible thing to look at.
Also, in MMOs, you’ll get free stuff. There are thirsty gammas everywhere, even if they know you’re a guy. (MMOs bring on the issue that we always relate to the things as we *see* them, so unless you absolutely know the person is male, your assumption will always be that’s a female. This is why you have to learn to assume they are men.) So there’s that appeal when you’re playing MMOs.
The Feminists complain about female characters in games, but they can never bring themselves to admit why they look that way. “Boob Physics” is a thing, haha. (Mostly because it show Feminists to be fat & ugly, and they can’t have that.)
Elspeth,
As I’ve mentioned here before, between gigs in the military (I eventually got my 20 years in), I taught in a couple of different Christian schools. I used to laugh at the “Christian” Math books because the primary way they made them “Christian” was by the way they stated the word problems. Whereas a secular textbook would say something like, “Roberta and Jaunita earned $414.90 doing work white Americans won’t do. If they pay Roberta’s mother $96.50 to watch their children while they do their homework, and then pay 20% of what is left in taxes, how much money do they have left to donate to Planned Parenthood to ensure Women’s right to bodily autonomy?” they write something like this instead, “Micah and Ester collected $414.90 for the “Teenz 4 God” group at a church bake sale. If their expenses were $96.50, how much does the group get to donate to the building fund if they first give 20% to a visiting missionary family?”
Same problem – different wording and different message.
I always thought it was hokey, but apparently a lot of textbook publishers are convinced that bombarding kids with innocuous-sounding things like you mentioned is a way to normalize the desired attitudes among children. They’re probably right about its general effectiveness.
Elspeth
Over the weekend our daughter ran across a grammar exercise on Khan which utilized a same sex relationship example for the student to figure out the question.
Low level convergence. Reminds me of some of the SJW junk that has been jammed into games and fiction for a while now. It’s just another attempt to normalize deviancy.
Which reminds me, how long before some state decides that any church having a non-religious event such as a rummage sale or a school play or a spelling bee must, must allow men in dresses to use the women’s bathroom?
And what will the typical White Knighting tradcon church leadership do about it?
Which reminds me, how long before some state decides that any church having a non-religious event such as a rummage sale or a school play or a spelling bee must, must allow men in dresses to use the women’s bathroom?
It’s on the way, of that much we be assured.
And what will the typical White Knighting tradcon church leadership do about it?
One of the same two things they always do:
1. Nothing
2. Find even more creative ways to twist and pervert Romans 13 than they already have in order to paint Caesar as THE god who must be unquestionably obeyed at all times.
We used to use Khan Academy. Unfortunately, Khan Academy is a Bill Gates project, and Bill Gates is a major proponent of Common Core, which is full of this kind of garbage. Take a gander if you have the time.
Avraham rosenblum says: September 19, 2016 at 2:13 am
She in a powerful way describes this as coming from from the Frankfurt school.
physically impossible. the Frankfurt School / IFR didn’t exist until the 1920s.
which is not to say that the poison does not share a common origin with the Frankfurt School; the Communist Manifesto was published in 1848.
it would be more accurate to describe the Frankfurt School as a more modern iteration of Dabney’s 1871 complaint. you’ll notice that Marxists LOVE to multiply organizations, think tanks and ‘independent parties’.
this is an intentional strategy. by creating a wide variety of orgs, Marxists can pretend to be all over the political / philosophical map. they use this consequence to both sow confusion AND create the impression that the Marxist view is in the ‘majority’.
Dr. Ross is unlikely to wish to address the Marxist Communist origins of what she likely perceives to be the benefits she has “received” from Feminism. i’d be happy to be proven wrong.
Avraham rosenblum says: September 19, 2016 at 2:13 am
Thus there has to have been inside help –as with the Frankfurt school.
as with the administration of Columbia University, who welcomed the Frankfurt School with open arms in the 1930s and for the duration of WW2. but now you have a chicken and egg problem, how could the Frankfurt School have perverted the administration of CU when they had only organized themselves a couple of years before?
even US society was already far compromised by the time FDR got elected and started putting KGB agents at the upper levels of government agencies.
most of Gramsci’s work was also done before the formation of the IFR and is also very inimical.
Looking Glass says: September 19, 2016 at 2:30 pm
I’m a pretty hard “don’t play female characters”-type in most games, simply given the nature of the activities it always seems off putting.
it’s been a long while since i played games in which you had an onscreen avatar but when i played coin-op Streetfighter i had a preference for Chun Li.
because the ‘female’ fighters had a bias towards faster reflexes and quicker movements where most of the ‘male’ characters are more powerful but have longer cool down times on their attacks and are generally slower.
i assume those attribute play biases still hold today.
Not to get too nit-picky, brother, but this sort of language plays into the hands of feminists (particularly of the White Knight variety), as if the primary danger to children came in the form of perverted men. In my experience, women are far more prone to enter opposite-sex locker rooms and restrooms on some pretext than the reverse. Whether that’s due to the unspoken “understanding” that men are not entitled to privacy like women are, or the equally-absurd “understanding” that women do not sexually-objectify men’s bodies, or the also-equally-absurd “understanding” that men are more prone to perversion than women are, or simply because they can get away with it while men who do it are promptly arrested, I don’t know.
As for me, I don’t want strange women in my locker room any more than I want strange men in the women’s locker room. Forty years of single-mother normativity and 54 million U.S. abortions since Roe V Wade should have taught everyone that the most dangerous place a child can be is alone with a woman… rather than alone with a man.
On a note related to the original topic: I just finished reading Norah Vincent’s book, “Self-Made Man.” Mizz Vincent is a tall, white lesbian who decided to see for herself what it’s like to experience life as a man, so for 18 months she went in drag (to the extent of working with a professional make-up artist, an acting coach, and a voice coach) to experience life from the male perspective.
She missed the boat in a few areas – some of them badly – but I give her credit for truly trying to be fair and largely succeeding. At the end of it all she ended up in a loony bin for a while to get her head screwed back on straight (or as much as a feminist lesbian can, at least). Her frank acknowledgement of female privilege that she had never even considered, and sympathy for the expectations society places on men (including and especially from women) was refreshing. She even admits to becoming a bit of a misogynist after a few weeks of wading into the dating scene while posing as a man when she saw what most women demand versus what they put on the table themselves.
“The 24-year-old joined up four years ago as a man, but changed her name officially last month.”
A serious black knighting possibility. If all current military servicemen re-identify as female then there’ll be no more need to recruit female soldiers and the SJWs will have to either back off or admit sexuality is more than just opinion.
Too bad Christ wouldn’t approve of all that lying.
…
Is This Thing On? @ 11:30 am:
“What’s the consensus on Jack Donovan here? He writes some good stuff on masculinity but he is gay? He’s hard for me to figure out.”
Yeah, me too. Like learning Game from PUAs, sometimes you need to separate the good ideas from the bad without dismissing it all because of the source.
…
Avraham rosenblum @ 9:54 am:
There are a few natural law approaches and it makes sense to start from Aquinas. ”
Natural Law isn’t a religious concept. It’s bare-bones “this is how normal people are” reasoning. The application here is that men and women are different, therefore we shouldn’t act as though men and women are interchangeable. No need for Aquinas or Plato or even Christ.
