The woman shall not wear that which pertaineth unto a man, neither shall a man put on a woman’s garment: for all that do so are abomination unto the LORD thy God.
–Deut 22:5 KJV
Back in August of 2016 Pastor John Piper published an interview with Rob Smith titled Why Did the Transgender Revolution Catch Us by Surprise?
This week we are talking about transgender, a topic of frequent inquiry from our readers, and to help us, we welcome Rob Smith to the podcast. Rob is a theologian who lectures in systematic theology and ethics at Sydney Missionary and Bible College in Australia. He is also an honorary assistant minister at St Andrew’s Anglican Cathedral in Sydney.
He approaches the topic of the transgender revolution as a biblical theologian, as a historian of the movement, and as a pastor whose own family has been touched by gender dysphoria. It hits close to home for him.
Smith gives a good high level summary of the historic movements that brought us to our current state, including:
- Feminism and the idea that gender is a social construct
- Homosexual acceptance
- The sexual revolution
It is worth reading at the link above. Overall the explanation is good, but I want to zero in on a massive blind spot for conservative Christians; feminist envy and rebellion. Specifically, feminists have worked tirelessly to remove the stigma from women dressing like men. Feminists have been so successful here that the very idea of a woman “dressing like a man” is foreign to our current thinking.
Deut 22:5 tells us that men dressing like women, and women dressing like men is an abomination to God. The Bible doesn’t give us a strict dress code for men and women, although Pastor Wilson explains that a literal translation of the verse would prohibit women from wearing combat gear.
Notice the odd construction — “that which pertains to a man.” The Hebrew underneath is keli geber, and should be read as the “gear of a warrior.” Whether we are talking about a man in fishnet stockings, or a woman decked out in full battle regalia, we need to recognize that God finds it loathsome. So should we.
This brings to mind an insult that was already dated when I was a child:
Your mother wears combat boots!
One dictionary of British and American English catch phrases explains that other variants of the same insult included:
Your mother drives a tank!
Your mother eats K rations!
I know as a child that I always assumed the combat boots insult was an accusation that your mother was unfeminine, or manly. It would be like saying your father wears a dress, or women’s undergarments. Not surprisingly, according to the dictionary linked above another variant of the insult was:
ah, yer mother wears cotton drawers!
All of these insults most obviously shame the person for having a mother who is unfeminine, or to use a similarly dated phrase, unladylike. The problem is, for decades we have been taught that there is nothing shameful about a woman dressing like and acting like a man. This is so much the case that it is really difficult to conceive of what would be considered cross-dressing for a woman in our culture, including modern conservative Christian culture. Which of the following would cause a modern woman to be shamed for being a cross dresser?
- Wearing jeans instead of dresses and skirts? Nope.
- Wearing boxer shorts? Nope.
- Joining the army and driving a tank, eating field rations, and wearing combat boots? Nope.
- Dressing up like a lumberjack? Nope.
- Wearing a man’s haircut? Nope.
A woman today who dresses like a man might be chided for her questionable fashion sense, but she wouldn’t seen as cross dressing. For a woman to be considered a cross dresser, she would have to go to the greatest extremes. Not only would she have to make herself look like a man in every way, she would have to actually claim to be a man for us to consider her a cross dresser.
Contrast this with a man who does any of the below. Is he seen as a cross dresser?
- Wears women’s underwear? Yes.
- Wears women’s dresses or skirts (excluding kilts)? Yes.
- Wears women’s shoes? Yes.
We have in our culture two kinds of clothing/styles:
- Clothing and styles everyone can wear.
- Clothing and styles men must not wear.
From a practical perspective, it is all but impossible for a woman to cross dress in our culture. We have great difficulty even conceiving of the idea. Cross dressing in our culture is something that almost exclusively pertains to men, because a woman cross dressing is simply normal. From this perspective, we were already half way to accepting cross dressing as far back as the 1980s. We’ve lived for decades rejecting the idea that something God detests is even possible. Even worse, we have denied that our perspective on the issue has changed. We forgot it, and then we forgot that we forgot it.
Conservative Christians are as blind to this as the rest of our culture, if not more so. Men like Piper have spent a lifetime pretending that women (including conservative Christian women) aren’t in open rebellion. When after decades of activism women were finally able to push their way into combat roles in the US military, Piper and his colleagues went into fever dream mode, pretending that men were forcing reluctant women to act like men. Piper wrote:
If I were the last man on the planet to think so, I would want the honor of saying no woman should go before me into combat to defend my country. A man who endorses women in combat is not pro-woman; he’s a wimp.
And:
Women may be more courageous than men in any given situation. They may have nobler vision. They may be smarter. That is not the issue. What God has written on our hearts and designed for our survival and our joy is the issue. Manhood puts itself forward between the women and the enemy. That is part of what manhood means. That is who we are by God’s design. The courage of women will show itself in a hundred ways. But when a man is around, he will not exploit that courage to fight the battle where he belongs.
Owen Strachan wrote:
…the call by men for women to fight in their place is the height of cowardice, and worthy of the strongest possible rebuke.
And:
If men will not own this responsibility, then women will be forced to take it on as did biblical women such as Deborah and Jael…
Acknowledging reality was simply too terrifying, so they pretended it wasn’t happening and tried to distract us with cartoonish chivalry. This kind of absurd denial of what was going on right in front of our faces left us blind to the very idea of cross dressing for half of the population. Now that we have fully accepted cross dressing for women, the path for doing the same for men is already paved.
One must be careful with the arguments, however.
The feminist/LGBTQ folks will quickly say: “Aha, you’re right that there’s a stigma for men to wear “women’s” clothing, but the reason for that is that men are “stuck” in a narrow, stultifying construction of what masculinity means, and have not done enough to liberate themselves from this narrowness, so they suffer the consequences of being restricted — in other words, they are prisoners of their own making in a conceptualization of their gender which is “absurdly narrow””. So, in effect, they will say that, yes, it’s different for women and men in the culture, but that’s instructive of just how narrow and oppressive “masculinity”, as mostly understood, is for men, and how men should be rebelling against it. I.e. — the answer is more rebellion, not less.
That’s a very, very easy counterpoint to the argument in cultural terms (not religious ones, obviously), unless you’re very clear to keep it to quite strictly religious grounds, and making it very clear that the complaint is simply conservative Christian preachers not sticking to their own doctrine, rather than women having more sartorial freedom accepted by such preachers than men.
I also think that at least a part of the issue here is the male libido/thirst again. Lots of men like the look of women in male(ish) clothing (it’s almost always tailored to a woman’s body, in any case), whereas the look of men in female or feminine clothing is silly and unattractive to most women (precisely because it is an unmasculine look, and women mostly find masculinity appealing in men). Just like kickass heroines, lots of men like kind of masculinish women in panst and short butch cuts and so on, if they are otherwise “hot” — there are pretty much no women who like handsome men dressed in high heels, stockings and a cocktail dress.
True…calling it out like that never crossed my mind. I just always saw it as odd, unfeminine and unattractive.
