In the discussion of Women as responders, commenter Neguy pointed out that the idea that women are naturally good (so long as their husband is loving) goes much further back than 1972:
I think you’ll find that the core of the men bad/women good theology goes back quite a long way. British scholar Callum Brown dates the big shift to somewhere around the year 1800. He surveys the evangelical literature of the 19th and 20th centuries and writings from the 1800s are almost identical to Glenn Stanton. His book The Death of Christian Britain is about secularization in the UK, but basically argues that this feminization of faith (or more precisely, the merger of Christian and feminine identity), is what ultimately caused the collapse of Christianity in the west.
This comment and some excerpts he shared in follow-on comments convinced me to pick up a copy of The Death of Christian Britain. I haven’t made it all the way through the book, so I may well write a follow up post later. But as Neguy notes above, the narrative that Brown found starting around 1800 is the standard narrative we see from conservative Christians today.
Brown’s thesis is that conventional wisdom on the decline of Christianity in Britain is incorrect. Conventional wisdom is that Christianity has been in steady decline in Britian since 1800. Brown asserts that this is not the case, and instead argues that the real decline was abrupt and began in 1963. As Brown explains in the introduction:
…this book re-brands Britain of 1800 to 1963 as a highly religious nation, and the period as the nation’s last puritan age. The Britain of our nearest forefathers is re-branded as a deeply Christian country of unprecedented churchgoing levels and the most strict religious rules of personal conduct.
…The book focuses considerable attention on how piety was conceived as an overwhelmingly feminine trait which challenged masculinity and left men demonized and constantly anxious. It was modern evangelicalism that raised the piety of woman, the ‘angel in the house’, to reign over the moral weakness and innate temptations of masculinity.
…women, rather than cities or social class, emerge as the principal source of explanation for the patterns of religiosity that were observable in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. Most importantly, two other things will emerge. First, women were the bulwark to popular support for organized Christianity between 1800 and 1963, and second it was they who broke their relationship to Christian piety in the 1960s and thereby caused secularization.
Chapter four covers what Brown calls the feminization of piety.
One of the great mythic transformations of the early nineteenth century was the feminization of angels. Until the 1790s, British art and prose portrayed the angel as masculine or, at most, bisexual — characteristically muscular, strong, and even displaying male genitalia, and a free divine spirit inhabiting the chasms of the sky and space. But by the early Victorian period, angels were virtuously feminine in form and increasingly shown in domestic confinement, no longer free to fly. Woman had become divine, but an angel now confined to the house.
But it is Brown’s analysis of the common narrative during this period that I find most interesting.
…women’s spiritual destiny was virtually never portrayed as a battle with temptation or real sin; fallen women did not appear as central characters, and none of the usual temptations like drink or gambling ever seemed to be an issue with them. The problem is the man, sometimes the father, but more commonly the boyfriend, fiancé, or husband, who is a drinker, a gambler, keeps the ‘bad company’ of ‘rough lads’ and is commonly a womanizer. The man is the agency of the virtuous woman’s downfall; he does not make her bad, but does make her suffer and poor. She is not always portrayed as having undergone a major conversion experience, but to have emerged from childhood into a disciplined and natural ‘goodness.’
As Neguy points out, you can see this same concept of women having “natural goodness” in Glenn Stanton’s writings (among many others). Brown explains how this concept dominated the Christian romance stories of the time. Just as Christians are taught today, if a woman has a godly husband she will be a very happy wife:
Finding the right Christian husband was the uppermost consideration rather than the age of engagement. The ending, as in all evangelical stories, was always happy — as in Love’s Healing in the 1920s which concludes with the heroine marrying ‘a splendid Christian man. She is fortunate indeed and will be a happy wife.’ By the 1930s and 1940s, scores of paperback religious novels appeared, aimed almost exclusively at teenage girls and young women. Love was the dominant theme, following a format familiar to Mills & Boon readers, but with a Christian ‘spin’, ending with lines like: ‘What are you thinking of, darling?’ whispered her husband. ‘I was thinking how good God is. I’ve never been so happy in my life.’ Romance was set within a tough system of moral values, but it was invariably the man’s moral values that were the criteria, making the women’s issue the arrival at the right judgment on the man’s worthiness.
Men, on the other hand, are presented as naturally sinful and in need of a woman to reform them (emphasis mine):
In evangelical stories about piety, women appeared throughout as good but not always converted; men, by contrast, almost always appeared as in a perilous sinful state until near the end. Men were the problem, given manifold temptations: drink (nearly always), gambling (increasingly after 1890), and ‘rough’ in overall cultural terms. They lived dissipated lives which caused suffering and ruination to mothers, wives, and children. Nowhere did evangelical literature have such a powerful influence in the public domain, including in ‘secular’ fiction, as in its demonization of men.
Brown explains that narratives about men fit one of two structures:
The male centered evangelical narrative had important characteristics. There were two structures in use between the 1850s and 1930s; the ‘son structure’ and the ‘husband structure’:
Of the two, the Husband Structure is the one we most commonly see today, albeit generally omitting item E or replacing it (and often D) with the wakeup call.
A. Husband lives with virtuous wife
B. Husband is a drunkard/gambler/wife-beater
C. Wife and children suffer in poverty
D. Chance event (often an accident to husband)
E. Wife nurses husband in Christian way.
F. Husband converts
G. Family happier, if not richer
If this seems familiar, it is because it is the plot of every Kendrick brothers movie with the possible exception of Facing the Giants. I’ve already written about Fireproof, where the chance event (D) is the wife filing for divorce and taking up with another man. I’ve also written about Courageous, and War Room. But you can even see this same pattern in the more obscure Kendrick brother movie Flywheel. From the plot summary at InfoGalactic:
Jay Austin (Alex Kendrick) is a car salesman who consistently cheats his customers, even to the point of overcharging his own pastor. He teaches his rotund salesmen, Bernie Meyers (Tracy Goode) and Vince Berkeley (Treavor Lokey), to do likewise. Jay occasionally attends church, but only because his wife Judy (Janet Lee Dapper) wants him to go. He also fakes giving a donation to the church. His relationships with his wife and son (Richie Hunnewell), who both disapprove of his dishonesty, deteriorate. In addition he is facing foreclosure on his lot by the bank. Jay becomes troubled in his conscience, and one day while flipping television channels, he sees a pastor preaching that “you’re in the shape you’re in today because of the choices you’ve made”. Jay becomes personally convicted and becomes a born-again Christian, prompting him to change his business practices.
Jay apologizes to his pregnant wife and his son and decides to sell cars honestly from that point on…
This covers A-D, omits E, and covers F. All that is left for the Husband Structure is the final item, G:
The next day Jay comes to the lot and sees many people there to buy his cars. Jay even has to call his wife to help sell all the cars on the lot that day. The total of the sales above the cost of the cars is enough to cover what the banker demanded, who comes later that day and wonders where all the cars have gone…
…
Jay exits the lot and rushes home to bring his wife to the hospital. She gives birth to a girl named Faith, to stand as a living reminder of Jay’s newfound faith in God. At the end of the film, Jay drives away with his son in his 1958 Triumph TR3, an acquisition at the beginning of the film, which Max (Walter Burnett), his mechanic, had repaired with a newly installed flywheel (thus the film’s title).
Pingback: The roots of modern Christian wife worship. | Aus-Alt-Right
Now get out there, bachelors! Man up, and marry all those single mother, carousel riders sitting in the pews, because it will make you a better man!
Gag!
Since men are the more outwardly sexual gender, and since Paul declared sexual sin as the most grievous of all sins, I can see that it would lead some to declare men as the more sinful sex.
Women definitely see temptation as more of a male struggle than female, which is part of why it is so much easier for them to be deceived.
I’ve asked my wife to leave a women’s bible study group she recently joined. They recently had a series on “things the devil whispers in your ear.” My wife told the group that one of our biggest conflicts is money, which is not uncommon. The conclusion of the group without ever hearing my side, is: “the devil is whispering in your husbands ear, trying to tear him down, and make him think he cannot take care of his family.” They did not entertain the position that the devil whispers in a wife’s ear to spend too much, frustrate her husband, over indulge the kids, and cause her husband to work more hours away from the family. They are always sure the temptation must be on the man.
Their only temptation is they are loving to a fault.
Look at the seven deadly sins for a clue as to how our society sees sin.
Gluttony… most probably picture a fat man on the couch, not a shopaholic woman.
Greed… most picture an executive in a tie, not a wife/mother in divorce court.
Pride… most picture a narcissistic man, not women who think all problems are masculine.
Sloth… more likely to picture deadbeat dads, not illegitimate mothers or women who walk off the job or default on their credit cards
Lust… most think promiscuous men, not hypergamous women on the carousel.
Wrath… most think violent man, not a woman who uses the kids to punish the ex husband or women who make false rape allegations.
Envy…. most think men jealous of other men, not woman demanding equality forced by the state due to their envy of men.
God is a female that does not care about men. Evolution favors the XX chromosome survival over the XY. Think about it. Science and religion reconciled and everything explained.
@Trust: Excellent.
“I’ve asked my wife to leave a women’s bible study group she recently joined.”
Without even hearing the specifics, somehow I already knew that was the proper course of action.
Since being married a year I can verify the sin I struggle with the most is sexual and possibly laziness(entertainment etc). My wife struggles with pride and envy the most. Not really what I was expecting but then again nobody in church ever points out what wome struggle with but have no problem ripping off a scathing talk down to the men about porn, alcohol, and sex.
I’ve seen more Christian women in my social circles turn to homosexuality, fornication, and alcohol than I’ve see men do the same, yet the men continue to get brow beaten over these sins in church.
Robert What?
Since men are the more outwardly sexual gender, and since Paul declared sexual sin as the most grievous of all sins,
Please provide a reference for this claim about Paul.
Trust
Women definitely see temptation as more of a male struggle than female,
Because women tend to be both solipsistic and very good at rationalizing. If they give into temptation, especially sexual, “it just happened”.
which is part of why it is so much easier for them to be deceived.