Unlike evolutionary psychology, Natural Law still comes from a Creationist paradigm–it commonly uses phrases like “we shouldn’t” and “normal people”. Which makes it compatible with Christianity.
@ Rollo Tomassi
Parents like this will eagerly sacrifice their children to pedophiles if it proves they’re not racist.
“When I shield my children from injustice in the name of preserving their innocence, what I’m actually preserving is white supremacy.”
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/preserving-my-childrens-innocence-is-an-act-of-preserving_us_57d2d8f4e4b0273330ac3dae
If cuckservatives would just get out of the way, all the various pillars of leftism would just implode.
i) The female-centrists, who wants special treatment of women everywhere, would swiftly come into conflict with the ‘gender is fluid’ sickos. I mean, the blue-haired shoggoths should be livid that men are coming into female sports and thrashing women, and taking scholarships and make-work positions designed for women.
ii) The ‘cultural appropriation’ lunatics (i.e. those who harass white people for eating tacos or pad thai) would clash with the multiculturalists, who want all people to be a combo of all cultures.
iii) The feminist/gay/trans idiots would clash with Muslims. The de-facto alliance between the two is only possible when cuckservatives stand between them, and both can attack cuckservatives without coming into contact with each other.
There you have it. All this weirdness can exist simultaneously *only* because cuckservatives are the most politically inept group ever. They fail every test of warfare ever known to man, from Leonidas at Thermapylae to Sun Tzu.
So the eradication of cuckservatives/GOPe is the only thing that can cause leftism to eat itself…
@ Dalrock
http://www.military.com/daily-news/2016/09/16/navy-to-hold-all-hands-training-webinars-new-transgender-policy.html
Lyn87
Not to get too nit-picky, brother, but this sort of language plays into the hands of feminists (particularly of the White Knight variety), as if the primary danger to children came in the form of perverted men.
I’m no expert. By choice. But as far as I can tell, it’s the M to F trannies that are most likely to demand their “potty rights” in the public legal arena. See “Target” for one example. Plus they seem to outnumber the F to M trannies, although as I say, I am not an expert nor do I want to be.
The point of my comment stands: how long before some state agency or AG decides to force churches to accede to the wishes of crossdressers any time a church building is in use for anything other than church services? And how will the typical TradCon White Knight leadership respond?
The LGBT pressure groups have made it clear that their version of “equality” outranks anything else; common sense, military preparedness, freedom of speech and freedom of religion.
How many churches could afford to lose their tax exempt status, I wonder?
Lyn87
On a note related to the original topic: I just finished reading Norah Vincent’s book, “Self-Made Man.”
I keep meaning to read that book. From what I can see just from discussion such as yours & others on the web, Vincent had an easier time posing as a somewhat effeminate man than the average man in a dress would have posing as a woman. The Adam’s apple alone is probably a give away. Again, I don’t really want to become an expert.
So perhaps the F to M trannies are less vocal about potty “rights” because they already are there, under the radar as it were. Seriously, suppose your church had a rummage sale with people from the community in and out of the building, if some slightly shorter than average man in a gimme hat and flannel shirt walked into the men’s room and into a stall, would you look “him” over to see if “he” is really a “she”?
Anyway, this is all a side issue. The question I’m asking is this: when, not if, some grandstanding politician or bureaucrat orders churches to accomodate crossdressers any time a church is used for non-religious purposes, what will the average White Knighting tradcon leadership group do?
Just thought of another angle. Many larger churches have Christian schools. They must not discriminate on race, although they can require a statement of faith I am sure. So what happens when someone who insists they are just as Christian as anyone else in school has little Johnny who self identified as Jane at the age of 5? Right now a private school can say “Nah”. But I bet most such schools wouldn’t have the resources to fight a lawsuit for very long, especially if the other side was bankrolled by the Human Rights Campaign or some other Soros funded group.
This issue pokes a needle right into a nerve.
@The Question
Maybe not pedophiles, but third world jihadists are A.O.K.
https://thenoticerblog.wordpress.com/2016/09/19/invade-the-world-invite-the-world/
Riffing off of a point made by several commenters, above, about the ratcheting of social decay, I am reminded of G.K. Chesterton’s observation:
As he was writing back almost a hundred years ago now, I guess “Cuckservatism” is older than we thought …
The purpose of forcing people to agree to things like this isn’t to change their mind. It is to break their spirit.
Everyone involved knows this is a man, not a woman.
When you force someone to agree to a known falsehood, you are forcing them to submit to your authority. Once a person has crossed that line–once they have swallowed their pride and honesty–it becomes easier to do it again, and again, and again. You break their spirit.
The bottom line: this is not about establishing truth, it is about establishing power over a person.
The “Star Trek Next Generation” episode “Chain of Command” demonstrates this with its “how many lights do you see” question of the then prisoner Picard.
We as a society are being subjected to this same technique. Agree to some politically correct thing you know isn’t true, or you will be punished. Submit or suffer the consequences.
The people who are talking about adult men dressed as women “disrobing” with little girls in the women’s locker rooms are taking the bait. Transgenderism is not about sexual gratification – and getting you to try to make this about sexual gratification is because that is the playing field where they are strong and you are weak.
It worked the same way with “gay” “marriage” – the conservative couldn’t stop talking about the gross details of gay sex – which no one wanted to hear about – while the “gay” lobby was talking about “love” and “identity.”
You can’t even get your own churches in order – and everyone is well aware of that – so every time you try to influence the larger culture you just come across like hypocrites searching for specks in other people’s eyes while ignoring the beams in your own.
That’s why they keep winning and you keep losing. Looks like they are going to win this one too.
AR,
I agree that your point stands… I just get a burr under my saddle when the counter-argument from our side is invariably framed as “Eeeeeeevil Menz are gunna’ prey on our leeeettle gurlz ‘n wimmin,” while back in the real world, women are orders of magnitude more dangerous to children than random men, as well as more violent in interpersonal relationship… and that doesn’t even count all the violence-by-proxy they initiate either with or without state sanction.
I figure you know that. My quibble was not with what you said (which is undoubtedly true), but rather with the specific way you said it.
Of all the things for society to worry about, male sexual crime against random women and children doesn’t even make the top 100.
@Hipster Racist
Since the battle over is lost due to the courts and not public opinion I disagree on several fronts. I never read an article rejecting gay marriage because gay sex is repulsive- that sounds like a silly argument few if any made. The strong argument that it would ultimately hurt society and the structure of marriage prevailed in many states and elections prior to corrupt and wicked judges overturning our democracy. So I think based on your comments there is no lesson to learn to avoid the same mistake with transgenderism since unelected judges will likely again decide against the rational or irrational objections of people.
As for this clown – a man being the first fighting woman is hilarious. We ought to celebrate this as a method of bringing the system down. May the first female everything in the future be a man calling themselves,lives a woman. We might as well get a laugh at the rot of our culture and get to mock the feminists.
As another said accepting gende identity issues as valid is completely irresponsible. We used to help kids through this and 95% did fine with no lasting issues. No the adults are looney and we screw up the kids entirely.