Pingback: Cross dressing snuck up in our blind spot. | @the_arv
I’m a bit lost on all this, so maybe someone can fill in the blanks. So scripturally God says that men and women should not ‘cross-dress’, and we can see that this pertains to clothing because of the words “wear” and “garment”. In nearly every image of ancient times we see both men and women wearing the same type of robes or gowns, you know, the kind that require men to gird up if they want maximum mobility. This being the case, how exactly does this work out? I mean, if, by word definition, women are instructed not to wear outfit of war then that’s one thing, but seeing as how men/womens clothing seemed so similar in ancient times, how does this apply biblically? Obviously in more modern societies frilly and pastel colored articles of clothing have been seen as feminine, but these likely didn’t exist back then, so I’m kind of lost on how a biblical application of the verse applies. When pants finally came onto the scene was it just assumed that they were mens wear? Obviously dressing to look like a man is different than simply wearing pants and a t-shirt. Any input?
@Novaseeker
That’s sort of the problem with the MRA people too. Having gone far down the feminist path, they argue we need to go all the way, actually accepting feminism’s premises and acting on them (women are equal, etc.). Similarly here, we just need to go farther to where anyone can wear anything and not be judged for it.
The real answer, as people here know, is that we need to go back. Reject the false feminist premises and return to actual sanity, not double down on madness.
The problem tends to be that so much of this stuff just went without saying in a rational society that no one ever had to defend it. When someone asks something as absurd as “why can’t two men get married?” (might as well ask “why can’t we call a dog a cat?”) there weren’t really well-developed responses, because of how stupid and irrational the question is.
As C.S. Lewis said:
“We all want progress. But progress means getting nearer to the place where you want to be. And if you have taken a wrong turning then to go forward does not get you any nearer. If you are on the wrong road progress means doing an about-turn and walking back to the right road and in that case the man who turns back soonest is the most progressive man.”
It helps if she’s hot. Guys like to watch Gal Gadot kick butt in her Wonder Woman costume (funny how The Flash, both on TV and the big screen, is being portrayed as a skinny jeans beta; I guess that’s OK), but female Ukrainian shot put stars don’t have as big of a following. Nevertheless, we are seeing a near pandemic of slim, even fit men who are dating land whales. Of course, if that’s all that’s available …
Something I’ve observed repeatedly over the years. As soon an organization lets the feminoids in all manner of perversion immediately follows.
It helps she has long hair and you can tell that’s a feminine costume…a lot of female superheroes have that pixie cut and straight black shirt/pants combo which is very unattractive.
Deut 22:5 tells us that men dressing like women, and women dressing like men is an abomination to God.
And the typical feminist-churchian response will be some variation of “that was Old Mosaic Law and doesn’t apply to the Christian faith,” or “that was specific to the culture of ancient Israel and doesn’t apply to the modern western world.”
I look at cross dressing guys and think, “Great. Less competition for me.”
A woman today who dresses like a man might be chided for her questionable fashion sense, but she wouldn’t seen as cross dressing. For a woman to be considered a cross dresser, she would have to go to the greatest extremes.
Whenever I run into a woman who dresses and/or acts like a man (and that would be most of them), whether or not she is or considers herself to be a bulldyke, I treat her like a man. The terms “bub,” “buster,” “buddy,” “dude,” and “pal” are how I address “her,” and I’ll be as rough around the edges in my speech as I am to any man.
I really shouldn’t bother, because it doesn’t seem to offend any of them at all. In fact, they don’t even seem to notice. Truly sickening and bizarre. And people wonder why I despise American women …
Dalrock
@SnapperTrx
Ancient times covers a lot of ground, but I just looked the question up for Rome. According to this page, men and women could be easily distinguished by their clothing, even if it all looks the same to us.
I think much of the challenge is imagining a society where there are clothes that women aren’t allowed to wear. God tells us that men and women cross dressing is an abomination, and obviously the specifics (aside from gear of a warrior) are going to come from the culture/time, but the spirit of crossdressing remains the same across the ages. But we abolished the idea (only for women), so we really struggle to understand the concept.
Another way to look at it is if your wife/sister/daughter asked you how she could avoid being revolting to God in light of Deut 22:5. How would you instruct her? For a son or brother, it is easy. Don’t wear women’s clothing (dresses, skirts, underwear, high heels, lipstick, etc). This answer would be different today than say in ancient Rome, but you can answer it. How would you do the same for a woman? By pretending there is no such thing as women cross dressing, we have left our women at risk much like we have done with modesty.
@Novaseeker
The point I’m trying to make though is that we can’t really approach this from a Christian perspective without admitting what we have already done regarding women and crossdressing. When conservative Christian women demanded the right to dress like men (including wearing the gear of a warrior), our most conservative leaders pretended that cowardly men were making them do so against their will. It is sheer fantasy, and it is pervasive. Moreover, to deal with the problem of cross dressing, we have to acknowledge that such a thing is possible. Yet as Christians we can’t even conceive of the idea of a woman cross dressing, because terror of offending women has lead us to denying the very concept. Deut 22:5 becomes a paradox because we know it isn’t possible for women to cross dress. So it must not really mean anything. Before we can even discuss the problem, we have to clear our minds of the assumptions that got us here, the massive blind spot we by its very nature have no idea we even have.
SnapperTrx @ 1:02 pm:
“In nearly every image of ancient times we see both men and women wearing the same type of robes or gowns, you know, the kind that require men to gird up if they want maximum mobility. This being the case, how exactly does this work out?”
There are so many kinds of robes, and women are so eager for male attention, that I doubt any human society ever had truly unisex clothing. Even with a plain white robe, there’s a difference between sashes for mobility and sashes to make the hips noticeable. If nothing else, male robes were probably shorter because we needed to do stuff and didn’t want our wives giving free shows.
I know from martial arts class that women can make even a gi look sexy.
Dalrock —
I agree with you. My own point is that we have to avoid sounding like “there’s only one sex who can wear what it wants, while the other sex can’t”, because that leads to the counterargument I mention above. I fully agree that it’s important to point out *de facto* crossdressing being accepted among women, but I think we have to be careful how we frame that.
“A woman today who dresses like a man might be chided for her questionable fashion sense, but she wouldn’t seen as cross dressing.”
This would be a fun question to ask Churchians. What does a cross-dressing woman look like?
What does a cross-dressing woman look like?
I agree. My guess is that she’d have to be really over the top — like a total masculine cut (not pants or a business suit tailored for a woman’s body, but a chunky male one), no makeup at all (not low amounts of it, but none of it at all) and a boy haircut (again, not a pixie or a cropped female haircut, but short like a guy wears it) and guy shoes (i.e., flat all the way and not styled).
That’s not that common, but that’s the standard for how extreme it would have to be in order to stand out, I’m guessing.
What’s also interesting is how people would react to a cross dresser based on sex.
For women…they’d be unattractive.
For a man…he’s creepy and would most likely be labeled a perv.
@SnapperTrx
You are incorrect. Pants have always been mens clothing until the 20th century. Even as late as the early 1960’s, a woman wearing pants on TV was considered ‘breaking a barrier’.
https://www.vanityfair.com/hollywood/2017/01/mary-tyler-moore-pants
I recall quite well as a kid in the 60’s grandmother/great-aunt relatives who always wore dresses, even when doing house work or working in the garden. Of course they weren’t fancy; they were called ‘house dresses’ and intended to be worn while doing dirtier or messier work.