I’m told that the easiest mark for a con artist is another con artist. No idea if that is true.
Very interesting post, and another book to put on the pile of “to be read” for sure. An aspect of history that is very much pushed into the dusty stacks. I have a few observations.
The late 19th century aka Victorian era saw the Temperance movement that portrayed all men who drank any alcohol as violent drunkards (actual or potential), in the US the Methodist denomination was deeply involved in promoting Temperance to the point of prohibition. At the same time the push for women to vote was based on the premise that women were “more moral” than men, and that women as voters would clean up politics. Stop laughing, this is true stuff.
It’s worth pointing out that Prohibition was a total failure in stopping the consumption of alcohol but did provide a lot of money to organized crime gangs. In the election of 1920, the first Presidential election in the US after women were granted the right to vote, Warren G. Harding, was widely touted as “The Handsomest Man in America” and that at a time when the majority of adult women were married. No doubt there were many aspects to his victory, starting with people being tired of Woodrow Wilson’s wartime police state, but there it is – “Handsomest Man in America” wins hands down.
These mistaken ideas about women have had a landslide worth of effects. Divorce law was changed first in the 19th century, that’s when the “tender years” doctrine was articulated which eventually led to changing away from default father custody to default mother custody.
Oh, yeah, also the 19th century saw what is called the “second great awakening” in the US, a revival of Christianity via tent meetings, revivals & etc. all of which appear to have focused primarily on stoking up the emotions of anyone attending. It cannot be a coincidence.
Trust
Congrats on seeing through the gauze to the heart of that Bible study group your wife was in.
Their only temptation is they are loving to a fault.
Yup. Especially when they have a chance to be alone with an interesting man…or when they “love so much” that they can’t love any more, and file for frivorce. Oh, yeah, that’s the only temptation women face.
Certainly greed, envy and all the rest are not a factor. Not for women. Nuh uh. No way.
@Robert What”
“Since men are the more outwardly sexual gender, and since Paul declared sexual sin as the most grievous of all sins, I can see that it would lead some to declare men as the more sinful sex.”
That’s interesting considering that the Bible uses extensive analogies involving prostitutes (eg Proverbs, Ecc., Hosea, Ezekiel), and The New Testament spends more words on woman and her role vis the husband and in the church (eg Ephesians, Titus, 2 Peter) than on men and their roles.
We’ll smash men over porn, and I think porn is bad. But then we’ll response by telling wives to neglect their husbands while indulging in Twilight and 50 Shades. Yet they see no contradiction though there is one.
@Trust
It looks to me that in churchgoing circles the word “porn” is defined thusly:
1. Porn – any image, still or moving, that features one or more men engaged in sexual behavior with one or more women, for the primary purpose of sexually exciting the viewer.
2. Porn – anything vaguely sexual that men look at, including computer games, old copies of National Geographic, etc.
It’s interesting because 60 or more years ago most “pornography” was defined as “anything in pictures, in audio, or in text form intended to cause sexual excitement”. That’s how books like James Joyces Ulysses wound up being denounced as pornographic, because they had sexual content. But now, “porn” is defined only in visual terms. This is how we get the common notion that women don’t use porn, except for a minority.
50 Shades sold over 100,000,000 copies. I saw it in airport bookstalls, in major chain bookstores, right out in the open. I have reason to believe that the vast majority of popular “romance” fiction is in part as porn, i.e. graphical description of Lord Rod ravishing the milkmaid in the hayloft, or something liek that. Those novels are also sold right out in the open, often next to the children’s fiction. Because it’s not “porn” as we define “porn”. It’s part of the cultural denial of women’s actual nature, their sexual nature, that is part of what Dalrock is discussing in the OP.
It’s not even cognitive dissonance, it’s flat out denial of things that can easily be seen – just put on The Glasses and there it is, right in front of your face.
But now, “porn” is defined only in visual terms. This is how we get the common notion that women don’t use porn, except for a minority.
This is true enough in terms of how it is defined, but the crazy thing is that it’s also totally untrue that women don’t view visual porn. In some ways this is generational, with viewing being much more common among younger women than older women, but women very much do view porn — among women under 30 it isn’t a minority of women either. They don’t view it as much as men do, not at all, but they do view porn, and their viewing of porn is having an influence on their own behaviors as well. It’s overlooked by most, who are focused on male porn use. There are whole genres of porn that are specifically designed for women in terms of camera angles, male actors chosen, how scenes are portrayed and so on — that stuff is being made because there’s an audience for it. James Deen didn’t become pretty much a household name because of male porn viewing, after all. There’s a whole story out there about the explosion of female porn viewing in the last 10-15 years that just isn’t being told, but the porn industry itself, of course, knows what’s happening.
1. On Prohibition, one good thing that came from it was breaking the back of the saloon industry, which would often tempt men to spend all their pay on drink, leaving families destitute. This had a generally good effect on families, unless the man continued drinking at the inflated prices in the speakeasies. It is questionable whether this outweighed the rise of organized crime.
2. The thing about the religious womens’ romance novels was that the heroines were unfailingly virginal, and one of the major conflicts was fending off advances of the men – even the heroes – and suppressing their own increasing desire until the ring was on the finger. Pretty hard to draw a straight line like that in today’s romances – although Christian romances still tend to preserve the chastity of the heroine.
women are naturally good (so long as their husband is loving)
Hahahaha – you funny… Women are attracted to excitement and what they want – their thoughts of their husband are at the bottom of their list – well behind everything else. It is the wise man that knows this and always keeps his avenues open. The woman that is worried her husband is going to go elsewhere is the only woman that is attentive and “good”, and the reason is she knows he has options.
Only a fool closes his options for any woman. Women are as they have always been – looking out for themselves and always willing to trade up. A husband is a safety-net, that is all. She likes to have him on the line so she has access to “risky” situations. Don’t blame women for being as they are – use that, to enjoy your life, but never marry unless you are a masochist.
It’s coming up on the time of year when we’ll be playing gigs at vacation spots and believe me, we get to see just how “naturally good” women are – at least as long as they figure their husbands/boyfriends/family will never know what they did during those several hours after the show…
Novaseeker
This is true enough in terms of how it is defined, but the crazy thing is that it’s also totally untrue that women don’t view visual porn. In some ways this is generational, with viewing being much more common among younger women than older women, but women very much do view porn — among women under 30 it isn’t a minority of women either.
Sure, that’s how we get chinstroking articles in various places about the “troubling” fact that up to 20% of women now view porn. That 20% apparently comes from surveys (with all the issues surveys have) that sample a cross section of women, including a range of ages. Simple averaging tells me if I take 1,000 data points uniformly distributed from age 20 to age 60, I’m gonna get different numbers than over the 20 to 40 range, or most especially the 20 to 30 range.
Maybe it’s just my sample, but the vast, vast majority of writers in the Christian part of the world both dead tree and online are over 40. In fact maybe a majority are over 50. Look at all the men that Dalrock has taken to task over the years for their Female Imperative point of view, none of them are in their 30’s. These people are living in a bubble world, to be blunt despite any noise they may make about “engaging the culture” they generally are clueless about what the real culture looks like. Starting with what’s right out in the open at Barnes & Noble in the “romance” section, books that plenty of churchgoing women are surely reading & then selling to used bookstores. I’m leaving out what is trivial to find on Goodreads or at Amazon, and therefore is certainly loaded onto a whole lot of Kindles, Nooks and phones of churchgoing women.
There are whole genres of porn that are specifically designed for women in terms of camera angles, male actors chosen, how scenes are portrayed and so on — that stuff is being made because there’s an audience for it
Exactly, and the porn business is a business just like the rom-porn publishing business. As you say, James Deen is a star because his vids are in demand. With T-mobile now offering unlimited bandwidth on some contracts, there’s nothing to stop college girls from collecting as much porn on their phone as they want, both visual and text. Maybe I’ll challenge some of the older White Knights I know to just, y’know, take a look at what’s on the phones of their college girl daughters. The reaction should be interesting. I predict “outrage” for a start.
If “porn viewing = adultury / fornication” than there are a whole lot of churchgoing women who are guilty of that. Now what? Seriously, if “viewed porn, ever” now means “unfit for marriage” then a whole lot of churches are out of the marrying business, permanently, even with missionary dating by the girl-saints, because they are just as guilty as the men in real world terms, and the fact that far too many churches just haven’t come to even notice this yet is part of the problem.
Hmm
1. On Prohibition, one good thing that came from it was breaking the back of the saloon industry, which would often tempt men to spend all their pay on drink, leaving families destitute.
Chuckle. The 1900’s called, they want their crude propaganda back. “Father, dear father, come home with me now!” was one popular poster.
Seriously, do you have any source outside of the Temperance League to support this claim?
All my older relations are gone now, but I grew up around people who could remember life in 1910, and it was nothing like that at all.
As for romances, it’s 2016 not 1916. I suggest you got to the nearest bookstore and pick some up. Skip about 1/4 of the way through the book, start reading, see how long it takes to get to a sex scene. I haven’t gotten around to getting enough samples yet, but it’s looking that way. I do not have an opinion regarding Christian romance novels yet.
Abolitionist movement and the first iteration of the temperance movement are the primordial women’s liberation movements. Elizabeth Cady Stanton and Susan B. Anthony met at an anti slavery rally. Let that sink in. Feminism and abolitionism are inseparable.
To go even further back in time… The men led the apostasy with their declaration of the rights of man. The women followed with their own declaration. And on and on. These ideas prevailed in the Northern states with Methodists and the like.
Read the Declaration of Sentiments http://www.womensrightsfriends.org/pdfs/1848_declaration_of_sentiments.pdf
Read Robert Lewis Dabney’s (Stonewall Jackson’s Chaplain) work on public preaching of women. I cannot recommend his works enough.
https://books.google.com/books?id=g2vUAAAAMAAJ&pg=PA689&dq=%22In+this+day+innovations+march+with+rapid+strides.+The+fantastic+suggestion+of+yesterday,+entertained+only+by+a+few+fanatics%22&hl=en&sa=X&ei=uWFXU52zIISf2QXw6IBQ&ved=0CDAQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q&f=false
@Robert What?