@Kevin
The “gay marriage” war was lost long before the judges started overruling various laws and simply making new law. I wrote in my blog a few years ago about this.
As if articles are how politics are waged. I can assure you, there were many articles – and TV shows, and fiction, and memes, and every form of cultural warfare – purporting to show that conservatives objected to homosexuality because it was gross – and at least some were even written by conservatives! There were also many internet commenters – some quite insistent – about such things.
They were able to set the terms of the debate. Perhaps the killer blow was that while conservatives were discussing the sanctity of marriage, the left was simply pointing to the sad state of marriage as it existed at the time.
They didn’t need to win over the majority – they just needed enough people who were not willing to fight.
When these tranny bathroom laws started to pass – the conservatives took the bait – we see it here – and started framing the issue as men dressing as women in order to creep on little girls.
But this issue isn’t about sexual gratification at all, it’s about merging the sexes, breaking down sex segregation in all public and private institutions, and separating physical sex from the “performance of gender.”
I wrote about this a few years ago but tired of it because the anti-traditional forces just have a better understanding of the issues that the traditional people do. The feminists are actually correct that “gender” is something that is “performed” – we call it “acting like a man” or “acting like a woman” – but the traditionalists in many ways refuse to see that sex roles, while not exactly “socially constructed” do have a social context and are socially reinforced.
One of the reason I like this blog is because the author is quite good at deconstructing the newspeak. The subject of the article is not at all about sexual gratification and has everything to do with breaking down sex segregation.
My prediction stands: the conservatives will lose this battle as they lose every battle.
{I agree with Otto Lamp}
The purpose of forcing people to agree to things like this isn’t to change their mind. It is to break their spirit.
Everyone involved knows this is a man, not a woman.
When you force someone to agree to a known falsehood, you are forcing them to submit to your authority. Once a person has crossed that line–once they have swallowed their pride and honesty–it becomes easier to do it again, and again, and again. You break their spirit.
[In the event of sounding rude, rambling and possibly diverging from the Christian motto – Yes – I know this is an “Old” argument but consider…. “force someone to agree to a known falsehood” – “forcing them to submit to your authority” – That’s exactly what feminists (and Ironically, religions) do too…]
The bottom line: this is not about establishing truth,
[neither is religion]
it is about establishing power over a person.
[as is religion – Consider the Talmud and the Bible and the Koran…]
The “Star Trek Next Generation” episode “Chain of Command” demonstrates this
[So as The Bible puts forth and All Loving, All Powerful God as a fact and not a Falsehood, this book as most likely being influenced by the Talmud and many previous documents, or maybe directly penned by a “Jealous God” – who is at the same time “All Loving and All Powerful”… ~ hmmm – Jealousy and Love and Power existing within the same God…, no falsehood about that – then add in that Satan character who the All Powerful God ‘allows’ to exist – well (-1) ~ that’s not loving… And then there’s that problematic Eve whom He couldn’t control … a conundrum adding up to falsehood upon false hood… if Satan is in control of Sinful behavior as evidenced by his seduction of Eve… then (-2) That negates the All Powerful God = lack of control… and that Satantic demonstration of influence also most likely negates the All Loving aspect of God as well = allowing seductive and painful sin to exist as an affliction to his daughter Eve? If Satan controls Sin, and Sin is bad for the all Powerful/ all Loving God’s Children, then it’s only because the All Powerful/Loving God allows Eve to be seduced… but but ~ FREE WILL… TEST OF FAITH ~ … Well, OK, by layman’s terms… that ain’t loving or powerful. (-3) That’s manipulative and shit… just like a bitch.
But: FREE WILL!! And I HAVE FAITH – so I’m going to heaven and your going to HELL, Bitch… That’s right; My God’s an All Loving God but your’e going the HELL if you don’t “agree to a known falsehood”! uh huh – right… (-4)
“ISLAM IS A PEACEFUL RELIGION”
and like God, Alah don’t give a shit about you if you don’t tow the line. hmmm it’s almost as though these two God’s were in cahoots or conceived or created at the same time or something… But anyway – So, like Alah, this singular, omnipotent God who is all Loving, except – like Alah, He created an eternal damnation called Hell for all his children, a place supported and controlled by Satan, ‘whom’ threatens the children if they don’t tow the impossibly tight lines loving imposed by the all poweful…, then they’ll all go to hell and burn forever.
Got it – Yep – That’s Love if I ever heard it… and All Powerful, no doubt. Except for being unable to control Eve… or plagues, or gravity, or when good things happen to bad people, or visa-versa, murder, rape and so on… All of these negative forces are allowed to exist by the All loving, All Powerful God? ALAH! no wait… GOD! Ya I know… He/They let it go on so as to “test” the children. Right. Uh, hmmm – again – that’s not loving… not even an abusive parent lets that go on. A psychopath yes, but not even an abusive parent is that fucked up…
Oh But ~ that’s not God – THAT’S SATAN – causing all that pain for God’s Children… So, Is God / Alah unable to control Sin and Satan…? or is He allowing Sin happen? That is not Powerful – the other is not Love… and don’t forget the uncontrollable feminine… and microbes and DNA and the speed of light, well I dunno – how about clean water? Anything? I can almost hear the response: IT’S “MAN” WHO CHOSE TO POLLUTE THE PLANET, IT’S MAN WHO’S FALLEN = IT’S THE-EVIL-WHITE-MALE-PATRIARCHY…
Well then – if so, He’s not All Powerful – to save his children from the Evil Man, or Satan, or Sin, all of which HE CREATED – not even willing or able to save his own son…? Jesus… begotten from a woman who claims “EMACULATE CONCEPTION”… riiiiight. That ONE TIME in all the history of human that conception happened without sperm and penetration… HA! Ya – Let’s base a religion around that Shit. Ha. DAMN – talk about CUCKOLD… Joseph – wow… anyway.
If “MAN” or SATAN is able to destroy Gods’ creation, then how powerful is God anyway? “It’s all by design”. It’s all in God’s plan – “mysterious ways” – “free will” – “I have faith” – or maybe… God’s simply a fictitious, Jealous, insecure – self absorbed – control freak – like the people who wrote the Talmud – and the Bible – and the Star Trek episodes – ahhh – shit ANTI-SEMITE – KKK – CRAZY SKIN HEAD… Ooops! – I’d better shut up and find out where my broken spirit went before I suffer the ‘consequences’.
As if I haven’t already… what can ‘they’ do to me now that hasn’t already been done? and “I’m still alive”.]
with its “how many lights do you see” question of the then prisoner Picard.
[… fiction]
We as a society are being subjected to this same technique.
[and have been for thousands of years…forcing people to agree with “fictions”… or suffer the consequences -]
Agree to some politically correct thing you know isn’t true, or you will be punished. Submit or suffer the consequences.
[Ironically that’s just what religions do… How about this?: “submit to some Religious thing you know isn’t true (The Sun revolves around the Earth), or you will be punished” (Gender is a social construct).]
@ Dalrock
One more airlift link drop.
https://myonlycomfort.com/2016/09/14/hierarchy-before-the-fall/
I’m even going to save you time and point out the discrepancies in his argument for you to describe.