@Novaseeker
I think even that still doesn’t cross the line into crossdressing. It might be odd and certainly unfashionable, but it wouldn’t hit you in your gut like a man showing up in a dress and/or high heels. She would have to go full Chas Bono.
She would have to go full Chas Bono.
Heh, probably true. Unless they go full transgender (get boobs removed, testosterone shots, estrogen suppression etc), they don’t read as cross-dressing.
Oh I’m going back much, much further than that. I understand “modern” society, lets just say in the 20th century, had well established lines over feminine vs. masculine dress. I’m talking about way, way back, like when pantaloons where first worn. What decidedly made them “for men”? Also, Dalrock already pointed out that robes worn by ancient societies such as the Greeks had distinguishing features between male and female versions, which is really what I was asking about.
@ Snapper
Even if you or I couldn’t tell the difference between a man’s robe and a woman’s robe in ancient times, they certainly could.
However, I bet you and I would be able to tell the difference, even though we’re far removed from those cultures. For example, neither of us is Scottish, and yet neither of us would confuse a Highlands warrior’s kilt for his wife’s skirt.
But, but…what about cowgirls? You can tell by the sparkly crosses on the asses that they’re girls! And everyone knows cowboy boots are unisex; otherwise we wouldn’t have all these based-on-herstory movies about chick gunfighters.
There have always been Sumptuary Laws; that is to say law regulating what one may or may not do with ones property and there have always been women who ape the dress of men. It would be mistaken then to link it too closely with three points made by The Rev Smith (referred to above). Back in 1940s (for example) the then Princess Elizabeth shocked by wearing trousers as she did her Marie-Antoinette impersonation of a Land Girl. Truly it was an abomination (as she returned home each night to the palace). At least, she doesn’t dress that way now.
Deuteronomy is clear but does not define what may be Masculine clothing and what not. Now, the sight of a woman in a dress is rare – except when they go partying. I can think of two movies involving M to F transversive dressers: Glen or Glenda (1953) where Ed D.Wood Jr takes the lead role and I want what i what what I want where Anne Heywood does the same. The trouble with the latter is that Miss Heywood was Miss Great Britain in 1949 and by 1972 still superbly good looking and so her transformation has an inevitability about it (which is not the case with Wood). Opera is of course full of trouser roles; females taking male parts and the lead boy in a Panto is always played by a woman. Men only play women in Opera and rarely at that when playing elderly unattractive women, which is also true of the Panto.
“I’m talking about way, way back, like when pantaloons where first worn. What decidedly made them “for men”?”
Shrug, there’s no objective rule. Even God didn’t try to define it. No doubt this is how female cross-dressing was able to begin in the first place.
Barbie wears pants. “I’m just keeping up with changes in culture.”
Barbie wears army boots. “I’m just keeping up with changes in culture.”
Barbie wears a dildo. “I’m just keeping up with changes in culture.”
And the Churchian smiles and nods, relieved that culture is changing fast enough that he doesn’t have to tell Barbie she’s dressing like a man.
Then Barbie calls herself a man. “This is why I’ve been dressing like a man for a long time.”
And the Churchian is horrified at how transgenderism came out of nowhere.
Added to the list of things I don’t think about until Dalrock points them out.
Not only is cross dressing unremarkable, it doesn’t actually exist as a concept in this country, except for men; and even that may be wavering.
More bonus points for “Prairie Muffin Woman” as the female archetype of a fondly remembered time in the past that possibly in no way resembles my notion of it.
Roger Devlin has a nice essay related to modesty. Here he critiques Wendy Shalit’s somewhat observant but flawed book “A Return to Modesty”:
http://www.thornwalker.com/ditch/devlin_shalit.htm
Cane
As a working “cowboy” who owns five drafts and works in a stable taking care of thirty horses for the princesses I can tell you real horse men
1. Hate the boots and breeches princesses, it screams entitled.
2. Loathe the ass bling “cowgirls”, it screams flash over ability .
3. Love a basic sundress and long hair.
Real working horsemen (not fucking cowboys) are like farmers, out in all weather, working, doing chores, shovelling shit. We have no time to waste on flash or posers.
Most of all hate the princesses who can ride….but cant catch a horse in an open field or clean a stall (cause us lowly farmhands tend to their mounts.)
Was on Banana Republic (Gap Corp) buying a grip of new boxer shorts. Been wesring boxer shorts since I hit puberty. For the past few years….slowly boxers I guess have been falling out of style / vogue. More briefs…..fine. Don’t like them. The colors of pink, mauve, purple and stripes…..kind of femmy looking. They seem to more and more to look more like panties every year.
I sent a comment that was a little humorus…..”hey guys if I wanted to buy underwear for my girlfriend I would just go to the women’s undergarments page”
The reply was friendly but a little unerving “our studies, marketing, metrics and studies do show that men want this. It shows a daring edge and women think they’re cute on their guy”
I just wasn’t made for these times men. For me a perpetual 1966 probably is when I should be.
P.s. my wife of thirty years rides a eighteen hand Percheron. Thats 6 foot at the shoulder and weighs over 2,100 pounds. That horse either respects you as the person you are or literally walks thru you.
Moose in the attached clip (the brown one) is 18 hands.
“This post is so intolerant and hateful.”
LOL
I’d like to see old women and lesbians shamed for having butch haircuts.
@FrankK but female Ukrainian shot put stars don’t have as big of a following.
Did anyone else stop and look up Ukrainian women shotputters??
Alina Fyodorova is pretty easy on the eyes.
@mgtowhorseman, I got a chance to ride a Percheron a few years ago. It was nice to ride a horse that didn’t seem undersized.
Did anyone else stop and look up Ukrainian women shotputters??
Not until you made us.
@FrankK funny how The Flash, both on TV and the big screen, is being portrayed as a skinny jeans beta.
I was surprised by your comment regarding the recent TV show (which I’ve never seen), so I googled some images to compare it to the 1990 TV series. Apparently the weight room has been abandoned. Heaven forbid a male hero would look too masculine and intimidating.
Pingback: Cross dressing snuck up in our blind spot. | Reaction Times
The Barry Allen version of the Flash is supposed to be a skinny beta – at least when compared to other superheroes, all of whom would easily win Mr. Olympia in real life.
Like Peter Parker (Spider-Man), Barry Allen is supposed to represent the boys who typically read comics. I haven’t watched the new Justice League movie, but it looks like they captured that concept pretty well. The TV show actually doesn’t. I watched a couple episodes and lost interest.
Did anyone else stop and look up Ukrainian women shotputters??
Alina Fyodorova is pretty easy on the eyes.
Exactly. If there’s a concept of cross-dressing is there also a concept of cross-activities? Alina demonstrates why women should not be allowed to participate in such sports.
http://media.gettyimages.com/photos/ukraines-alina-fyodorova-competes-in-womens-pentathlon-high-jump-a-picture-id477100525
Dalrock, thank you for addressing this topic again. On Nov 16 I posted the comment below with the same idea, but broken down into four questions instead of your one; even some of the regulars here could not conceive of anything being inappropriate for a woman. The 100% pervasiveness of women choosing to wear masculine clothing, on a day-to-day (non-party or formal event) basis, is part of why I find most women unappealing, or, to use the word from Scripture, an “abomination”.