“Since men are the more outwardly sexual gender, and since Paul declared sexual sin as the most grievous of all sins, I can see that it would lead some to declare men as the more sinful sex.”
Please provide a reference for this claim about Paul.
I believe he is referring to 1 Corinthians 6:18 Flee from sexual immorality. Every other sin a person commits is outside the body, but the sexually immoral person sins against his own body.
That’s interesting considering that the Bible uses extensive analogies involving prostitutes (eg Proverbs, Ecc., Hosea, Ezekiel), and The New Testament spends more words on woman and her role vis the husband and in the church (eg Ephesians, Titus, 2 Peter) than on men and their roles.
Men express sexual sin in an outward way. Sow the oats. cheat
Women express sexual sin in an inward way. Withhold, manipulate, fear
(Generally speaking of course)
So the outward expression of this sexual sin makes it seem to the casual eye that men are the more sinful. While this isn’t truly the case, the only ones willing to attempt further discovery of causation are a small percentage of the population blamed for it. Democratic society, the truth is outvoted.
Quote:
“…we get the common notion that women don’t use porn, except for a minority.”
That is completely untrue. Women think about sex more than men. Take a look at just a few of the front cover titles, for articles in Cosmopolitan :
How to maximize your orgasm
50 sex tips
Great positions
Hot sex tips
21 mind blowing sex moves
Fantasy sex, 26 hot moves
These magazines are sold at the grocery store checkout. Flip the script. If Maxim or GQ had headline articles like this, why there would be vitriolic outrage.
At the end of 2013 I visited London’s Aldwych Theatre to watch the newest Andrew Lloyd Webber musical entitled Stephen Ward, I ought to add that I had previously always been rather sniffy about Lloyd Webber and this was the first musical of his I had seen but the subject interested me. I was instantly won over. There were a fair number of young Americans in the audience though I wondered what they would have made of it as I would think that unless you had been there at the time many of the topical references would have been lost even on the British – I cannot see it reaching Broadway. It was obviously a labour of love, indeed a political statement, from Webber. Stephen Ward is the story of a man (at least in the musical) more wronged than wrong and who committed suicide towards the end of his trial for pimping. The year was 1963 and Webber writes a rather upbeat song thus entitled 1963 – the year which according to Callum Brown saw the beginning of the end for Christianity in Britain; I really don’t know. In addition to Britain’s Profumo scandal (the subject of Webber’s musical) it was the year that John F. Kennedy was assassinated but it was also the year that saw the rise in England of The Beatles ( have never forgotten the moment I saw and in the window of a music-shop that half-in-shadow cover of the With the Beatles album and which would have been in the fall/autumn of 1963) and the first episode of Dr Who (which by reason of the said assassination was repeated the following week in case anyone had missed it – trust me, that is what happened). Change, and that included swinging London, was in the air.
I was thus much saddened that the great Mandy Rice Davis (hard to distinguish in press releases from the actress standing beside her who portrayed her younger self), passed away shortly after the premiere of the musical – everyone loved Mandy Rice, a woman who despite her lack of education has left Britain with two great expressions of the sort professional writers would give their eye teeth to have come up with including one of the great put-downs of all time – not an easy thing to do when being cross-examined by the best of England’s then Counsel for the Prosecution.
Pingback: The roots of modern Christian wife worship. | Reaction Times
Many years ago I noted the difference in how angels are described in the Bible versus how they are portrayed in art. Almost without exception, the first words angels spoke to the humans with whom they were interacting is, “Be not afraid.” That’s because the first reaction by those humans was generally knee-shaking, pants-wetting, frozen-in-place terror. Angels are neither the flying chubby babies of Rubens nor the white-winged hotties common in modern depictions. We know from scripture that they are neither male nor female as we understand those terms, and they may appear in whatever human guise is required for their mission, but whenever they appear as angels in human form in scripture, they “present” themselves as male, and apparently very intimidating males at that (intimidating in an other-worldly sense, I’m guessing).
Now we use the term to describe a large swath of womankind, especially if a particular woman is physically attractive. Lingerie giant Victoria’s Secret has been depicting their models as angels for years.
We should probably be thinking in terms of this rather than this.
Part of the idea of women as inherently, stems from the idea of natural law.
The belief that women by their nature and disposition are meant (both by God and biology) to be mothers and nurturers makes them inherently more virtuous. Men are not naturally a nurturer (they are protectors which has an undercurrent of being capable of violence.)
People are predisposed to think the best of women. Part of this is the impact of civilization that has in the past constrained women’s behavior (until recently), part of this is biological where women are more “valuable” then men because they are the reproductive bottleneck, part of it by virtue of the hand that rocks the cradle, and part of it is the inherent deceptive nature of women (unlike most animals she does not have strong overt outward displays when she is ovulating among other things)
Enforced monogamy in a way facilitates these beliefs too, the less experience men have with women, the more oneitis blinds them, and the more constrained the woman is socially all creates the idea of a precious, perfect vessel that is fragile (like a Ming vase).
All successful civilizations start as hard patriarchies, and this loosens up with more resources, but one of the other factors is the longer civilization is maintained, the easier it is to forget the baser drives of human beings.
Trust,
Excellent comment. Note that the human brain (both male and female) is hardwired to value a woman’s well-being much higher than a man’s. There were valid biological reasons for this during the first 99.99% of human existence, but now these reasons are obsolete. This is called the Female Imperative (FI).
Almost all societies (even ones that supposedly ‘oppress women’, like under Islam), will readily send 50 men to die before a single woman faces harm.
The FI is obsolete, and the few men who adjust accordingly are positioned to capture all the gains of modern society (or at least avoid brutal costs)…
Woman worship started long before y’all been talking about.
Gen 3:17 “and unto Adam He said, ‘Because thou hast hearkened unto the voice of thy wife…’”
While this was not a direct command to Adam not to hearken to his wife it was a violation of the charge to Adam alone to ‘have dominion.’ Adam could not dominate creation, including Eve, by doing as she instructs. Get used to the thought folks: dominate. Dominate.
A man should never do what a woman instructs. Everyone is better off dead than have God’s chain of command broken. There is nothing worse than stolen [or relinquished] authority [Devil, remember? Eve, remember?]
And to get to the point and get everyone’s attention, women need to shut the Hell up [carefully chosen word: Hell, right ….you know, the Place?]. And men should turn away if women do try to instruct. Now, not to be unrealistic, there will be a transition period, as some things just don’t happen overnight, especially in the centuries of blasphemy toward God’s word entrenched in the church. But if the church does not get very serious about this soon, He will.
Men shirking their responsibility to dominate is woman worship. Women desiring to dominate men is woman worship.
Stop it. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=arPCE3zDRg4
@Lyn87
Many angels actually don’t even have wings and is portrayed like this:
On the twenty-fourth day of the first month, while I was by the bank of the great river, that is, the Tigris, I lifted my eyes and looked, and behold, there was a certain man dressed in linen, whose waist was girded with a belt of pure gold of Uphaz. His body also was like beryl, his face had the appearance of lightning, his eyes were like flaming torches, his arms and feet like the gleam of polished bronze, and the sound of his words like the sound of a tumult. Now I, Daniel, alone saw the vision, while the men who were with me did not see the vision; nevertheless, a great dread fell on them, and they ran away to hide themselves. So I was left alone and saw this great vision; yet no strength was left in me, for my natural color turned to a deathly pallor, and I retained no strength. But I heard the sound of his words; and as soon as I heard the sound of his words, I fell into a deep sleep on my face, with my face to the ground.
Then behold, a hand touched me and set me trembling on my hands and knees. 11He said to me, “O Daniel, man of high esteem, understand the words that I am about to tell you and stand upright, for I have now been sent to you.” And when he had spoken this word to me, I stood up trembling. 12Then he said to me, “Do not be afraid, Daniel, for from the first day that you set your heart on understanding this and on humbling yourself before your God, your words were heard, and I have come in response to your words. 13“But the prince of the kingdom of Persia was withstanding me for twenty-one days; then behold, Michael, one of the chief princes, came to help me, for I had been left there with the kings of Persia. 14“Now I have come to give you an understanding of what will happen to your people in the latter days, for the vision pertains to the days yet future.”
15When he had spoken to me according to these words, I turned my face toward the ground and became speechless. 16And behold, one who resembled a human being was touching my lips; then I opened my mouth and spoke and said to him who was standing before me, “O my lord, as a result of the vision anguish has come upon me, and I have retained no strength. 17“For how can such a servant of my lord talk with such as my lord? As for me, there remains just now no strength in me, nor has any breath been left in me.”
18Then this one with human appearance touched me again and strengthened me. 19He said, “O man of high esteem, do not be afraid. Peace be with you; take courage and be courageous!” Now as soon as he spoke to me, I received strength and said, “May my lord speak, for you have strengthened me.” 20Then he said, “Do you understand why I came to you? But I shall now return to fight against the prince of Persia; so I am going forth, and behold, the prince of Greece is about to come. 21“However, I will tell you what is inscribed in the writing of truth. Yet there is no one who stands firmly with me against these forces except Michael your prince.
@Lyn87
http://biblehub.com/nasb/daniel/10.htm
@Lyn87
This mirrors a similar description in Matthew 28:3
”Suddenly there was a great earthquake, for an angel of the Lord descended from heaven, rolled away the stone, and sat on it. 3His appearance was like lightning, and his clothing white as snow.”
http://biblehub.com/matthew/28-3.htm
“Almost all societies (even ones that supposedly ‘oppress women’, like under Islam), will readily send 50 men to die before a single woman faces harm.”
Because women are useless soldiers.
Hose_B
@Robert What?
“Since men are the more outwardly sexual gender, and since Paul declared sexual sin as the most grievous of all sins, I can see that it would lead some to declare men as the more sinful sex.”
anonymous@reader.org
Please provide a reference for this claim about Paul.
I believe he is referring to 1 Corinthians 6:18 Flee from sexual immorality. Every other sin a person commits is outside the body, but the sexually immoral person sins against his own body.