First he writes:
“The husband’s job is not to rule over his wife, enforce the rules, or be the commander and king at home in his castle, for it is not his castle. The home belongs to Christ. He is not to usurp Christ’s role as the king of kings, but he is to emulate Christ in only one way, according to the text.”
Then he later writes:
“It is the husband ultimately responsible for the peace of the home. It is the husband that God will hold accountable for what has been entrusted to him. But he does not rule the home by power and control. He governs his home by service and love. You can see a woman controlled by power. She is downcast and the light is gone in her eyes. And you can see a woman who is loved by her husband. She is alive, fully human, confident, and joyfully doing whatever work God has called her to with spirit and life. Why do so many who claim the name of Christ believe that women are to be controlled by entitlement and power?”
@Otto Lamp
In my study of communist societies, I came to the conclusion that the purpose of communist propaganda was not to persuade or convince, not to inform, but to humiliate; and therefore, the less it corresponded to reality the better. When people are forced to remain silent when they are being told the most obvious lies, or even worse when they are forced to repeat the lies themselves, they lose once and for all their sense of probity. To assent to obvious lies is… in some small way to become evil oneself. One’s standing to resist anything is thus eroded, and even destroyed. A society of emasculated liars is easy to control. I think if you examine political correctness, it has the same effect and is intended to.
– Theodore Dalrymple
Should a woman ever ask a man out?
http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=1025312
bob k. mando:
I meant Dr Kelley Ross of the Kant Friesian School of thought which is very much anti communist. In fact he gives a good justification to free market capitalism. [This is something that even Habermas noticed was necessary.]
As for the video by Stephanie Meir I am no no expert but you are probably right that Socialism was sinking deep roots into the USA even before the Frankfurt school. I think Ayn Rand mentions the fact of the Federal Government forcing banks to make subprime loans began at the turn of the century.
A little late to the party. I just went to the page of the British guy that they are referring to as she.
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/1799205/sex-change-soldier-is-britains-first-female-to-fight-on-front-line-after-being-born-a-boy/
This guy is just being an asshole. There is no way he should be able to pass himself off as a woman. The real madness is not with him but with society openly going along with this stunt.
The Question..
That is a scary blog post. Can’t believe how they expect men to just be absolute push overs, taking all the blame but having zero authority. Everything is to be completely on the terms of the woman but you are to blame if things don’t work. You are responsible for it all but you have no tools to do anything about it beyond sucking up and doing everything you are told; and if things still go wrong, God hates you, cause you’re a man. Fuck sakes, madness. I don’t even care to care about marriage anymore, these people are straight up demented.
Check this comment from the post ‘The Question’ linked to.
Husband is dead on right. This is straight up heresy, men are just there to be doormats for a woman’s quest to find herself or some shit. Do they even care about marriage anymore? No, of course not but I bet her 26 year old daughter is going to be sucking dicks at the moment but will be decrying those Christian men not marrying her come the age of 30, screw the lot of them, sick of it. I’m not going to be their scapegoats.
MarcusD,
I thought the CAF post and advice was pretty mundane until I ran across this gem:
Girls go for the aloof jerk-boy? Say it isn’t so! That’s some red-pill gold, right there.
“Parents like this will eagerly sacrifice their children to pedophiles if it proves they’re not racist.”
Molech smiled.
Anon @7 & 8 – I left a comment on that article in which I accused her of committing child abuse, much like the parents in the subject of this thread.
I know the Lord urged us not to be afraid when things really start going down the tubes, but even so….
Anonymous Reader says: “…how long before some state decides that any church having a non-religious event such as a rummage sale or a school play or a spelling bee must, must allow men in dresses to use the women’s bathroom?”
It’s already here:
https://pjmedia.com/faith/2016/09/09/massachusetts-forces-lgbt-accommodation-rules-on-churches/
Anonymous Reader @ 6:41 pm:
“The question I’m asking is this: when, not if, some grandstanding politician or bureaucrat orders churches to accomodate crossdressers any time a church is used for non-religious purposes, what will the average White Knighting tradcon leadership group do?”
Won’t happen like that. It would be like burning your own informant or installing your pick of dictator in a banana republic then forcing him to publicly announce he’s a plant job. The last thing the Elites want to do is barge into a Sunday service, point a gun at the pastor’s head and order him to drop the so-useful pretense that he’s loyal to Christ in front of a hundred witnesses.
The job of cuck-priests is euthanizing the public conscience, not advancing the agenda. How many of then have even noticed Target’s new bathroom policy?
Can cross-dressing also involve cross-teaching? Would our British army “woman” now be forbidden from teaching men in an evangelical church? Is masculine clothing a uniform that would allow a woman to teach, as long as she claimed to be a “man”?
Slightly off-topic, (and no answers to my teasers above,) but a good article on the Scriptural prohibition:
http://www.samstorms.com/enjoying-god-blog/post/10-things-you-should-know-about-1-timothy-211-15-and-the-relationship-between-men-and-women-in-the-local-church
From Lynn:
“Forty years of single-mother normativity and 54 million U.S. abortions since Roe V Wade should have taught everyone that the most dangerous place a child can be is alone with a woman… rather than alone with a man.”
This statement is brilliant. Is it original to you? I would like to use it if that’s ok.
Avraham rosenblum says: September 20, 2016 at 1:07 am
I think Ayn Rand mentions the fact of the Federal Government forcing banks to make subprime loans began at the turn of the century.
*blinks*
federally enforced “sub-prime” lending existed before the Federal Reserve ( and thus the ‘Prime’ interest rate )? how does that work?
Rand died in the 1980s so when if she was commenting on something happening at a past tense ‘turn of the century’ that should mean pre-1900, right? Federal Reserve wasn’t established until the 1920s.
i’m not saying you’re wrong, i’m just confused.
Feminist Hater says: September 20, 2016 at 6:02 am
That is a scary blog post. Can’t believe how they expect men to just be absolute push overs, taking all the blame but having zero authority.
you “can’t expect”? and you call yourself a ‘Feminist Hater’?
son, you don’t even know what a woman is. this is what women ALWAYS do. this is the basis of EVERY SINGLE ONE of their policy proposals, “somebody come save me from my stupidity!” and then getting pissed off anytime somebody demands submission in exchange. “Muh body, muh right!”
and it’s also the primary characteristic of the White Knight who enables her.
The woman shall not wear that which pertaineth unto a man, neither shall a man put on a woman’s garment: for all that do so are abomination unto the Lord thy God.
— Deut 22:5, KJV
__________
Amen, amen, AMEN!