As a student of American history. In the summer of 1975. There was a picture of President “nice guy” Jerry Ford in a suit talking to his daughter, Susan. It was on the lawn near the porico….and Susan was in a pair of Levis. She had a blouse on. Knowing her perppy sensibilities, she probably was in a pair of penny loafers.
People were outraged and upset that she was not in a dress, skirt or more feminine apparel while on White House grounds.
She’s was dressed modestly. The jeans were new, and basic. Not flashy. My point is……was she cross dressing? I doubt she did it to shock, or think she was a man. She wasn’t going to church, nor some White House function. She was a late teen probably on her way out. Dad grabbed a word with her and the photo was taken.
Was she cross dressing?
That’s it, Europe is dead.
This post is especially insightful, and amazingly enough this topic has recently been on my mind again. You’ve masterfully pointed out one of the most annoying aspects of feminist rebellion where nearly everyone that should see it simply does not. They are as blind to female cross dressing as any unbeliever. I’ve tried time and again to pull the wool off of many a set of blind folded eyes, but to no avail. Even in the comment section on this very blog (though some while ago) I pointed out and gave examples of the acceptance of female cross dressing as normal and met resistence. Masculinized female behavior has become so normalized that few are even aware.
I think another reason why it is difficult to point out other than you know it when you see it is because there isn’t really a good term for it like there is with men.
Men acting like a female is effeminate.
I don’t think there’s a term for the other way around other than bulldyke or tomboy. But those are informal terms…not a biblical one.
@Dalrock
What is readily apparent to me is how unsustainable this entire narrative is as part of the overall progressive ideology. With the onslaught of transgenderism, the separation of male and female is completely blurred. How can a transgendered man be accused of dressing like a transgendered woman? Moreover, how many a transgendered woman be shamed for not living up to traditional masculine qualities, i.e. the “shut up or man up” mantra? Under feminism, how do transgendered women fit within their theories about men and patriarchy? How can transgendered people, and therefore anyone, be expected to fulfill traditional roles, unless we note different biblical roles between genders? If there are two transgendered women married with kids, which one is the court supposed to favor during a divorce and when awarding custody? Further, which one of these is the main aggressor when domestic violence occurs, according to the Duluth model?
The whole thing sows the seeds for its own destructive and guarantees societal chaos.
Rugby11
I watched that video. Over 20 million people have gone through it evidently and I had no idea what it was trying to push. My take? Yet another expensive program that is gonna win Millennials to the church. Not one word about Jesus and not one word about the Bible. The video shoes, hip, cool and diverse Christians under 35….and the reality on Sunday is that nobody look like that. Slick. Will check out the webpage. I am sure I won’t be impressed
@Novaseeker
”no makeup at all”
I don’t have an issue with that at all. As long as said woman takes care of herself properly. It may be a form of modesty.
So much satire from my youth must now seem incomprehensible to today’s youth. Many Monty Python jokes involved cross-dressing. Not to mention their jabs at the lunacy of trannies:
What I see are disordered people acting out their disorders in society with the full support of the left.
If it were just a sexually immoral “live action role-playing game (LARP)” being acted out in society by disordered people, that would be bad enough but what they are pressing for is nothing less than coopting our government to use as a weapon to persecute us with bankrupting steep fines and prison incarceration (breaking up moral nuclear families in the process) via misusing “civil rights legislation” intended to correct racial disparities when we fail to go along with the charade.
This makes these disordered, ignorant, deceived, authoritarian people very very dangerous to moral people.
Meh, Maxwell Q. Klinger got the ball rolling. When he came out in the 70s, transvestites were considered queer or worse. Either would get you kicked out of or rejected by the military altogether. Klinger was invented to soften up the population. What could go wrong?
I was walking outside with my wife late at night when it was dark outside, maybe 8 or 9pm, and we saw a youngish woman jogging. I pointed out to my wife the immense risk the woman was taking running outside alone at night. A risk she clearly didn’t think existed (or was and) given her willingness to run in dark with her mp3 player.
It got my thinking more generally that in order for feminism to convince women to act like men, it must convince women that the risks they face of acting like men act don’t really exist.
When I lived in the big city and drove to work early in the morning (2-3am), I’d used to see young college aged women walking by themselves back to wherever after the bars closed. I wouldn’t even want to do that sober and as a man because I knew the risks at that time of night in that part of the city.
Apart from using John Piper, an avowed heretic that preaches the false gospel of works righteousness, I found this thread very good with 1 disclaimer
I don’t think you understand Deuteronomy 22:5 correctly
A woman is not to wear that which PERTAINITH to a man….that’s the key word right there to your understanding
It’s what is considered exclusively for males that a woman can’t wear
For e.g Jeans on a woman look sexy and attractive YET don’t men wear jeans as well? Should women stop wearing jeans because men wear them? No, because jeans are NOT clothing exclusively that pertains to men, they are worn by both sexes so it’s not a sin for a woman to wear jeans
Trousers on the other hand ARE….I can’t stand women that wear trousers and “pants” as they traditionally are only worn by men
In the end its culture t hat helps solve this delicate issue
This is why Dalrock is correct when he says it’s the SPIRIT of cross dressing we must oppose
@Dalrock
Check your spam box please, my comments are being deleted for some reason
@Rugby11
So…even church girls are attracted to Alpha? Is this program still in beta testing by any chance?
@Adam and Earl
Apparently the number of predatory acts against lone women must be still sufficiently small that these foolhardy twats can still afford to think “that’ll never happen to ME” and have the odds prove them right.
Stated another way, this sort of suicidal carelessness still doesn’t usually result in a Darwin Award. If it did, and frequently, one suspects that even the densest and most deluded (as to her own ability to protect herself) woman would think long and hard before doing such a stupidly risky thing.
John Piper’s objection to cross dressing and to the idea that women can be men (and vice versa) makes even less sense when you consider that last quote of his that Dalrock posted. I’ll run it again right here:
Notice what he’s doing here: He wants to insist that men are made by God to perform some notably arduous and painful tasks while also insisting that this doesn’t mean they have a natural talent, gift, or aptitude for those tasks which women do not. Essentially, it’s a point of view that’s completely in sync with the feminists who believe that biological differences between men and women only exist from the neck down, the same kind who like to say “A woman can do everything a man can, except when she does it better!”