So where is the text that describes sexual sins as the most grevous of all sins, I don’t see it.
It would help if the original claimant would show up again.
Hose_B
That’s interesting considering that the Bible uses extensive analogies involving prostitutes (eg Proverbs, Ecc., Hosea, Ezekiel), and The New Testament spends more words on woman and her role vis the husband and in the church (eg Ephesians, Titus, 2 Peter) than on men and their roles.
Men express sexual sin in an outward way. Sow the oats. cheat
Women express sexual sin in an inward way. Withhold, manipulate, fear
(Generally speaking of course)
Eh. Read Proverbs 7 and get back to me.
So the outward expression of this sexual sin makes it seem to the casual eye that men are the more sinful. While this isn’t truly the case, the only ones willing to attempt further discovery of causation are a small percentage of the population blamed for it. Democratic society, the truth is outvoted.
You aren’t really disagreeing with me, you do realize?
Infowarrior,
Yes… I knew all that. That’s why I stipulated that when angels physically appear as angles, but in human form in scripture, they invariably “present” as adult male humans (without wings) whenever physical descriptions are given.
Hebrews 13:2 specifies that angels can and do walk among us with their angelic identity shielded from our perception, so in those cases they can appear as anything, presumably including women or children. But when that “cloak” is off, they’re guys, and scary ones at that.
Sometimes the are seen in their “true”(?) form and then they look like all sorts of things – as you noted, only some of which even have wings. The simple fact is that angels are not Earthly creatures at all, and the men who penned scripture under Divine guidance did so in human language that is probably ill-suited to convey what they were witnessing to readers who had only human, physical brains and experiences with which to understand the text. God certainly knows what His audience is capable of comprehending. The point is that angels don’t “look” like lingerie models, nor are women – even very attractive ones – particularly “angelic” by their nature, and angels are terrifying to humans on those rare occasions when they appear face-to-face and not shrouding their angelic identity.
I’ve never seen an angel in angelic form, but if I have to think of how an angel might appear if one came to me to deliver a personal message from the Almighty, I would expect a being that appeared as an adult male entity of humanly-inconceivable power… and I would probably cringe in terror as my initial instinctive response, like the people in the Bible did under similar circumstances.
Women, did/would you change your name upon marriage?
http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=1032838
“You must respect your wife.”
http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=1032880
Here is an article from MIT Technology Review, which used to be a magazine exclusively about technology :
Artificial Intelligence is Sexist.
Wrote the mangina :
“The presidential campaign made clear that chauvinist attitudes toward women remain stubbornly fixed in some parts of society. It turns out we’re inadvertently teaching artificial-intelligence systems to be sexist, too.”
This is great! Manginas and ‘feminists’ are in for a lifetime of hurt if they start whining about this sort of thing….
“The presidential campaign made clear that chauvinist attitudes toward women remain stubbornly fixed in some parts of society. It turns out we’re inadvertently teaching artificial-intelligence systems to be sexist, too.”
I’ll bet AI’s are also guilty of mansplaining.
Every time I think that the SJW crowd can’t get any stupider, they prove me wrong.
Lyn87: Angels are neither the flying chubby babies of Rubens
Those chubby flying babies are often called cherubs, although again, this is not the Bible’s depiction of cherubs. At some point, artists associated the Biblical cherub with the Roman love god Cupid (Greek name, Eros). Cupid/Eros was the son to Venus/Aphrodite.
From Wikipedia’s entry on Cherubs: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cherub
An early, traditional Jewish notion supposes that cherubim had youthful, human features (although some early midrashic literature conceives of the cherubim as non-corporeal). In the Book of Ezekiel and (at least some) Christian icons, the cherub is depicted as having a number of wing pairs, and four faces: that of a lion (representative of all wild animals), an ox (domestic animals), a human (humanity), and an eagle (birds). In Christian tradition, cherubim have become associated with the putto and the Greco-Roman deity Cupid/Eros, resulting in the misconception that cherubim are small and plump winged boys.
And from what Wikipedia says about Cupid: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cupid
Cupid continued to be a popular figure in the Middle Ages, when under Christian influence he often had a dual nature as Heavenly and Earthly love.
Hmm
1. On Prohibition, one good thing that came from it was breaking the back of the saloon industry,
the industry that until Prohibition provided a large share of government income in the form of taxes. Guess what great gift we received as a result of this? That’s right, personal income taxes!
There really is no way in which Prohibition, like all proggie ideas, didn’t utterly suck. To whit:
unless the man continued drinking at the inflated prices in the speakeasies
Do you really believe higher prices were enough of a disincentive, when even illegality wasn’t? What happened was people of both sexes spent even more of their precious dollars on lower quality (sometimes even deadly) drinks.
@Anon
“Zou and colleagues have conducted some simple experiments that show how this gender bias might manifest itself. When they wrote a program designed to read Web pages and rank their relevance, they found the system would rank information about female programmers as less relevant than that about their male counterparts.”
Please to be noting there is no causal explanation offered, merely that the program rated “information about female programmers” as less relevant, so it must a priori be “evul sexizm!” and requiring of repair. If you really f’ing love science, this should make you weep.
@AnonymousReader
Men express sexual sin in an outward way. Sow the oats. cheat
Women express sexual sin in an inward way. Withhold, manipulate, fear
(Generally speaking of course)
Eh. Read Proverbs 7 and get back to me.
AnonymousReader………..I see your point. But I think we may just be looking at facets of the issue. Proverbs is a warning to men against the adulterous or wayward woman. Think Valenti. These women will “Put Out”, but are a path straight to destruction. Christian men should know to stay away from these women, but they have silver tongues. I think I may have looked at Christian marriage or serial monogamy and how sexual sins tend to show up within those constructs.
So the outward expression of this sexual sin makes it seem to the casual eye that men are the more sinful. While this isn’t truly the case, the only ones willing to attempt further discovery of causation are a small percentage of the population blamed for it. Democratic society, the truth is outvoted.
You aren’t really disagreeing with me, you do realize?
Yes, I realize that we do not disagree. I don’t know that I ever asserted that we did. Biblical instruction shows warning after warning NOT to think that women are less sinful, especially in a sexual realm, but the APPEARANCE to those unwilling to look is that men are the bad one………..And most of us will admit to it, rightly or wrongly. We have been wired to “take the responsibility.
It’s not even cognitive dissonance, it’s flat out denial of things that can easily be seen – just put on The Glasses and there it is, right in front of your face.
Yes………..very few will choose anything other than the blue pill.
O.O.
Please to be noting there is no causal explanation offered, merely that the program rated “information about female programmers” as less relevant, so it must a priori be “evul sexizm!” and requiring of repair. If you really f’ing love science, this should make you weep.
That is why AI is great. It will endlessly refute and adapt around the clumsy social engineering that the manginas and fembeasts are trying to do. It is also immune to their shaming language (unlike cuckservatives). It truly is their doom….
That is why AI is great. It will endlessly refute and adapt around the clumsy social engineering that the manginas and fembeasts are trying to do. It is also immune to their shaming language (unlike cuckservatives). It truly is their doom….
The article you cite also demonstrates just how thoroughly corrupted by Social Justice Warfare even once-prestigious schools of STEM like MIT are becoming.*
Methinks this portends a future in which any real advances in scientific and technical knowledge will come from outside of traditional academia (or non-western institutions of higher learning), which at some point in the near future will be rendered laughingstocks by the forced egalitarianism that is continually dumbing them down.
(* MIT, in particular, has apparently never quite maintained the rigid academic standards its name and prestige suggest. An old friend of the family while I was growing up, now many years departed, taught Chemical Engineering at MIT back in the early 1960s. I remember him saying that the school had a strictly enforced “Gentlemen’s ‘C'” policy at the time. In other words, they simply didn’t give failing grades to anyone, ever. I can only imagine that things are even worse now than then.)
There is nothing new under the sun… The only doctrine that mainline Christians can agree upon, postulates that men are inherently tainted while women are “naturally good”. Anybody who has a guess?
modern Christian wife worship.
I now have very recent personal testimony on this subject, wherein the pastor explained that no other woman besides your wife should even be looked at, at the restaurant, on TV or movies, on magazine pages, (cheerleaders at the ballgame once got a mention) etc. As I understood it, she will be aware of this looking, and I suppose it will dilute the worship of the one true wife, or something. He is getting old, and showing signs of living in a past that probably never existed.
As to the “roots” of this worship, it makes sense that it has been going on a long time. I grew up on stories of knights in shining armor and damsels in distress. The knight was always willing to risk life and limb because she gave him a bit of scarf to tie around his arm. Worship indeed.
@Lyn87 and infowarrior1,
I enjoyed your sidebar on angels, as their demotion over time has long been a sore subject for me. It’s clear that a human just about cannot bear the presence of an actual angel revealed. It is too much for him. And it’s good to remember that these awe-inspiring beings are merely angels. Our Creator has endowed us with powerful brains that we use to try and make Him manageable, but we should be using those brains to understand how far away we are from true understanding of God’s glory. In the tried and true sports analogy, we think we are starting to understand the game – but most of us aren’t even really in the right town where the ballpark is located.
Lost Patrol,
Thank you. Your point is worth stressing for a couple of reasons. What Dalrock, and Infowarrior, and I, and now you, have noted is that no comparison between women and angels will turn out favorably for women. (The same is true of men, of course – but there is no blanket description of men as being angelic… quite the contrary, in fact.)
The Bible speaks of at least nine different categories of angelic beings, plus Lucifer and Gabriel who may or may not belong to any of the named categories. Obviously demons – being fallen angels – belong to the same categories. Note that demons are subject to binding and exorcism by Christians although they are, themselves, angels (albeit fallen ones). That’s a sobering thought both for Christians (it shows the power of the name of Jesus), and to anyone foolish enough to dabble in the occult (who face these beings without that power and are far more vulnerable than they imagine). I won’t go into detail here, but I have a little experience with this. It is, in a word… humbling.