~ Bro. Jed
Off topic, looking for thoughts. Almost at year 7 and two move outs later, wife is living at my apartment. I cannot for whatever reason file divorce papers. The wife, now that I mentioned I am moving forward with divorce, has decided to become the perfect wife. Dread must have kicked in and she’s now listening sermons, repenting, submissive to my authority, behaving properly, actually getting up early to take care of her chores. As a believer I do not believe I have a reason to file and she has been faithful and yet life, on a daily basis, is painful apart from the last 48 hours. She’s “trying” and did so the previous two move outs ….until reality kicks in reverts back to being a contentious wife. We have no kids and I have no desire as having any would lock me down for life. Unhappy, sure, and yet I do not see her change as being authentic. “One more chance” or just separate? When we were apart I was happy, at peace, enjoying life. Together now, she has reverted back to demands, complaints, disrespect. She has no friends, has only reached out in an effort to show me she is trying. Do I hold out longer with hope or bounce now? She says she refuses to remarry, divorce, or leave. After 10 years alimony is life long in California and we are at year 7. I am curious as to what @Dalrock would say. If she was not my wife I would have zero contact and never see her again. At this point I cannot pull the trigger as I am thinking my action is very unChristlike – as Christ has never divorced the church and, at my wedding, I took vows, wrote the sermon on Eph 5. She has not fulfilled her role and yet now, as I laid I out I want a divorce her behavior has changed. Her attitude? No idea. Her heart? She is saying all the right things. I just do not believe it.
Uhm? Okay?
The Fed was also created way before the 1920s, and yes, it was discussed well before the turn of the century but only implemented publicly in December 1913, using the 1907 stock market failure as its new reason to be. Not as if we’ve never heard that before but this time it is different, sure, sure.. ‘we need are central authority to control money supply to be able to stop financial panics’ they said. LOL!
@ Feminist Hater
Ever notice that whenever they speak of the role of husbands and wives, he is the “servant-head,” not man of the house or king of the castle? However, she is the princess, the queen, the daughter of God. He has responsibilities, she has privileges.
No. If I’m not lord of the manor, king of the castle, master and commander, then she is not the queen, the princess. If as a husband and father I’m a “servant,” the the wife is the “maid servant.”
All of this is cover to distract modern men from the fact that they give up their previous liberties bought and paid for by their ancestors to the state when they marry. They relinquish control over their lives to their wives and the government.
In my humble opinion, this is what this whole thing is about. If they taught men they were king of the castle and lord of the manor, their mental point of origin would be as the ultimate authority in their household, not the wife’s emotions or the state. No-fault divorce would be opposed. Teaching them to be “servant-heads” is a way of conditioning them to not ask any important questions about the marriage laws in our country.
@ feminist hater
“Husband is dead on right. This is straight up heresy, men are just there to be doormats for a woman’s quest to find herself or some shit. Do they even care about marriage anymore? No, of course not but I bet her 26 year old daughter is going to be sucking dicks at the moment but will be decrying those Christian men not marrying her come the age of 30, screw the lot of them, sick of it. I’m not going to be their scapegoats.”
The most important goal of any Red Pill man is to avoid becoming entrapped by the status quo. This means avoiding entanglements with these types of women at all cost when they hop off the carousal ride.
Reminds me of what Jed Eckert says in Red Dawn. “I’m alive. My family would want me to stay alive. Your family would want you to stay alive.”
Stay alive and free.
Mr. Woot:
I am not Dalrock, but in my opinion you should get this divorce done pronto. Do not wait! If you know the law about alimony, you can bet she does. I would lay big money on your wife’s 180 the day after your 10th anniversary, and divorcing you to cash in on all that free money. This blog’s comment section is littered with stories exactly like yours. Nice guys finish last in this society!
Bear in mind that if you take Christianity seriously, you may or may not want to actually start dating other women. Many interpretations hold that secular divorce is just a way to settle assets, and that a Christian marriage without evidence of adultery will remain valid. You will definitely want to talk to your own priest/minister about how such things work in your tradition.
Get a legal divorce tomorrow, and then try to figure out if you want to still live as a married man, religiously, based upon what the scholars in your own tradition say.
Best,
Boxer
Feminist Hater: Thanks for that information. Those dates seem vaguely familiar to me as being the dates mentioned by Ayn Rand.
MrWoot,
As a Christian, initiating divorce is not a viable option given what you’ve written – you made vows, and the conditions that would negate those vows do not exist. It’s really as simple as that.
Having said that, there is no requirement for your marriage to be sanctioned by the state (especially the state of California!), so you could civilly-divorce your wife and still live as man-and-wife given that your marriage remains real in the eyes of God. This next bit is important: nothing changes except your tax-filing status. That removes the state from the equation to some degree at least, in that it drastically reduces her ability to use the power the state puts at the disposal of wives if she’s not your wife in the legal sense. Note that I’m not suggesting that you get a divorce for real (as in: real in the eyes of God) – but that you consider whether you want the state to continue to be a party to it. She should keep your last name since she will remain your wife. To answer your immediate question: she’s your wife, and you’re obligated to live up to your vows unless she commits adultery, but that doesn’t mean you need to (or even should) make it easy for a contentious wife and/or over-reaching state to crush you. Bottom line: you and your wife are married because you took vows before God, not because the State of California says so, and ending the state’s recognition won’t make you not married (you would not be divorcing her, you would both be divorcing California).
In any case, I would strongly advise moving out of California well before the 10-year mark, since the government there is, to use an old term: wicked.
“…somebody come save me from my stupidity and take the fall for it!”
FIFY
Would legal separation be an option?
@ MrWoot,
A general Game principle is if you don’t follow through on your stated intentions then she isn’t going to respect you. Context doesn’t really matter. If living with her is less pleasant than living sexless then divorce her and be done with her; otherwise, up your Game ASAP because divorce ultimatums provide diminishing returns.
If you need a third option, leave California. We’re the marital Worst Case Scenario.
Lyn87
I’ll just leave this here for you to read. Friends of mine with underage girls stopped shopping Target earlier this year for reasons that suit them.
http://eagnews.org/suit-blames-feds-after-trans-male-student-twerked-on-girls-in-school-locker-room/
Gunner, I didn’t write about “putting a gun to the pator’s head in the middle of services”, stop making stuff up. What will happen is a quite phone call from some bureaucrat or AG to the church office reminding them that anti-discrimination in potty rights is now the law so during the rummage sale or other secular event there better not be any complaints from LGBT people….
The choice for churches will be to accomodate themselves to the LGBT pressure groups or to further withdraw out of the world. Again I wonder how many churches would last if they lost their tax exemption.
Hipster racist, others will fill in the theology better than I can, but the Bible says “made male” and “made female”, plus there’s a clear “don’t cross dress” instruction, this is not just an “Oh, that’s ICKKY” argument. It would be like a church publicly affirming embezzlement or some other form of theft (everyone spare me the “taxes are theft and so…” argument, please).
@The Question
Thanks. I’ll probably publish a post on that tomorrow morning.
@ Dalrock
“Thanks. I’ll probably publish a post on that tomorrow morning.”
Awesome. I’ll save a comment I had on it until then, other than to say the telltale sign of an egalitarian is their ardent opposition to hierarchy in any form despite it being a naturally-occurring phenomenon among both humans and animals.
@The Question
Indeed. But what is different about Pastor Powell is he doesn’t present himself as an egalitarian. He presents himself as traditional and (in some posts) even a complementarian.
“Indeed. But what is different about Pastor Powell is he doesn’t present himself as an egalitarian. He presents himself as traditional and (in some posts) even a complementarian.”
And the Eskimo have 50 different words for “snow.”