So if that’s the case, why shouldn’t women be taking on the men’s roles, especially if they really can do the job better? An older and wiser generation of religious believers might have countered that by answering that the differences between the sexes really do mean that each were created with abilities — and weaknesses — that the other does not have, and that their roles are arranged to comply with this reality. Men have greater physical strength than women, for example, and so it makes more sense to have them take on the role of warriors when they are needed. Likewise, that same strength gives them an ability to produce more from their physical labor and so if one of the sexes must leave the home to shape the world and build civilization it makes more sense for it to be the man. And why wouldn’t this difference in one sex’s physical capacity also result in an outlook and temperament that was specific to them? It isn’t even the case that Piper’s “complementarian” camp has been unwilling to say this — so long as it has been applied positively towards women, that is. Here’s a link to a recent talk by Jen Wilkin (Dalrock’s already covered her here before) arguing that women’s bodies and experiences give them a unique way of looking at things that the church must put to use, even while insisting that those same differences shouldn’t ever be used to stop her from performing in any role that she pleases:
If men are specifically called to difficult tasks, why can’t Piper say that they are specifically gifted for them? Because in order to say something like this, John Piper would have to be willing to tell women that not only are there things that they cannot do, there are also things that they are unable to do — and like most American pastors in today’s culture Piper is too cowardly to risk offending women by telling them no. That might not be a problem for the world outside the church where people at least pay lip-service to the idea that men and women are interchangeable, but Piper has to deal with some sacred texts that say they do have different functions, and at a root level he probably also understands that if certain duties are left to women they simply won’t be performed at all. So he innovates a new approach: It’s not an issue of God giving men a gift that women don’t get, it is rather that God has given the men a burden which they must carry. If they fail to perform, God will be angered by this, and He will show His anger by turning the job He gave men over to the women, who will then shame men by demonstrating that they are better at carrying such a load than the men themselves could have ever hoped to be. It’s kind of a neat trick; It allows Piper to assign Biblical duties without ever having to worry about causing offense to the spirit of his age, and with the added bonus of reminding those who were reserved for the church’s risky tasks that they shouldn’t let it go to their heads. Remember, pride is a sin! (At least for the men.)
Men in the past might have been asked to put their lives and their bodies on the line for their families, their churches or their societies, but in doing so they could at least count on being praised for performing manfully in a job that only they could do. So what do we make of a pastor like Piper when he demands that today’s men perform the same feats while also reminding them that the women who stay behind could have done them just as well? Because it sounds to me like he’s swapping out a call for his men to serve and be recognized as heroes with a draft notice telling them to get out front so that they can serve as literal cannon fodder — and I somehow suspect that an offer like that won’t entice too many more men to stick around for their “duties.”
Apart from using John Piper, an avowed heretic that preaches the false gospel of works righteousness, I found this thread very good with 1 disclaimer
I don’t think you understand Deuteronomy 22:5 correctly
A woman is not to wear that which PERTAINETH to a man….that’s the key word right there to your understanding
It’s what is considered exclusively for males that a woman can’t wear
For e.g Jeans on a woman look sexy and attractive YET don’t men wear jeans as well? Should women stop wearing jeans because men wear them? No, because jeans are NOT clothing exclusively that pertains to men, they are worn by both sexes so it’s not a sin for a woman to wear jeans
Trousers on the other hand ARE….I can’t stand women that wear trousers and “pants” as they traditionally are only worn by men
In the end unfortunately its what is current in your particular culture that will help solve this delicate issue
This is why Dalrock is correct when he says it’s the SPIRIT of cross dressing we must oppose
P.S
Check your spam box Dalrock….my comments are being deleted
Cool post Mister “D”. I think women that dress like men need their heads examined. There is a difference when a woman wears men’s jeans versus “woman’s jeans”.You know the type.They are made for women to show off their ass.Those I like.When I see a woman on a construction site and she is wearing men’s work pants,men’s work boots etc.She looks like a “wannabe man”.The same goes for women in uniform.Women cops look like idiots.I always assume they are dykes.I got asked out a few years back by a woman cop.I was out front of the office tower having a coffee enjoying a beautiful morning and a “beat cop”,who walks the area,came over to say hello to me.She was chatting me up and asked if I was married or had a girlfriend? I replied “Nope”…and she said “well good as that gives us a chance to get together”.I laughed and said..”I am sorry but I cannot do that…would you like to know why”?…..She said “Yes I would”. I replied “if I were to go out with a broad like you I would become the laughing stock among my friends,peers and business associates……understand”?…She gave me a dirty,disgusting look and walked away.I have seen her since but she ignores me.Must have been something I said?…..L*
@Luke,
Excellent article, thanks for sharing. Highly recommended to all.
(BTW, the article is actually commenting on Shalit’s latest, Girls Gone Mild.)
Women can dress as men and not be criticized for it.
If men dress as women they are shamed for it.
Why?
Simple. Higher female sex value demands payment.
Part of this payment is females not being criticized when they dress as men.
But men not being exempt from such criticism when they dress like women.
Darwinian Arminian: Men have greater physical strength than women, for example, and so it makes more sense to have them take on the role of warriors when they are needed.
Feminist counter arguments include …
1. Modern military and police work don’t require physical strength. The days of broadswords and armor are over. Modern technology — computers, tanks, planes — can as easily be run by women.
2. Women bring skills to the table that men lack. Women have superior social and verbal skills, which are beneficial in hostage negotiation or prisoner interrogation.
3. Women are smarter than men, or at least think differently. They thereby bring greater diversity of perspectives to problem solving, discovering solutions that male thinking might have missed.
4. I heard a woman make the case that, because women’s lungs are smaller, they are better at running a submarine. Smaller lungs mean they can stay underwater longer.
earl: When I lived in the big city and drove to work early in the morning (2-3am), I’d used to see young college aged women walking by themselves back to wherever after the bars closed. I wouldn’t even want to do that sober and as a man because I knew the risks at that time of night in that part of the city.
Whenever it’s suggested that women shouldn’t walk dangerous streets in the early hours, especially in skimpy clothes, I’ve heard women snarl, “Why should I have to change my behavior just because men have a problem with rape? It’s men who need to change their behavior, not me!”
As a solution, some women have suggested a curfew on all men. No men allowed outside at night unless accompanied by a woman: https://thewalrus.ca/a-curfew-for-men/
The above article appears to be fiction, but its proposal — a curfew on men to stop rape — is serious.
The article also proposes a “majority female police force.”
YO, I REFUSE for this to even be an “issue”:
I rep men to dress like men and WOMEN TO DRESS LIKE WOMEN!
I make it “personally-felt” I don’t “jive” with women wearing “masculine clothing” especially when I know them to be “sisters in Christ” over time.
Men need to “alpha-up” and NOT “go along” with women’s rebellion and put them in check: don’t have nothing serious to do with “unfeminine women” is all a man really needs to do at this point.
I don’t tolerate women being in my personal presence trying to act like men.
I make it uncomfortable to them with me knowing I what I expect of them: to be *FEMININE WOMEN*!
Men at the end of the day it’s simple: only tolerate *FEMININITY* in the women in your life.
Otherwise actively “distance yourselves” from the wayward, rebellious feminist women away from your life.
You can still help them and all just *SET YOUR MASCULINE BOUNDARIES* as a man.
Let’s be *MEN* and not effeminate “wussies”. Amen!
~ Bro. Jed
Oh I know…men are demanded to be honorable and good and women should have the freedom to be rebellious to reality with no negative consequences.
The passage indicated was translated not transliterated.
What it literally means is; “The man shall not take the sexual place of a woman,it is an abomination to God.”
In other words,”putting your cock in another man’s shit hole could give you a fatal disease.”