Once angels were anthropomorphized in art, they tended to turn into women in those artistic depictions, and one may surmise that it’s because of the “Women are Wonderful Effect,” which is certainly not unique to our time. “These beings are good, and they appear as human, so they must look like attractive young women.” I mean… yeah… I get it at some level: angels are non-physical beings, so any description or depiction using three-dimensional language is incomplete, so if writers or visual artists want to convey something about them, they have to be allegorical to some degree. And since attractive young women have always been the most pedestalized group in every society in human history, there is at least a rationale for showing them that way – if one wishes to highlight their beauty and goodness – because people naturally attribute those traits to attractive young women. But it’s a long way from there to “Women’s emotions and sexual desires inerrantly point spiritually-dense Christian men toward the will of God” that is spouted today.
Of course women are not especially virtuous, as anyone who has ever OBSERVED WOMEN WITHOUT BLINDERS ON already knows. Needless to say, the Bible also makes it abundantly clear that women are no more inherently pure than men are (they are, in fact, more vulnerable to certain temptations than men). It takes a special kind of willful blindness for theologians to believe the sorts of things that come from the Kendrick brothers and those like them who posit “default virtue” to women in general and wives in particular… they not only have to deny the collective observations of human history, but they have to deny scripture as well.
Edgar Allan Poe was one of the great women worshipers of the 19th century. His stories and poems are full of men who ache with worshipful love for their wife or lover.
Consider the Poe poem, Annabel Lee. The man so loved this woman, then even after she died, he spent the rest of his days lying by her tomb. No other woman would suffice: https://www.poetryfoundation.org/poems-and-poets/poems/detail/44885
The last stanza:
For the moon never beams, without bringing me dreams
Of the beautiful Annabel Lee;
And the stars never rise, but I feel the bright eyes
Of the beautiful Annabel Lee;
And so, all the night-tide, I lie down by the side
Of my darling—my darling—my life and my bride,
In her sepulchre there by the sea—
In her tomb by the sounding sea.
Likewise, Poe’s famous The Raven is about a man so obsessed with his dead wife that he lives only to bring her back from the dead: https://www.poetryfoundation.org/poems-and-poets/poems/detail/48860
Ah, distinctly I remember it was in the bleak December;
And each separate dying ember wrought its ghost upon the floor.
Eagerly I wished the morrow;—vainly I had sought to borrow
From my books surcease of sorrow—sorrow for the lost Lenore—
For the rare and radiant maiden whom the angels name Lenore—
Nameless here for evermore.
In my blue pill teens and 20s, I thought Poe’s poem quite moving and romantic, and I yearned to find such a wonderful wife someday.
I would watch out, you all could be having a Clinton Presidency anyway, want it or not. Looking forward to the recounts.
Part of it too is those who wish to get along will will commonly throw their own under the bus while exalting the other side, because it is too easy to dismiss one as selfish if they don’t do it this way. This happens in the micro and the macro.
I heard a pastor tell a story of a woman who hit her garage,leaving a dent, and she apologized to her husband. The next day she came home, and there were two signs posted: his sign was labeled “his” and hers was labeled “hers.” The pastor used this to illustrate worrying about others opinions at the expense of his spouse and made his gender the culprit, thinking he was being fair. Never mind that gossip and worrying about non-spouse opinions is far more of a female problem than a male one by a margin of at least 100 to 1. Women do not thrown women under the bus because they have an agenda other than getting along.
On the macro, in May 2016 a story was ran in the Wall Street Journal decrying suppression of free speech. It was written by two republicans, The example of suppression they used was when democrat Madeleine Albright was shut down at a campus. They did so to seem fair, but the problem is that shutting down free speech on campuses is done by the left by a margin likely greater than 100 to 1. The left does not throw other leftists under the bus because they have an agenda other than getting along.
The examples could go on and on, dads and moms culpability in divorce being another example (attend any church on fathers day and mothers day for examples). Problem is, the listeners do not hear it as the speaker intend it. They do not hear fair, they hear a reinforcement of their actions.
Men and women alike feel far more comfortable maligning men and exalting women then the reverse, and this leads to a perception that one side is always the victim and the other always the culprit… even when it is in most cases the opposite.
The angels as women analogy is interesting, as I have never seen a demon portrayed as anything but male.
Of course, as opposed to many with an agenda, I don’t care to see all men portrayed as good and all women portrayed as bad. I just want honesty about virtues, faults, what the problems really are… and more importantly how to alleviate if not solve them.
“I would watch out, you all could be having a Clinton Presidency anyway, want it or not.”
It can cut both ways. There could end up being more votes for Trump, or some votes go from Clinton to Stein.
What I don’t get is why is a recount needed. Aren’t ballots tallied electronically now? Or did someone realize that they didn’t stuff the ballot box enough and want a mulligan?
Trust says:
November 26, 2016 at 11:46 am
On the macro, in May 2016 a story was ran in the Wall Street Journal decrying suppression of free speech. It was written by two republicans,
_________
Correction, one was a libertarian. My apologies, though the point is unchanged. The cited a left wing victim of a what is overwhelmingly a left wing tactic, confusing what is really going on.
Brown asserts that this is not the case, and instead argues that the real decline was abrupt and began in 1963.
Does he say what happened in 1963 that caused the decline? Availability of oral contraceptives?
Frank K @ 12:05 pm:
“What I don’t get is why is a recount needed.”
Sore losers. That’s all it is at this point.
@ Trust
Mitch Ryder – sang in 1966 about the devil with the blue dress on. I can only assume that he was not referring to a transvestite, but a woman like that described in Proverbs 7.
@Frank K:
It’s about narratives. They want to “limit” Trump’s “mandate” (which they’ll find he isn’t going to be limited by that notion) and cast doubt on aspects of the election. But it also let’s them continue to funnel the anger of their shock troops into something. They’re very good at giving their paid fools something to do, as they might start to notice the problem if they didn’t have something.
If they did manage to flip WI, it’s going probably to the Supreme Court rapidly, as there would be massive amounts of fraud needed to flip it.
It seems that by the 1960s, the faith of most English people had become “a mile wide and an inch deep,” which is why it was so easily destroyed by the 1960s Cultural Revolution.
There are precedents; the faith of Russian Orthodox masses, generally speaking, seemed to collapse very quickly after the Bolshevik takeover. Many contemporary conservative observers, while of course also blaming the Bolshevik agitators, outright accused the Russian people of apostasy. One exiled White Russian poet put it like this:
“Satan is laughing at you, o Russia, because you only imagined yourself to be Christian.”
Here is also how one eyewitness, an Assyrian Christian pastor, described what took place among the Russian troops stationed in the Middle Eastern front (fighting against the Turks) after the Tsar had fallen:
http://www.aina.org/books/fla/fla.htm#c13
“In the midst of those joyous hopes and expectations, and out of a clear sky, one day there came the sound of a deafening thunderclap. The commander of the Russian forces in Persia, who was at the time in Urmia, called his officers and men together, and in the hearing of Mar Shimon and his leaders, with tears in his eyes read a telegram which he was holding in a trembling hand. He suppressed his emotions, and said: “Officers, men and friends, I have received this telegram from Petrograd, which I am compelled to read to you all: ” ‘Czar has been dethroned!’
A news of this astounding import would naturally act like a thermometer that would register the real feelings of the hearers. Its stunning effect upon the Assyrians was, of course, a foregone conclusion. But what about the rank and file of the Russian forces, which had heretofore, all alike, served the Emperor and their country? A few wept, and wept bitterly; but the vast majority broke loose like animals released from an iron cage. They shouted, they sang, they unfurled the red flag of the so-called “freedom,” and began to celebrate the impending doom of their country and their people!
…
How infallibly true the meaning and the import of those awful words which Christ spoke when he said: “Not everyone that says, Lord, Lord, will enter into the Kingdom of Heaven.” The men who would never venture on any mission or task without crossing themselves, began now to trample upon the very cross they thought they were defending in those benighted lands of Islam! The iniquitous deeds of which they became guilty equaled in the’.r repulsiveness those of the Urmia Tartars. They exchanged their guns for wine, and their garments for vodka. And when their scanty means were exhausted, they inaugurated a campaign of oppression and robbery upon the very people who had before been their protege, as well as upon the Mohammedans. On their way back to the dreamland of Bolshevism, they resembled an army of locusts, devouring everything and everybody, leaving behind ruin and destruction, disgrace and humiliation, together with a helpless people who had staked all upon the pledges and the honor of Russia. “
@Tarl
1963 was the end of the long fifties: happily Phillip Larkin in his poem Annus Mirabilis more or less recorded the event with his immortal verse which began:
Sexual Intercourse began
In nineteen sixty-three
(which was rather late for me)
Between the end of the “Chatterley” ban
And the Beatles’ first LP
Perhaps that is why Callum Brown chose to end Christianity in Britain in that very year.
It seems that by the 1960s, the Christian faith of most English people had become “a mile wide and an inch deep,” which is why it was so easily destroyed by the 1960s Cultural Revolution.
There are precedents; the faith of Russian Orthodox masses, generally speaking, seemed to collapse very quickly after the Bolshevik takeover. Many contemporary conservative observers, while of course also blaming the Bolshevik agitators, outright accused the Russian people of apostasy. One exiled White Russian poet put it like this:
“Satan is laughing at you, o Russia, because you only imagined yourself to be Christian.”
Here is also how one eyewitness, an Assyrian Christian pastor, described what happened to Russian troops in the Middle Eastern front (fighting against the Turks) after the Tsar had fallen:
http://www.aina.org/books/fla/fla.htm#c13
“In the midst of those joyous hopes and expectations, and out of a clear sky, one day there came the sound of a deafening thunderclap. The commander of the Russian forces in Persia, who was at the time in Urmia, called his officers and men together, and in the hearing of Mar Shimon and his leaders, with tears in his eyes read a telegram which he was holding in a trembling hand. He suppressed his emotions, and said: “Officers, men and friends, I have received this telegram from Petrograd, which I am compelled to read to you all: ” ‘Czar has been dethroned!’