He presents himself as traditional and (in some posts) even a complementarian.
“Complementarian” is what crossdressed conservative feminists like to call themelves.
DING! That’s the toaster, the word is done.
I am (now) definitely taking the legal steps and then living separately. I can stay sexless and observe my vows (even though she has not held up her end). Being separate of course means she will not enjoy my physical protection although as she hates guns (and having them in the house) she is making her own choice. As for a last name – I did not even consider it. I leave that up to her. My guess is she’ll go thermonuclear once the paperwork is in motion.
All of this has given me a great insight into God’s grace, Hell, mercy, boundaries, etc. I am going to consider this an excommunication of sorts.
As for my game, weak as it may be, we are not equally yoked. Separating the legal vs Christian obligations and considerations makes the decision 80% easier.
“Gunner, I didn’t write about “putting a gun to the pator’s head in the middle of services”, stop making stuff up. What will happen is a quite phone call from some bureaucrat or AG to the church office reminding them that anti-discrimination in potty rights is now the law so during the rummage sale or other secular event there better not be any complaints from LGBT people….”
I didn’t mean to imply that you did. My point was that forcing pastors to play an active role in Convergence would out them as collaborators. That would be like a mob boss forcing his lawyer to participate in his crimes. The lawyer can’t protect him from justice if he’s indicted, too.
The silence of the priests is damning enough.
Powell presents himself as traditionalist, whatever that means, but has no problem with women divorcing their husbands. That’s an example of cognitive dissonance, right there.
Plus there is a regular commenter there who peddles her own site that looks like a full up Duluth Wheel conservative feminist. Any contentiousness on the part of a woman? Why, that is just her resisting Abuse! Any attempt to rein in women in a church? Abuse! Looking further I see that any failure on the part of a man to properly submit to a woman is probably Abuse! In this she’s rather like a certain troll that used to haunt Rollo’s site.
He sure looks like an egalitarian; like most “complementarians”, the same old conservative feminism as “tradition”.
More cross dressing. Be interesting to see (a) if he responds to critique at all (b) if that response goes any further than rationalization / finger pointing.
@MrWoot
You may find this post from Deep Strength a helpful (and challenging) refresher on what God commands regarding divorce.
https://deepstrength.wordpress.com/2016/09/15/on-divorce-part-4/
“Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate.”
At this point I cannot pull the trigger as I am thinking my action is very unChristlike – as Christ has never divorced the church and, at my wedding, I took vows, wrote the sermon on Eph 5. She has not fulfilled her role and yet now, as I laid I out I want a divorce her behavior has changed. Her attitude? No idea. Her heart? She is saying all the right things. I just do not believe it.
Does your marriage exist to make you happy, or to honor Christ?
Others have suggested that you can still honor Christ by dissolving your marriage legally but still providing for and leading her. A paper divorce, in contrast to a paper marriage.
You yourself think there is a course of action that is more Christ-like – and that hints at what you believe to better honor Christ. Are you asking this to find the way to best honor Christ, or are you trying to re-negotiate what you consider to be Christ-like?
Jesus told us to count the cost and to follow Him, and he promises that our rewards will be multiples of what we sacrifice. Whatever you do – do it so that it honors Christ and know that nothing for that end is in vain.
Sir Hamster FTW.
The only thing I would add to what I’ve already written about a paper divorce is that you make it clear to her (if you go that route), that as far as you are concerned the two of you are married in he eyes of God, and “divorcing California” IN NO WAY implies that you are divorcing HER: you are willing, able, and consider yourself duty-bound to honor your vows (you DID sign up for that, after all). “For better or worse,” she is your wife, and there is exactly nothing that any secular authority can do to change that fact.
Far be if from me to counsel divorce in the absence of adultery (especially over the internet) – but I don’t consider the state to be a valid participant in Holy Matrimony. You? Yes. Your wife? Yes again. The state of California? No way. If putting yourself in the position where your wife might use that illegitimate power is too hazardous, then do what you need to do, but don’t think for a moment (or let her think) that you are abandoning the marriage or breaking your vows.
Also… don’t be a lamb to the slaughter, but look to your vows before you look to your happiness… isn’t that what we demand of women? Are we weaker than they are?
You know, reading the replies, above, to Mr. Woot‘s request for advice has made me realize something: the separation of Church and State, as it currently exists, is a half-way thing. We’ve separated The Church from The State, but not The State from The Church.
>My understanding is that the guys who play girl characters in those games aren’t doing it so that they can pretend to be girls, but because they prefer looking at girls, and they spend pretty much most of the time they are playing looking at their character. So pretty much the opposite of what he was saying there
Hit the nail on the head!
Question @ Dalrock,
Holy cow, that article is disturbing. I made a lengthy reply which I assume is in moderation since I’ve never posted there before. I look forward to seeing the take-down, and I plan to post my reply here whether they allow it through or not over there.
Yet Another Commenter, Yet Another Comment (“Yac-Yac”) says:
September 20, 2016 at 5:41 pm
” We’ve separated The Church from The State, but not The State from The Church.”
-Absolutely brilliant, Yac – Yac. And possibly, just possibly, if the Church grows a pair, the legal mechanism to fight back!
Lyn87, that article is disturbing to you? Huh. Well you’ve been away for a while. Looks like Same Stuff Different Day to me.
That sort of “men have responsibility but must not have any authority” thinking is pretty typical in a lot of “traditional”, “conservative” churches and leaders. Look at his denomination, CREC, it is easy to find on the church website. Lots of standards and canons and such. But he still is OK with women frivorcing husbands – cognitive dissonance, given his stated “Bible is the word of God” position.
I recall Jenny Erickson came to our attention because her church kicked her out after she divorced her husband. But I do not recall the denomination. It would be ironic if it was CREC.
Anonymous Reader [September 20, 2016 at 4:11 pm] shared:
This reminds me of how, if Whitey McCracker moves out of a black neighbourhood, — well, that’s “White Flight”, and is neglectful, “racist” and bad; but if Whitey McCracker moves into a black neighbourhood, — well, that’s “Gentrification”, and is exploitive, “racist” and bad; whereas if (somehow) Whitey McCracker was there to begin with, and stays, — well, now, that inevitably leads to “Micro-aggressions”, which are confrontational, “racist” and bad. Come or stay or leave – it’s all obviously “racist”, right? No exceptions? Well, that’s exactly the point: no exceptions.
Plainly, identifying “X” as a social problem (e.g., X = “Abuse”, “Racism”, etc., — and, they are indeed, if we insist on using words to actually mean something, genuinely problems), — but then pulling a fast bait-and-switch on the actual meanings of the words, so now every possible combination of circumstances whatsoever is a damnable instance of that particular “problem”, — and then, demanding that some particular person or group must take responsibility to “fix” the problem, — well, then, none of that “strategy” is genuinely about trying to fix the social problem allegedly in question, now, is it?
Rather, it’s about gaining political power over the person or group whom, it has been decided, “must” do the problem-fixing. Or, as V.I. Lenin put it, what’s going on here is really “Kto, Kogo?” — “Who [shall dominate] whom?”