A little common sense and some Bible study goes a long way.
Most of it is about enforcing health laws for the good of The Tribe.
@freebird
Leviticus 20:13 already says that.
However I’d think a big reason why a man and women shouldn’t cross dress is that it could be the gateway that leads to the abomination Leviticus talks about. Sexual immorality and confusing the sex roles seem to go hand in hand.
DA and RPL, great breakdown of Piper’s tricks and RPL reminding us of the counterarguments. If Piper was a fighter, then he would be using his time to demolish the strongholds by starting in on the points of RPL. Instead, Christians use those counterarguments to increase rebellion and crossdressing. Good work, and I hope you’ll have responses.
With respect my brother, that is already covered in Leviticus 20:13. Why would the author of the text repeat himself in such an elliptical way?
“Take the sexual place of a woman” is much more general (if that even is the correct translation, you’re still wrong) and covers things like Sissy Bruce Jenner putting on a dress and prancing around pretending to be an ugly old chick.
Weird trannies can now get into the ladies public restrooms, and gawk at your little girl as she’s taking a leak. Isn’t this wonderfully CONservative? The GOP house and senate helped push that through. Why don’t we shove them back in the closet?
Boxer
Ha! Earl beat me, as he has before. Hope I never have to stare him down in a wild-west town.
Open rebellion indeed.
This Hollywood shakedown seems like a coordinated attack.
A days doesn’t pass where a man isn’t fired for ‘allegations’ of sexual misconduct.
That’s how much power women have………they can get a man fired with a simple accusation.
Men do not get their day in court. Men are simply summarily fired because a woman somewhere ‘said so’.
No different than a kangaroo court & a firing squad.
I will wager that several (many, like 50%) of these accusations are baseless.
I believe that Harvey Weinstein is a douchebag. I also believe that several of his female accusers were fine with the terms at the time, so long as they got their moment in the spotlight. Those particular women are also douchebags.
The current all out gender war is meant to disempower & terrify the upper echelon of powerful men, few as they may be.
@ Casey
I think you’re right, but take a moment with me to savor some sweet, sweet irony.
Recall that the wave of this kind of accusation started with an assault on Sean Hannity and Bill O’Reilly. They took down Bill, fine, and they meant to hammer Another Republican Luminary of Note, but the feminine herd mentality kicked in – suddenly pointing and shrieking at powerful men was okay & safe, it had to be because so many others were doing it – and since then the Left has been on fire (more so than usual, even).
The people going down – Garisson Keillor and Matt Lauer, fr’instance – have been lecturing US for ages on how to treat women.
This sexual assault crime accusation fashion has backfired bigly. Oh, it’s making my vindictive little soul sing, fellas. It really is.
freebird @ 7:34 am:
“The passage indicated was translated not transliterated.
What it literally means is; “The man shall not take the sexual place of a woman,it is an abomination to God.””
That is not supported by context. Deut. 22:1-12 contains two additional references to garments, thee commands to keep differences separated (don’t yoke oxen with donkeys) and four commands on concern for others. Sexuality is not the topic here; clothing, separation and neighborliness is.
And on a personal note, how am I supposed to tell male from female without clothing? By the (man)boobs? The pixie haircuts? The earrings? The Problem Glasses? If androgyny gets any worse in the Bay Area, I’ll have to start looking at exposed crotches to determine the other person’s sex, like they’re cattle or something.
I think you do not appreciate the evil of what we’re discussing. God made us male and female, and it’s a work of the devil to erase that distinction.
@Dalrock
I was saving this anecdote for an appropriate post here. I was at a retail store last weekend buying some things when I saw couple with their young daughter walking past an aisle of toy guns, knex roller coasters, and miniature drones. The daughter stopped, pointed at the toys, and exclaimed “this is a boy aisle!”
I shudder to think that we’re not far away from a society where such an observation by a child can get you a visit from protective services, because any talk of traditional gender roles by a youngster is a sign of “abuse” according to newly-revised 3×5 index card of allowable opinion as decreed by our wise overlords.
Or worse, a child’s unwillingness to embrace cross-dressing as encouraged by their teacher as part of some classroom instruction or activity will get the parents called into the principals office.
I was walking outside with my wife late at night when it was dark outside, maybe 8 or 9pm, and we saw a youngish woman jogging. I pointed out to my wife the immense risk the woman was taking running outside alone at night. A risk she clearly didn’t think existed (or was and) given her willingness to run in dark with her mp3 player.
…
When I lived in the big city and drove to work early in the morning (2-3am), I’d used to see young college aged women walking by themselves back to wherever after the bars closed.
The classic female response to criticism of such recklessness is WE MUST TEACH MEN NOT TO RAPE, not “we should teach women to avoid dangerous situations” (which is scorned as “victim-blaming”).
‘I think you do not appreciate the evil of what we’re discussing. God made us male and female, and it’s a work of the devil to erase that distinction.’
And that’s the heart of this. Taking something God deems good and inverting it.
Men should not act like women and women should not act like men. Clothing is an outward representation of inward rebellion.
Check this out: https://soulkiln.blog/2017/11/30/and-furthermore/
Elder brother Ed dishes out some “divine perspective” on the sexes. Amen.
~ Bro. Jed
A new film from The Weinstein Company is Mary Magdalene.
From the trailer …
* Mary is depicted as the strong woman behind Jesus, encouraging and supporting Him when even the apostles wimped out.
* Some Hebrews, and even apostles, are portrayed as Africans.
* Mary asks Jesus about his feelings. From The New York Times article: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/29/movies/mary-magdalene-trailer-rooney-mara.html
The new trailer promises the film will reveal “the untold story” of Mary Magdalene and Jesus Christ, who tells her that before she posed the question, “no one ever asked me how it feels” to be the son of God.
Women should love this film. It places the actions of a Strong Womyn at the center of the Gospel story. The film makes it appear (judging by the trailer) that Mary Magdalene’s love and support for Jesus was indispensable to his mission.
This film is a final parting gift from Weinstein.
Feminist counter arguments include …
1. Modern military and police work don’t require physical strength.
This idiotic claim (and yes, I’ve heard it many times) reflects utter ignorance of actual police or military work.
What does a cross-dressing woman look like?
I agree. My guess is that she’d have to be really over the top — like a total masculine cut (not pants or a business suit tailored for a woman’s body, but a chunky male one),
I have seen women wearing male suits and ties (and sometimes just a masculine collared shirt with a tie) and to my mind this was indeed cross-dressing. These women were clearly going out of their way to appear non-feminine, and though I did not ask, I would not have been surprised to learn they were lesbians (they weren’t very good looking).
Another example is when you see a woman wearing a male tuxedo.
‘The new trailer promises the film will reveal “the untold story” of Mary Magdalene and Jesus Christ, who tells her that before she posed the question, “no one ever asked me how it feels” to be the son of God.’
Of course it’s untold…because it’s not true. This is a fiction, but some women probably will think the cinema creation is truth.
That’s exactly right, and serves as just more proof of what Anon and others have been pointing out here for years. Male feminists are driven to their insane ideology not out of genuine concern over women’s safety, but because of neurotic ego-defensive drives: projection, displacement, etc.