A news of this astounding import would naturally act like a thermometer that would register the real feelings of the hearers. Its stunning effect upon the Assyrians was, of course, a foregone conclusion. But what about the rank and file of the Russian forces, which had heretofore, all alike, served the Emperor and their country? A few wept, and wept bitterly; but the vast majority broke loose like animals released from an iron cage. They shouted, they sang, they unfurled the red flag of the so-called “freedom,” and began to celebrate the impending doom of their country and their people!
…
How infallibly true the meaning and the import of those awful words which Christ spoke when he said: “Not everyone that says, Lord, Lord, will enter into the Kingdom of Heaven.” The men who would never venture on any mission or task without crossing themselves, began now to trample upon the very cross they thought they were defending in those benighted lands of Islam! The iniquitous deeds of which they became guilty equaled in their repulsiveness those of the Urmia Tartars. They exchanged their guns for wine, and their garments for vodka. And when their scanty means were exhausted, they inaugurated a campaign of oppression and robbery upon the very people who had before been their protege, as well as upon the Mohammedans. On their way back to the dreamland of Bolshevism, they resembled an army of locusts, devouring everything and everybody, leaving behind ruin and destruction, disgrace and humiliation, together with a helpless people who had staked all upon the pledges and the honor of Russia.”
Trust,
Female demons are nothing new, and figure prominently in polytheistic religions and ancient (and current) mythological belief systems. The “succubus” is an old concept and linked to predatory female sexuality, but not all supernatural female entities were linked to sex. Also, quite a few female members of polytheist pantheons can only be thought of as female demons, such as Durga Devi (Modern Hinduism), Sekhmet (Ancient Egypt), Pele (Hawaii), Hel (Scandinavia), and Ereshkigal (Ancient Sumeria), not to mention other goddesses, demigoddesses, and lesser spirits that often caused trouble, such as djinn (Modern Islam), sprites, fairies, and pixies (often depicted as female).
Lyn87, Jonadab: demon analogy
Fair enough. I stand corrected
A relevant poem from 1911, with many striking verses –
‘And burning saints on burning horses
Will sweep the planets from their courses’
Apparently quite shocking for the time –
http://www.theotherpages.org/poems/mercy.html
A real insight into rural 19th century English life, humour and dissolution and modesty.
Dalrock has linked to this in prior posts, and it’s worth revisiting again in light of the current discussion:
http://www.drurywriting.com/keith/Do.Women.sin.htm
“Please provide a reference for this claim about Paul.”
“I believe he is referring to 1 Corinthians 6:18…”
Precisely. But I was taking liberties saying that Paul declared sexual immorality the most “grievous” of sins. But it did seem like he was calling special attention to it.
Also, I didn’t mean to say that I thought men were more sinful than women. I meant that a churchian might think so because of that passage. Don’t forget: according to churchian doctrine, even when a woman is sinful it is the man’s fault for not being “godly” enough. Furthermore, the woman gets to interpret what that means.
I actually believe that sexually immorality is a far more damaging sin than most people realize. Not an individual act is as horrendous as, say, murder, but look at some of the consequences of sexual immorality: illegitimacy, cuckholderly, paternity fraud, maternity fraud, the damage to children when fathers are absent or ejected, abortion, psychological damage to those betrayed, etc., to say nothing about the illegal ones like rape or pedophilia, just the consensual relationships. Eves drop on any psychiatrist appointments and sexual immorality contributes to a lot of the world’s suffering.
If we could, hypothetically, make it impossible to have sex outside of marriage, a lot of the world’s problems would evaporate (I say hypothetically, i certainly do not want the government in the business of this). But sex does more damage than one cares to admit.
**In the interest of full disclosure, before we become christians, my wife was married once before (divorced when two other women turned up pregnant by her first husband), and I have a pretty shameful list of past partners. I can say these things have been more problems in our marriage than I would have suspected when I was single. It really introduced more pain than pleasure overall.
If they did manage to flip WI, it’s going probably to the Supreme Court rapidly, as there would be massive amounts of fraud needed to flip it.
Yeah, I would say that the main point of the recount is so that they can introduce fraud into the process, and particularly monkey with the electronically-tabulated results by altering them. You can bet that Silicon Valley will have many of its best sitting in the upper midwest for weeks doing just that. I wouldn’t be surprised if this goes the way of 2000 at this point.
I would watch out, you all could be having a Clinton Presidency anyway, want it or not. Looking forward to the recounts.
I doubt it. The media needs eyeballs and a lot of lefto-morons have an endless appetite for this junk.
Remember that Hillary already conceded. Gore in 2000 had not at this point.
They do, however, want to introduce fraud for 2020 and beyond.
Wow… that’s hard to read. An entire generation of women at Indiana Wesleyan University honestly believes that they are essentially immune to temptation and sin, and their only response to voicing that aloud is that they don’t think highly enough of themselves!
Think about that. These aren’t secular girls. These are legal adults who are in the tiny-minority-of-a-tiny-minority that attend Christian college, and they accept this as a given: “I’m great. I’m fantastic. I am morally pure no matter what I do or fail to do. If I make a mistake it is primarily because someone tricked me into misusing one or more of my virtues. My only real flaw is that I undervalue myself.”
And they wonder why the Bible restricts ecclesiastical authority to men.
Robert What?
But I was taking liberties saying that Paul declared sexual immorality the most “grievous” of sins.
Ok. Thanks for clearing that up.
Yet another indicia of female virtue: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-11-25/at-skirt-club-women-mix-business-with-pleasure
“Do you think you might get on the body tequila table?” asks Geneviève LeJeune. The founder of the all-women networking society Skirt Club, LeJeune is with about 75 female professionals on the Sunset Strip in Los Angeles at a bar called Mmhmmm, a thoroughly appropriate name considering the goings-on inside. One of the barely clad attendees stretches herself out, and lines of salt are spread down her legs, the red bottoms of her Louboutins reflecting in the mirrored walls. The fastest woman to lick the salt and down a tequila shot will be rewarded with a slice of lime, transferred via kiss.
…
Her goal with Skirt Club is simply to provide a safe space for women to enjoy one another’s company under the liberating rubric of sexual exploration. While that aspiration may not be as filthy as the images that some minds might conjure, it’s more powerful. “We’ve had gentlemen’s clubs for centuries,” LeJeune says. “It’s high time we have our own.”
Yes, honey, because gentlemen’s clubs have always been about men exploring their sexuality with each other … of course. Also the homosexual/lesbian chic element can’t be ignored. Folks, it’s blatantly obvious why so many women were in favor of gay marriage. Pay closer attention.
Pingback: Linkage Is Good For You 11-27 | Society of Amateur Gentlemen
@Trust
“I actually believe that sexually immorality is a far more damaging sin than most people realize.”
No argument there, but notice that the most consequential effects you listed are the result of female sexual immorality. Even the Bible acknowledges this. A married man having sexual relations with an unmarried woman wasn’t even considered adultery. Incidentally, I’d like to know what “maternity fraud” is?
@Robert What? says:
November 26, 2016 at 7:49 pm
Incidentally, I’d like to know what “maternity fraud” is?
____________________
It’s where a woman deceives a man into impregnating her, usually by misrepresenting her fertility. Going off the pill without telling him, poking holes in condoms, etc, saying she is infertile when she is not, etc. In one case I know of, a woman impregnated herself with seed she obtained through oral sex. This doesn’t include legitimate accidents, fraud has to be deliberate.
This happened a close a friend of mine. His girlfriend was infertile, so she said. As soon as soon as she was pregnant, she broke it off. Turns out it was her fiance, now husband, that was infertile and she just used my friend to impregnate her. The child calls the husband daddy and my friend never sees the child, but he still has child support involuntarily withheld. After all, why go to a fertility specialist or adopt like adults, when if you can dupe someone in to paying you.
Novaseeker, let’s not forget that although LeJeune says, “We’ve had gentlemen’s clubs for centuries…,” that feminists like her fought to have those clubs forced to admit females via judicial fiat. I fail to see how a club for female business-types is not a prima fascia violation of the same California law that prohibits male executives from having a space that excludes women.
Oh, wait… that would require feminists and libtards to be ideologically consistent about obeying the same rules they apply to everyone else. Whatever was I thinking?
@Lyn87:
They have no honor, so, sadly, they’re actually pretty predictable. It’s unfortunate that it took 50 years for people to start understanding this.
@Novaseeker:
MI & PA can’t be recounted after mid-next week. MI is all paper ballots and was already “re-counted” (they do an election night run then a week-long full count) and PA requires proof of fraud for a greater than .5% difference recount. (MI is also ALL paper balloting.)
The Recount in WI has a few features, but it’s mostly about distraction. “Pizzagate” is now confirmed to be far more serious than even it’s initial investigators thought. You don’t force Reddit to ban the sub-forum investigating it and run denial pieces in a dozen publications on the same-day without it being serious in the “epic” sense. If Sessions as AG opens up the taps on Corruption Investigations, we could see the wrap up of several world-wide rings of child sex slavers. Hopefully with executions to follow.
I fail to see how a club for female business-types is not a prima fascia violation of the same California law that prohibits male executives from having a space that excludes women.
Yeah I guess they would say it’s a networking event and not a club, like a country club, and probably win because that seems like what it is. But country clubs and gentlemen’s social clubs didn’t have members licking salt off each other’s bodies. It’s … really debauched, and keep in mind these are all UMC highly degreed, highly compensated professional “ladies”. Yet another example of the rot in the elite class — looks more like late Rome every story one reads … and it’s also notable that this story was in a very mainstream place, not a tabloidy type place. The rot runs deep at the top …. very deep.
Women’s sins include 58 million murdered babies in the womb, around 80% of divorces, sexual defrauding in marriage on a massive scale, a fornication epidemic, gross misandry, increased economic debt. the largest forced transfer of wealth from men to women in the history of humanity, and the monetization of love and sex. When one gets right down to the root of the modern malaise, the sins of women account for 3/4s of the causes maybe more. Feminism is a parasite that can only exist on a healthy host, that host was patriarchy, but the host is dying and soon feminism will doom both men and women.