The supposed focus, that is, the social policy problem (“abuse”, “racism”, etc.) that is allegedly the matter of concern, is merely a “MacGuffin” in another BS SJW socio-political power-play.
Among other things, this means that SJWs don’t really want to see the problems solved.
That would (if it were ever to happen) undermine their strategy for gaining and keeping the political power they claim they absolutely must have, if they are to “get the problem addressed”.
So, don’t scratch your heads over why a cool US$1 Trillion (not even adjusted for inflation) spent on Lyndon Johnson’s Great Society programs (e.g., tax dollars flushed down the HUD toilet, etc.) over half a century, has had no apparent effect except to mysteriously make “everything” somehow worse.
Also, to return to Anonymous Reader‘s points: — how long exactly, until MGTOW gets added to that Duluth Wheel, I wonder?
AR,
It IS disturbing. Sadly, disturbing things are not unusual.
As always, Lyn87 states the matter much more clearly than I do.
This is the best possible advice Mr. Woot could be given. I would only add that there seems to be discrepancy within different traditions as to the interpretation of divorce. Some scholars take a very strict “no divorce except with adultery” line, while others seem to think it’s OK to divorce someone for looking at a pinup in a skin mag. While Mr. Woot probably doesn’t want to air the details of his wife’s misbehavior online (very wise), he should probably confide in his priest. Mr. Woot might also look up the written works, authored by those in authority of his denomination, to see if he qualifies to actually divorce his wife *religiously*.
None of this should discourage Mr. Woot from protecting himself from slavery in a legal fashion. Pay her off at 7 years and try to get something approaching a fair deal. Then respect the positive duties you have as a religious man. Your promises may still be binding!
Boxer
P.S.: Of course, if Mr. Woot was a Mormon, he’d have no problem. My people love to divorce each other and they do it so often it makes your head spin. There’s actually an LDS divorce ritual, so you might say breaking your most serious promises is a sort of sacrament in our folk religion. Laughable, and pathetic!
“Divorce ritual.”
That reminds me of a very old Steve Martin skit. He was playing the character “Jorge” from “Two Wild and Crazy Guys” fame, and was talking about how Americans make breaking up into such a big deal…
“In my country you go up to the girl and say, ‘I break with thee. I break with thee. I break with thee.’ Then you throw dog poop on her shoes.”
RPChristian:
With regard to what I wrote: it was not a quote, per se, but plenty of people have written similar things. Fell free to use it at will… no attribution necessary.
You guys can prove the world is going to hell faster than I can read about it. And I’m a fast reader.
Can hardly wait for the SERVANT leader, SERVANT leader, SERVANT leader post. You have to say it three times – like the beautiful, beautiful, beautiful girls no one wants to marry anymore.
@Mr. Woot
Get legal advice now. SOMETIMES people who have been married for a substantial period of time in California get lifetime alimony, but unless the main breadwinner is a multi-millionaire, or the “homemaker” has multiple sclerosis, few people are getting lifetime alimony these days regardless of the length of the marriage. A wife who provides 24/7 care to a handicapped child with an uncertain life expectancy might be given lifetime alimony, as she could be in her 40s/50s/60s when the child dies, and it would be far too late for her to have any sort of career, or end up with any sort of pension. Most judges in California are either divorced men who have made alimony and child support payments, or they are women who have always been self-supporting since they completed their education. Judges are generally supportive of temporary alimony for a woman who needs to re-enter the workforce, especially after a lengthy absence, but unsupportive of those who want to live a parasitic existence for a lifetime.
If you have no children, and your wife is able-bodied, then she is going to be expected to pay her own way for the most part. If she had a good job in Nebraska and gave it up to move to California to marry you, then you might have to pay transitional alimony, etc. The same would be true if you asked her to give up working and stay home. The state does not want a divorced spouse to become a public charge. If you are divorcing someone with no work ethic, you have a bigger problem than someone divorcing a spouse who is more independent and career-oriented.
At least part of the sin of divorce is getting to the point where the idea of divorce enters your mind and you begin to allow yourself to dwell on the possibility. If you are thinking about divorce every hour of the day, it is hard to see what remains of your marriage. You clearly do not trust your wife at all, and it is very difficult to rebuild trust after it is gone.
The most disturbing thing that you wrote about your wife is that she has no friends. An absolute red flag for sociopathy is that a person cannot maintain any long-term relationship of any type. They use people for as long as the victim will tolerate it, then move on to the next victim. These people make formidable opponents in court because they have no honor and they often enjoy being the center of attention and causing pain. Look on amazon.com and you should be able to find some books written by people who have been married to and later divorced from people with anti-social personality disorder. It’s not pretty.
Seriously, internet security is important people. The fact that the NSA and Vlad Putin has all our personal info, doesn’t mean that we should be posting it for all and sundry.
David Futrelle is going to be posting your stuph (including cell #) to his site very shortly. Prepare to be bombarded with phony pizza and flower deliveries. You know that fat waste of space and his kook feminist friends have all the time in the world to ring you from their Obama phones.
Husband Can’t Keep a Job (“It’s probably not practical to leave your husband.”)
http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=1025505
Mr. Woot,
The problem is, you have been swindled by the M-word.
Marriage 2.0 differs from Marriage 1.0 by such a margin, that to think you have any Biblical obligations within the shadow of this nefarious contract, is merely to facilitate your own slavery.
I guarantee that the Bible is the last thing on your wife’s mind. Women don’t believe in God anyway.
The M-word is the curse. Change every single aspect of the arrangement, but do it under the banner of the M-word, and the man will always acquiesce to his own slavery.
It is all very confusing: I like to see who has left the building and this morning I read of the death in a tractor accident aged seventy of one Stephanie Anne Lloyd. I had never heard of the woman but death by tractor seemed so unusual that I wanted to know more and Wiki obliged by informing me that the deceased had begun life as Keith Michael Hull but was a successful businesswoman who was married to man named David. Her story as explained by Wiki was that she, raised as a Jehovah Witness, had begun gender-reassignment therapy through the services of a specialist psychologist and then began a business that catered to the transvestite community, that business offering both massage and other sexual services. She was then prosecuted for running a bawdy house and pleaded guilty. Following the conviction she continued her Transvestite business in ways that the law did not object to and also became (as a reality television celebrity) a hotelier catering to transvestites but the business fell into administration,. At some point she proposed purchasing a football (soccer) club. Wiki describe her as LGBT but if you are a woman and are married to a man how can you be L, G, B or T?
My life has never been that interesting though I have met a few transvestites. One once said to me “some days I just want to be called a sissy faggot”.
@YacYac: “Among other things, this means that SJWs don’t really want to see the problems solved.”
Of course they don’t. They’d be out of a job, or out of outrage. A warrior is useless without war.
@Anon:
I know we call it Marriage 2.0, but it bears repeating that we’re at least in Marriage 3.0. Maybe 4.0 depending on how you slice things.
Marriage 1.0 ended in roughly the 1850s in the States with the advent of Marriage Licensing. Marriage 2.0 would end with legalized divorce in the 1880-1900 range. (Depending on the specific State for when things went into effect.) Marriage 3.0 would have ended with the raise of No-Fault Divorce.