If someone (public figure or not) is lecturing you on “showing respect for women” or “stopping rape culture,” you can be sure it is because he, himself, has these sorts of abnormal impulses to rape and abuse women. His peacocking is just an outward expression of his constant lying to himself about his inherently broken nature.
Sick, sick, sick.
@ earlthomas786 says:
November 30, 2017 at 7:41 am
“However I’d think a big reason why a man and women shouldn’t cross dress is that it could be the gateway that leads to the abomination Leviticus talks about. Sexual immorality and confusing the sex roles seem to go hand in hand.”
Remember that slippery slope we discussed earlier? Once you throw yourself down the slippery slope, you don’t get to decide where you stop.
That’s why the greater the virtue (or victim) signaller, the greater thought he or she is hiding something criminal or degenerate.
Trousers in ancient times (Asia) were originally worn by both sexes. It is not clear that women wearing pants are cross dressing.
@ Sunnybutt
@ Boxer
The raging dumpster fire that is liberalism/feminism has now burned past the containing walls of said dumpster.
Anyone and anything that gets in it’s way shall be burned to the ground. Simple.
I agree with both your comments, yet I am equally concerned at how quickly we are willing to accept accusations as proof/fact……..and act upon accusations as if they were proof/fact.
I don’t really know either of the names mentioned, only that they are the latest victims of a culture that has deemed any type of unwanted behaviour as sexual misconduct.
Meanwhile, Erin Andrews will continue to paw at the male dancers on Dancing With the Stars with impunity.
Pingback: Reclaim traditions. | Dark Brightness
@ Boxer & Earl
It’s more than just the male feminist’s degeneracy driving him to that ideology. They know the benefits. They watched feminists fight tooth and nail on Bill Clinton’s behalf, and even offer him blowjobs for defending a woman’s “right” to murder her baby in the womb.
Feminists provided cover – and even nubile young victims – to male feminist degenerates for years. THAT is why male feminists are feminists, because desiccated feminist hags protect male feminists from the consequences of their degeneracy, and even help feed it, as long as the male feminists support the “right” causes and regurgitate the “right” talking points.
I’m just amazed at how the whole edifice began crumbling before our eyes.
@Carnivore
Wow!! It’s not until you see the 2 Flash’s side by side do you realize how emasculated and beta cuck the 2014 recent version is….I honestly prefer the 1990 version
They did the same thing with Cyclops in the movie versions of the X-Men Franchise……In the comics Cyclops stood well over 6 feet tall and could easily go head to head with Captain America, yet in the movies he barely stands 5 and a half feet tall with NO musculature
Don’t get me wrong, I absolutely love the X-Men movies, but you can see how they got just an “average” man to play the part
” Taking something God deems good and inverting it.”
That’s a sermon theme that I would dare a churchian pastor to preach on.
Feminists provided cover – and even nubile young victims – to male feminist degenerates for years. THAT is why male feminists are feminists, because desiccated feminist hags protect male feminists from the consequences of their degeneracy, and even help feed it, as long as the male feminists support the “right” causes and regurgitate the “right” talking points.
I’m just amazed at how the whole edifice began crumbling before our eyes.
It’s clearly because they feel they no longer need them, at least not most of them. Just like women have become their own betas, women are starting to feel like they have become — or can soon become — their own male feminists (i.e., men in positions of power who further feminism), and so they can remove these guys and “do it themselves”. They’re just getting the beta treatment, as women feel they can move in and do it themselves, no beta/male feminist required.
I thought Mary Magdelene was a whore – or was that anoher Mary. There are, of course, a fair number of apocryphal gospels, books which failed to make the short list.
‘I’m just amazed at how the whole edifice began crumbling before our eyes.’
Feminism, especially 3rd wave…was always a house of cards.
It’s almost collapsing as quickly as the Soviet Union finally did in the end.
She was the Mary Jesus cast 7 demons out of. The whore part was something more attributed to the Talmud…but at least biblically we aren’t for certain that was her occupation.
https://www.biblegateway.com/resources/all-women-bible/Mary-Magdalene
And if you think the Talmud is a good source for pointing out who was a whore…it also claims Jesus’s mother was one too. I certainly don’t think so.
Mary Magdelene was a sinful women who had 7 demons…but we don’t know what her sins specifically were.
Women in jeans can look realy good . Women in the milatary is pathetic even the iranian president said so, not enough MEN left in sosciety
I have always taken the biblical text to mean one should not dress to portray themselves as the opposite sex. It should be obvious just by looking at someone to determine their gender.
Fashion styles change over the centuries, so it is difficult to make a hard and fast rule as to specific pieces of clothing.
The simple tunic Jesus wore was probably similar to the one Mary wore.
Male cross dressers are denying their masculinity (and everything that goes with it to assume a feminine persona (and everything that goes with that).
The inverse is true for females–rejecting femininity and assuming a masculine persona. They do this not via clothing, but by assuming male ROLES in society.
Men cross dress with clothing. Women cross dress not with clothing, but with action and attitude.
“women are starting to feel like they have become — or can soon become — their own male feminists (i.e., men in positions of power who further feminism)”
Every corporation has a “Women of X-company” group. And the make a big deal about how they want the men to join too.
What they men is the want middle and upper management men–the ones who can give them a leg up in the company to join.
Disney’s newest princess. Will this be a hit with the churchgoing families? What preacher with children will dare to say “no” ?
https://pjmedia.com/lifestyle/disney-cartoon-star-vs-forces-evil-debuts-first-boy-princess/
The sinful woman who annointed Jesus’s feet is traditionally identified with Mary Magdeline, but the Bible never specifically states it was her.
That is where the Mary M. was a prostitute idea comes from.
The sinful woman who anointed Jesus’s feet is identified as Mary Magdalene in John 12.
John 12:1 Jesus, therefore, six days before the Passover, came to Bethany where Lazarus was, whom Jesus had raised from the dead. 2 So they made Him a supper there, and Martha was serving; but Lazarus was one of those reclining at the table with Him. 3 Mary then took a [a]pound of very costly perfume of pure nard, and anointed the feet of Jesus and wiped His feet with her hair; and the house was filled with the fragrance of the perfume. 4 But Judas Iscariot, one of His disciples, who was intending to [b]betray Him, *said, 5 “Why was this perfume not sold for [c]three hundred denarii and given to poor people?” 6 Now he said this, not because he was concerned about the poor, but because he was a thief, and as he had the money box, he used to pilfer what was put into it. 7 Therefore Jesus said, “Let her alone, so that she may keep [d]it for the day of My burial. 8 For you always have the poor with you, but you do not always have Me.”
9 The large crowd of the Jews then learned that He was there; and they came, not for Jesus’ sake only, but that they might also see Lazarus, whom He raised from the dead. 10 But the chief priests planned to put Lazarus to death also; 11 because on account of him many of the Jews were going away and were believing in Jesus.
Dalrock and all,
This seems pertinen, saw link on Drudge Report… Disney debuts first boy princess in new cartoon show. I can’t even figure out what it’s even supposed to be about it’s so nonsensical, but something like a boy crossdresses as a princess to save some other weird princesses and he ends up being a princess too…
https://pjmedia.com/lifestyle/disney-cartoon-star-vs-forces-evil-debuts-first-boy-princess/amp/
It never ends. Lord help us.