God help us, but I fear that we have given him the finger and he has left us to our own devices and that is surely a judgement on us.
Novaseeker, I recall when the first wave of legal assaults on men’s clubs hit the courts and the news media. The objection was that they were unacceptable because the members were networking there, so excluding women was illegal sex discrimination because it denied women equal workplace opportunity. This is exactly the same thing with the sexes switched (and the addition of homo-eroticism, of course)… the stated purpose of these clubs is to allow women to network outside the presence of men.
If we put the mission statement of these clubs in neutral terms it would read, “This club exists to give the members of one sex the opportunity to conduct business-networking and business-related workshops while excluding all members of the opposite sex.” If this was a male-only club it would never have even received a license to open for business, and if it somehow slipped through the cracks it would have been ordered to open it’s doors to women by the first judge to hear the case. The possibility of it opening franchises all over the Anglo-sphere and getting glowing puff-pieces in the media would be exactly zero.
You’re right… it’s a mess. You’re certainly correct that we’re looking more and more like the late Roman period every day… The coastal cities in particular have more in common with Pompeii from 19 centuries ago than they do with themselves just one century ago. And we all know how well that turned out.
An entire generation of women at Indiana Wesleyan University honestly believes …
Wesleyan… isn’t that Methodist? If so, there’s your explanation. It’s a real stretch to even equate Methodist with Christianity anymore.
God help us, but I fear that we have given him the finger and he has left us to our own devices and that is surely a judgement on us.
Yup. Whenever I hear anyone say “God bless America” or “God have mercy on America” I just laugh and ask “Seriously? Would YOU? Give me one logical reason why God would be inclined to bless or show mercy to a country that has made it clear that it doesn’t really believe in Him.”
mental/emotional affair
http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=1032893
What is the purpose of the single state
http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=1032944
Proverbs
Jewish Wisdom Literature (Sirach, Ecclesiasticus, etc.)
1 Corinthians 6
They all have the same message: “Never trust a ho.” Once again, this “ho” isn’t just the street corner girl, but rather any adulterous, conniving, gold-digging seductress. Fallen women tend to lead the righteous away from the true path, whether they be cult prostitutes, adulteresses, or horrible wives.
Somewhere along the way, the fallen woman (harlot, ho, adulteress) was turned into “the hooker with the heart of gold.” This post reminded me of the Dickens’s novel Oliver Twist. Bill Sikes is the evil gin swilling male/pimp, and Nancy was the fallen woman with only love and righteousness in her heart. I’m sure someone else can do an analysis of Dickens’s female characters in the 19th C. to see if Callum Brown’s point is right.
All this stems back to the 12th century where as a result of an innovation that ensued the eroticisation of the relationship between the believer and Jesus called bridal mysticism. Dramatically shifted the sex ratio at church and therefore with more women as apparent believers. It became to be believed that women being more church going and apparently more devout are more pure than the men.
Hence the origin of saintly women and wicked men.
The description of distortion of church doctrine is explored at chapter 6 of the book.
http://podles.org/church-impotent.htm
This also coincided it seems with the development of chivalric love by which the more “pure” and civilized feminine sought to civilize the beastly men:
https://gynocentrism.com/2013/07/14/the-birth-of-chivalric-love/
@Siafu,
“Feminism and abolitionism are inseparable.”
Yes. Frederick Douglas attended the Seneca Falls convention.
Interesting inversion of women not speaking in church, men were not allowed to speak at that convention.
Robert What? says:
November 26, 2016 at 7:49 pm
No argument there, but notice that the most consequential effects you listed are the result of female sexual immorality. Even the Bible acknowledges this.
____________
While it’s become sort of sacrilegious to say anything negative about women, it’s just simple math that female promiscuity carries more consequences. People are quick to point out, on the micro, that “it takes two,” for every sex act, affair, pregnancy, that there was one man and one woman involved. However, this doesn’t hold true on the macro because a majority of women are involved with a smaller number of men. For every 100 women who have sex, get pregnant, etc., there are fewer than 100 men involved. One man can impregnate several women. If you convince half of the promiscuous men to keep it in their pants, that’s just twice as many women for each player and nothing changes on the macro. It’s only through female behavior that the problem is solved, but that is dismissed as sexist.
It’s worth noting that while women are shamed as sluts for sexual behavior, men get shamed as sissies if they are too emotional. That’s because male emotional weakness carries more serious consequences for society, just as female sexual weakness carries more serious costs to society.
Of course, I just did what I talked about earlier…. toss my own under the bus in the interest of fairness. Feminists never do this. They never offset their criticism of men with criticism of women or praising of any male virtue. Men and women are equal, but not the same. And their differences have societal implications that we ignore at our own peril. The old roles of engagement tied both male productivity and the availability of women for relationships to marriage. Now they tie the availability of relationships from women to being a douchebag, and tied male productivity to disrespect and paying for women that other men have access to.
And the women said: where have the good men gone? Answer: they became douchebags so you’d stop rejecting them.
Kendrick brothers? Pfft.
This is the plot to 90% of every episode of “Unshackled”. Truth be told, I kind of like that show, but it isn’t very original.
Sorry, that should read, 90% of the episodes of Unshackled. 10% were about women being saved.
@Trust
If you think men and women are equal then there is an article addressing this for you:
http://citadelfoundations.blogspot.com.au/2016/06/deconstructing-maoist-jesus.html
Or as the parable of the talents demonstrates everyone is created unequal and therefore they have unequal demands in return. Where more is given more is demanded and vice versa. In this way it balances iut.
God judges each soul justly but not equally it seems. Circumstances are taken into account and no respect is given to them regardless of status however their status is taken into account for greater status in their life means greater responsibility before god.
Woman injects feces into IV bag of son with leukemia.
since Paul declared sexual sin as the most grievous of all sins
Where do you get this from, certainly not St. Paul?
Prohibition was a total failure in stopping the consumption of alcohol but did provide a lot of money to organized crime gangs.
Find out what they are going to prohibit and get into that because its going to be a growth industry.
See link above : “Woman injects feces into IV bag of son with leukemia”..
The boy is 15. She was probably trying to kill him in order to save medical costs that could instead go towards her shopping.
I bet the father was forcibly ejected from the boy’s life years ago.
The boy is 15. She was probably trying to kill him in order to save medical costs that could instead go towards her shopping.
Or just to collect on his life insurance.
Alberts later confessed, however, she did inject her son’s IV with fecal matter. She claims she only did it to get her son moved to another unit at Riley, where she said treatment was better.
Documents state Alberts later admitted to injecting fecal matter several times since Nov. 13. The documents also state Alberts told authorities where some of the evidence was stored. Investigators also found diarrheal medication and weight loss pills in Alberts’ personal items.
Follow Instapundit’s link to the original article and take a good look at the mother’s mugshot. The word “tweaker” immediately comes immediately to mind.
No doubt this woman was trying to kil her son, probably for insurance purposes. Let’s hope he has other relatives that are not lost causes and with whom he can find a home to spend this rest of his teen years. Otherwise this kid would probably have been better off if his mother HAD killed him.
The story structure accurately describes the John Wayne movie, “Angel And The Bad Man”, where hard drinking gunfighter Wayne is converted by. Quaker he falls in love with.
At least Will Kane’s wife in High Noon decided to put the risk of blood guilt on herself and “not forsake me, oh my darling”, by helping him with his unenviable task.
Women aren’t naturally good, it’s just that they’ve been protected by men for all these years. We are witnessing the beginning of the end of female worship because women are going into the workforce, just like men, hunting for dates, just like men, and guess what? Picking up vices, just like men. Without the protection of men keeping them out of the fight, women can’t exist as moral arbitrators anymore.
I just saw something in the Washington Post, ridiculing Trump for “losing” the economy because the 2600 counties he won produce 36% of the economy, while the 500 counties Clinton won produce 64% of the economy. And that this was a sign that only poor, uneducated, country rednecks voted for Trump. But what if that 64% of the economy couldn’t exist without the hardworking farmers and truckers that get all that food into the cities? That 64% of economic production is physically entirely dependent on the other 36%. One of those groups could go on existing without the other. Some groups may look down on men, but they can only do that because men are lifting them up.
@Morgan:
While I appreciate your point, a close look at those numbers would invert quite a lot of things. Plus, Trump wins the popular vote is a single county, LA County in CA, is removed from the equation. This is what happens when you’re the avatar of the Rentier class.
But what if that 64% of the economy couldn’t exist without the hardworking farmers and truckers that get all that food into the cities? That 64% of economic production is physically entirely dependent on the other 36%. One of those groups could go on existing without the other.
I would wager that that “64%” is probably not real “economic production” at all, but pseudo-economic parasitism that relies on tax dollars to subsidize make-work (e.g., military bases, defense contractors, and other industries tht rely on stolen taxpayer money rather than demand-based free-market exchange). This would make sense given the slow strangulation of the private sector by taxation and hyper-regulation over the last several decades.
feeriker,
As one of the members of the Military-Industrial Complex, I agree with your assessment: not all “economic activities” are created equal. (I would argue that what I did/do is important – on the grounds that, for the time being, those who beat their swords into plowshares will plow for those who do not – but I don’t actually produce anything tangible.)
So… if the blue states left to create their own country, I wonder how much of the “economic production” that takes place there would continue to occur if we zeroed-out the money-shuffling they do based on the actual production that takes place in the red states. I would guess that the blue-state financial sectors would take a huge hit, and that doesn’t take into consideration that the people who live there would lose most of their manufacturing, most of their food production, and in the case of California, most of their water.
I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again now: if the west coast seceded from the union, we’d have to build a wall right up the Rocky Mountains to keep white libtards from escaping the “paradise” that would result.
Not that anyone will read this – being so far down. I have an issue with…. well let me put it this way.
Virtue – noun, from the Latin Vir meaning man. Virtue therefore are things relating to men, perhaps best described as idealized male characteristics.
Piety – from the Latin pietas, a word described by one Roman (Cicero) as the virtue “which admonishes us to do our duty to our country or our parents or other blood relations.” That is the virtue which “has us honor/sacrifice to those who formed us” (another translation which is used by Thomas Aquianus).