We could even argue that Marriage 4.0 died with enforced homosexual “marriages”.
So, if we wonder sometimes why everyone seems confused (or even buries their head in the sand) about the topic, it probably has something to do with being on another “form” of Marriage, when Western Culture has roughly 1000 years with 1 understanding of it. That causes a lot of confusion for core societal functions.
@Hmm:
Progressives always have to “progress” somewhere. As the instant they have to look back, they cannot ignore how evil they are. There’s a reason they always ignore their intellectual predecessors.
@Mr Woot —
Whatever you decide to do, you must not be legally married to her at year 10. California is draconian in its alimony rules, and you would be saddled for the rest of your life, including retirement. That must be avoided at all costs, regardless of whatever else you do.
Pingback: Usurpers | Christianity and masculinity
@Mr. Woot
… I’m in prayer for you brother. I’m definitely not in your shoes but if you want the Lord’s Truth you must NOT “divorce” your wife under ANY CIRCUMSTANCES.
IDEALLY of what *GOD WANTS*, God does NOT want you to divorce your wife; like others here have said.
Now, PERSONALLY-SPEAKING, I understand and have NOTHING AGAINST you wanting to separate or “divorce” from your wife to be at peace and move on with life; but that’s just ME SPEAKING.
GOD under NO CIRCUMSTANCES does NOT permit anyone in a marriage to “divorce their spouse”. Even in the case of “adultery” that a lot of people “hold to”, Lord Jesus Christ was NOT really even saying that “in the case of adultery you may divorce”; NO, NOT even that! Christ was merely making known to the people just how awful and wrong it is to divorce and that GOD HIMSELF does NOT ever want anyone to “divorce” in a (Christian) marriage: http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/Family/Marriage/grounds.htm
Brother Mr. Woot if you are indeed a fellow Christian believer, an elder brother in Christ… Truly, my heartfelt condolences go out to you, your wife and family. Really hope your marriage does not get destroyed in this.
If you have to “separate” from your wife or move away from California to another state that is more “accommodating” for your marriage I only pray the Lord gives you His Wisdom concerning what you should do.
By all means I’m not telling you what to do since I’m not in your shoes but just speaking from the heart.
I’m in serious prayer that God works in your heart, your wive’s heart and brings back together your marriage.
It’s always really a sad thing to hear about marriages falling apart; especially (Christian) marriages of FAITH! Amen!
~ Sincerely,
Bro. Jed
Feminist Hater says: September 20, 2016 at 12:14 pm
The Fed was also created way before the 1920s, and yes, it was discussed well before the turn of the century but only implemented publicly in December 1913,
was i off on my assertion of the specific creation date of the Fed? yes.
you’ll note that you still haven’t addressed my salient, that 1913 is still post 1900 and that Rand could thus not have been speaking about the Federal Reserve.
was there a pre-1900 analog to the Prime Interest rate and to which banks were being forced to lend below? perhaps. that’s what i’m asking.
i’m also curious as to what policies were implemented in 1914 which compelled banks to lend ‘below Prime’ immediately after the creation of the Fed.
Lyn87 says: September 20, 2016 at 2:09 pm
Having said that, there is no requirement for your marriage to be sanctioned by the state (especially the state of California!), so you could civilly-divorce your wife and still live as man-and-wife given that your marriage remains real in the eyes of God. This next bit is important: nothing changes except your tax-filing status. That removes the state from the equation to some degree at least, in that it drastically reduces her ability to use the power the state puts at the disposal of wives if she’s not your wife in the legal sense. Note that I’m not suggesting that you get a divorce for real (as in: real in the eyes of God)
this, with these caveats.
you must Civil Divorce her with the explicit statement to her that any further intransigence on her part will result in the issuance of a Let ( religious divorce ) and that you will eject her and not have anything to do with her again.
the hazard of Common Law marriage / palimony will exist so long as you reside in California.
http://www.cadivorce.com/news/common-law-marriage-myths/
“In California, the court recognizes palimony (Marvin claim). This means that if a couple lives together for an extended period of time and splits, he or she may have a right to receive support and/or a right to certain property acquired during the relationship.”
therefore, it is also likely that a judge is going to take a very dim view of your getting a Civil Divorce and then remaining as cohabitants. regardless, CD is no defense against a palimony suit.
therefore, you need to leave California unless you CD and religious divorce her and refuse to cohabitate with her.
the palimony issue may well follow you to whichever state you emigrate. the only chance of getting around that would be a full Civil Divorce, leaving the state and making it absolutely clear that you are in no way forcing her to emigrate with you.
Jed Mask is correct that God does not want you to divorce her …
Laura is correct that your wife is throwing some major red flags …
Speaking of cross dressing, and potty rights, I’d forgotten about this:
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2016/03/07/convicted-sex-offender-leads-transgender-rights-effort-north-carolina/
In 1998, Sevearance worked as a youth minister and in that capacity allegedly lured younger men to his apartment to spend the night where Severance showed them pornography and tried to talk them into sex. One boy testified that he woke up to find Severance “fondling him.” Severance was convicted on one charge of sexual molestation of a minor.
This is the kind of person who demands potty rights for trannies. It’s not a trivial thing, Lyn87.
I appreciate the advice from all those that gave. Without too many additional details, the “legal” divorce is happening and the separation is also happening. I suspect we may reconcile, although the how, and verification of repentance, remain intangible at this point. We both agree that we will remain faithful, unmarried, chaste. One of the most interesting, and perhaps surprising although I guess it should not be, is how the hearts of friends and family are revealed through this trial.
My friends have given me support, encouragement, and advice with kindness and understanding. She has received less than helpful responses including brutal anger and similar from a professing believing family-member.
As for palimony – that’s terrifying. While the punchline “because it’s worth it” is no longer funny it still may be true. Proverbs 31 begins with “do not give your strength….” which is great advice.
Madness….just madness!
Aaaaaand the crossdressing hits just keep on coming. Title IX doesn’t apply to frats / sororities yet.
https://www.theguardian.com/society/2016/sep/25/transgender-students-fraternities-and-sororities
Just one quote from an F to M tranny:
“Not being allowed into the fraternity was humiliating because they were saying, we see you the way you are on paper,” Bishop said. “No one deserves to be excluded or discriminated against based on their gender or based on genitals.”
Peak Tranny? Peak Feminism? Peak blank slate? Obviously not yet.
See this as a process of the West moving to a unisex society.
Women began moving into formerly men’s jobs in the 19th century (e.g., teaching).
Cross-dressing by women (dressing like men) began to become popular in the 1920s,
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women_and_trousers
Women smoking became common in the 1950s (guessing).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women_and_smoking
Giving girls the names associate with boys increased in popularity starting In the 1970s.
https://qz.com/1237944/americas-gender-fluid-future-in-100-years-of-baby-name-trends/
Now we are in the late stages of this process, with parents explicitly and proudly raising their girls to act like boys. Gender polarization is probably at historical lows — for any society, anywhere. It is an experiment like the world has never seen.
I have written a little about this important but undercovered subject. Here’s an intro:
https://fabiusmaximus.com/2016/04/12/new-gender-roles-means-new-world-95728/