My point. Women generally are not pious on their own, as they do not look to the past and what honor they owe the past. Nor do they really look far to the future of the people, but just to their off spring. A virtus man looks to honor that which formed him, from those whom he came, and thus looks to the future as something that he helps build as something that will in time honor him – but only if he is deserving of it.
It like other words have shifted to mean something else, and in modern times, we equate pious with religous. These are not the same, and should not be confused. But given the education, etc etc why would anyone be surprised.
I was going to put a link to the Podles book as well. I’m glad to see somebody already has.
Lyn87 @ 11:05 am:
“So… if the blue states left to create their own country, I wonder how much of the “economic production” that takes place there would continue to occur if we zeroed-out the money-shuffling they do based on the actual production that takes place in the red states.”
Per my new Congresswymyn, California’s three main industries are agriculture, education and tourism. In other words, slavery, indoctrination and money from nowhere.
I think they want to compete with North Korea as a low-budget destination for Chinese Elites. Fiscal solvency is so bourgeois.
GunnerQ,
I didn’t know that, but it doesn’t surprise me. Now imagine what would happen to agriculture if Californexit happened and the water that makes all that agriculture viable had to be imported from the states where a lot of it originates, which would then be in a foreign country. Not to mention that several major cities would run dry in very short order unless they agreed to pay whatever the US government demanded, since much of the water for both Los Angeles in the south and the Bay Area in the north comes from out-of-state.
Like feminists who thought that they could take the best parts of the old social compact and pass on the rest without upsetting the apple-cart, the libtards in California are delusional if they think the state would do better on its own than as a state in the U.S..
Like I said, we’d have to wall it off to keep fleeing white libtards on their own side of the Rockies.
The only thing that might help them is if China stepped in and took over, And although they wouldn’t like that one little bit either, only a few of them would end up being hanged from lamp-posts by La Raza in the meantime.
Callum Brown is correct to identify 1963 as a pivotal year for British Christianity, though this may not be quite for the reasons suggested here. By 1963, the English (though maybe not the Scots) had long ceased to be religiously observant. Traditional morality still prevailed, but this was for practical rather than Christian reasons. The clergy still had a significant voice in public affairs: for example, the law forbade nearly all Sunday trading.
The early Sixties saw the availability of the contraceptive pill; this was closely followed by the removal of the stigma attached to extra-marital pregnancy. These changes removed the utilitarian reasons for the moral constraints on women, and the empty shell of pseudo-Christian morality without Christian belief collapsed.
It took 15 to 20 years for the downside to arrive. The explosion in single motherhood did not take place until the early 1980s. The authority of clergy in the public sphere collapsed at about the same time: their opposition in 1979 to the film “Life of Brian” was their last gasp. After that, bishops rarely spoke publicly about spiritual matters, although that doesn’t mean that they stopped talking. One bishop sincerely informed us that “young people are promiscuous because of the threat of nuclear war”. Nowadays bishops mainly tell us, rightly or wrongly, that the government must give more to the poor, or that we should be more welcoming to Muslim migrants from the Third World.
Callum Brown will have been aware that the year 1963 is identified as a turning point in British history by Philip Larkin’s poem Annus Mirabilis.
I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again now: if the west coast seceded from the union, we’d have to build a wall right up the Rocky Mountains to keep white libtards from escaping the “paradise” that would result.
Arizona has been suffering a slow, gradual invasion of Californians for the last 15 years. Apparently we, along with Washington, Oregon, Nevada, and Texas, are popular havens for those who cannot abide the thought of sleeping in the hard bed they’ve pissed, shat, and puked in and are looking for other beds to squat in and similarly ruin. Given comments I’ve heard from neighbors and acquaintances, an onslaught of refugees from California following that state’s succession will receive about as warm a welcome here as Muslim refugees have in Eastern Europe.
“… following that state’s secesion.”
Sorry.
@feeriker:
I’m trying to remember who mentioned it, but CA would suddenly become Lebanon over-night. And not the semi-stable version as it currently is.
@Lyn87:
If we wanted to war-game it out, my assumption is that some local White power-broker would rise to be Warlord of Pacifica in a few short weeks. Most of LA & San Fran would burn in the first month, and you’d get a sudden on-set of hardened ethnic enclaves. The Korean & Japanese would flee rapidly to their home countries. Their is enough Chinese to section together, but it’s always a failure of Western thinking to group the Chinese together as a singular group. The internal strife would quickly spill over.
You would have gangs rampaging through significant portions of the Inner Cities the first night (Black & Hispanic) and different gangs rampaging through the more open terrain (Hispanic). You would see retrenchment and direct battlelines formed within the first week, then the coordinated groups will start taking territory with brutal effect.
The US Military would huddle in their now massively fortified bases, in the interior. You would see a quick movement to secure everything from the Sierra Nevadas to the East, as that territory is effectively Oregon, Idaho, Nevada & Arizona already, plus being utterly undefendable from the Eastern approach. Everything North of Weed would also become part of Oregon in a real hurry.
San Diego would be flattened by the fleeing Mexicans trying to save their own bacon. (And looted in the process.)
I was thinking the Central Valley would end up being sort of several City-States, but I realized it’s too spread out. It would be the central point for Intelligence Operations, which means it would be rapidly formed & funded into its own Statelet by the CIA, backing some Warlord that they’ve pushed. It would be very White, very quickly, as they could also rope in a lot of willing contractors from the USA proper. (Black Ops budget money would go a LONG ways.)
By the end of Month 2, you’re looking at CA divided into 4 regions: USA-military occupied “ring” at the easily defensively locations/chock points; Warring City-States of LA & San Fran; Central Valley Republic between the two. Given the current population, I’d put at least 15 million displaced, 2-4 million causalities and a massive food-crisis happening. And that’s the “rosier” scenario I can come up with.
@Sipcode – so apparently, Eve was the first idol ever worshiped.
Oh Dal, you’re gonna love this:
https://markdriscoll.org/sermons/3-marriage-myths-3-spirit-strengths/
Rollo, is it just me or has Driscoll’s voice gotten quite a bit higher?
I don’t remember him being such a tenor. Maybe he doesn’t lift anymore, low T?
@ Rollo Tomassi
Driscoll actually didn’t do too bad tackling “The One.”
https://markdriscoll.org/is-there-such-a-thing-as-the-one/
That myth is one of the worst in Churchianity.
As a single Christian, i seldom listen to Focus on the Family, but I couldn’t resist listening to these recent programs, if only to confirm what I suspected the content would be:
http://radio.focusonthefamily.ca/broadcasts/cherish-your-wife-part-1-of-2
http://radio.focusonthefamily.ca/broadcasts/cherish-your-wife-part-2-of-2
Pingback: Complementarians believe that a wife can do no wrong | Christianity and masculinity
Late to the discussion, but on the topic of wife worship here is a relevant selection from Arthur Schopenhauer’s essay “On Women.”
“They are the sexus sequior, the second sex in every respect, therefore their weaknesses should be spared, but to treat women with extreme reverence is ridiculous, and lowers us in their own eyes. When nature divided the human race into two parts, she did not cut it exactly through the middle! The difference between the positive and negative poles, according to polarity, is not merely qualitative but also quantitative. And it was in this light that the ancients and people of the East regarded woman; they recognised her true position better than we, with our old French ideas of gallantry and absurd veneration, that highest product of Christian-Teutonic stupidity. These ideas have only served to make them arrogant and imperious, to such an extent as to remind one at times of the holy apes in Benares, who, in the consciousness of their holiness and inviolability, think they can do anything and everything they please.
In the West, the woman, that is to say the “lady,” finds herself in a fausse position; for woman, rightly named by the ancients sexus sequior, is by no means fit to be the object of our honour and veneration, or to hold her head higher than man and to have the same rights as he. The consequences of this fausse position are sufficiently clear. Accordingly, it would be a very desirable thing if this Number Two of the human race in Europe were assigned her natural position, and the lady-grievance got rid of, which is not only ridiculed by the whole of Asia, but would have been equally ridiculed by Greece and Rome. The result of this would be that the condition of our social, civil, and political affairs would be incalculably improved.”
This has been an issue for me for many years in the church. It certainly explains the difference behind the Mother’s Day, “Oh woman, how holy, righteous you are to the family and you are the cornerstone” messages and the Father’s Day, “Men, you suck and need to step up and lead your family” messages that I used to sit through for some many years.
Pingback: Hollywood gives men role models for a wrecked America
Pingback: She’s in love with a bad boy. | Dalrock
.correctly. He must be strong, and he must be capable of administering discipline if she is not pleasing. Sex in a woman, as in a man, is not only richly biological but psychological as well, and the words suggest a distinction which is somewhat misleading. We are psycho-physical organisms, or better perhaps, thinking, feeling organisms. Part of the correct treatment of a woman is treating her as you wish; she has genetic dispositions for submission bred into every cell of her body, a function of both natural and sexual selection. Accordingly, what might seem brutal or quick to a man can be taken by a woman in the dimensions of her sentience as irrefutable evidence of his domination of her, her being owned by him, which thrills her to the core for it touches the ancient biological meaning of her womanhood. He simply uses her for his pleasure, because he wished to do so. He is her master.”
John Norman
So sad when pagans make more sense than supposed Christians who never read a Bible .
Male dominance is central to female arousal but those wishy washy pastors just hide the truth and make marriage a thing of “courtesy and gentleness” only . No wonder why so many are totally turned off .
Isn’t it the right balance between female submission and male love and consideration that John Normal is stating here ? And this is exactly what the LORD advocates and commands !!
A woman who does not feel “under the joke” will never respond to a man afraid of himself and of his own sexual desires (like most of wimpy western men today ) .
Notice how he says ” her being owned by him”
Doesn’t the Bible say that the wife does not own her body but her husband does ?
The thrill lies in there . And even pagans get it better than dumb churchians who do not obey what the Lord says but rather listen to so called pastors who have been led them astray for decades