[D: Thanks! I saw that too. I think I’ll do a short post with the video on Friday.]
@Red Pill Latecomer
Feminist counter arguments include …
Even if I bought any of that (and I don’t**) you would still have the same problem that Piper has:
1. You want men to perform certain dangerous and difficult tasks for the benefit of your cause.
2. You can’t suggest that men have any inborn gift for those tasks, lest the women feel slighted.
With a situation like that, Pastor John is in the interesting position of having to make a plea to men that goes something like this: We need you to work hard to accomplish great feats on our behalf. But don’t you dare start thinking that we never could have done them without you! There’s no reason he can’t put out a call like that, but why on earth would you expect that the men would ever want to sign up for it? It’s both contradictory and hypocritical, and many men who hear it are going to suspect that they’re being conned. Guess what? They’re not wrong.
If women are just as good as men at the job, then there’s no reason that they can’t — or shouldn’t — be able to do it on their own. But if the women can finish the job and you still insist that the men are obligated to do it in their stead, then you’ve pretty much put the men in the position of being a lower-caste grunt: Someone who doesn’t have the status or the abilities of those in the higher levels, but gets enlisted to do the jobs that the beautiful people would prefer not to dirty their hands with. That’s not a terribly attractive prospect, and we shouldn’t be surprised when men don’t want to sign up for it. Why would they? They will be offered neither the satisfaction that they are valuable and necessary, nor gratitude for their performance once they have completed the job. It’s yet another example of the church sacrificing incentives for men in the hope that such an act will gain them the favor of their modern culture — and no pastor even thinks to call it idol worship.
** Even when the task is one that relies almost entirely on brain power men still perform at a higher level than women do. A great example of this is competitive chess, where a separate division had to be created exclusively for female players. Why? Because people started noticing that at the top levels of the game the male contestants had already beaten nearly all of the women. And as for your idea that thanks to modern technology war no longer has a physical aspect and can be waged by someone sitting at a desk . . . . Dalrock already dealt with that argument here: https://dalrock.wordpress.com/2011/02/15/dying-to-be-treated-like-one-of-the-guys/
A twofer.
Darwinian Arminian blows away Piper’s smoke screen, then summarizes modern church feminism:
women’s bodies and experiences give them a unique way of looking at things that the church must put to use, even while insisting that those same differences shouldn’t ever be used to stop her from performing in any role that she pleases:
@Oscar,
It identifies the woman’s name as Mary, but not specifically as Mary Magdalene.
Mary was a common name at the time. Heck, there were three major female characters in the New Testament named Mary.
I’m not saying it isn’t Mary Magdalene (tradition says it is), but we can’t be 100% percent positive from the text. Given the popularity of the name at the time, it is also possible that this is yet another (4th) Mary.
Men cross dress with clothing. Women cross dress not with clothing, but with action and attitude.
I think you’ve nailed it.
RE: male feminists (and Leftists in general)
It just occurred to me that they resemble Muslim extremists.
Muslim terrorists believe they have the freedom to do anything they want in the service of Allah – murder, rape (even fellow Muslims), screw infidel whores, take drugs, drink alcohol, eat pork… EVERYTHING is permissible for them, so long as they murder some infidels in the process.
Likewise, Leftists believe they can do anything they want – including violating everything they claim to believe in – so long as they take down some non-Leftists in the process.
Leftism is a dangerous religion.
Trousers in ancient times (Asia) were originally worn by both sexes. It is not clear that women wearing pants are cross dressing.
If you are implying that folks in ancient Asia didn’t differentiate between male clothing from female clothing, I call BS.
@ Otto Lamp says:
November 30, 2017 at 5:05 pm
“It identifies the woman’s name as Mary, but not specifically as Mary Magdalene.”
It identifies the woman who bathes Jesus’s feet specifically as the sister of Martha and Lazarus, whom Jesus raised from the dead. Scripture doesn’t tell us that Mary, sister of Martha and Lazarus, was Mary Magdalene, but Church tradition does, and we have no reason to doubt the claim.
I noticed the verse is kind of loose (for lack of a better term) when it speaks to women, but for men it specifically says “garment”. I think its an important point, and that quote may be the key.
Looking at the Bible verse again I think you may be right as well. If you notice the garment part was said for men. There is no garment declaration to women…so I’d take that as women trying to put on a male role.
@Snapper…I didn’t see you post before me when I was constructing mine, but as you can see we both noticed it.
Let’s not forget tattoos on women. Arguably it’s the worst form of cross-dressing, because not only does it openly advertise high n-counts on sluts, the disfiguration is far more permanent than hair/wardrobe/attitude alterations which can be reversed quite easily.
They also tend to ruin whatever remaining feminine features a woman may be fortunate to have. A feminine dress and submissive attitude is simply erased by a single tattoo on the bicep or pubic bone.
It used to be that a former slut would at least try to maintain plausible deniability of her sexual past before duping an unsuspecting schlub. Now she proudly displays it on her body. That is why tattoos have become *the* symbol of female rebellion for the under-30 crowd.
That’s exactly right, and serves as just more proof of what Anon and others have been pointing out here for years. Male feminists are driven to their insane ideology not out of genuine concern over women’s safety, but because of neurotic ego-defensive drives: projection, displacement, etc.
Yes. So many ‘male feminists’ have been outed as predators that Instapundit now brands this as an official theme :
https://pjmedia.com/instapundit/?s=male+feminist
It is the perfect cover for a predator, really (at least until too many predators got caught).
Why does Manboobz Futrelle work *so* hard to churn out so many articles? Day after day, year after year?
Well, his pedophila (and worse) has been documented by JudgyBitch :
http://judgybitch.com/2015/03/27/david-futrelle-redefines-the-words-sick-motherfucker/
Piper and his colleagues went into fever dream mode, pretending that men were forcing reluctant women to act like men. Piper wrote:
It still boggles the mind that these pastorbators can manage this level of mental malpractice.
If the faggots knew anything at all about female nature, they would know that if the men of a particular society do not wish to fight to save that society, the women of that society switch sides quite immediately and without regret.
The notion that women will fight to defend ‘their’ country is absurd.
feeriker,
Apparently the number of predatory acts against lone women must be still sufficiently small that these foolhardy twats can still afford to think “that’ll never happen to ME” and have the odds prove them right.
You are forgetting that the female brain is incapable of connecting cause and effect. If it were, then there would be a mass exodus of women from countries where bad things happen to women, into the West. This is not happening (most immigration to the West is still male).
A former squeeze of mine – a gold-plated Grade A+++ slut was much into Mary Magdalene. I thus see veneration of her (Mary Magdalene) as a get-out-of-gaol free card for sluts. Jesus loves them, Jesus is their Beta boyfriend, Jesus is in their friend-zone. Isn’t religion wonderful.
At school they would not let me sit the Religious examination. You can see why I found it so difficult and confusing.
Not the feminist one.
Don’t let your former slut of a gf form the perception of Mary Magdalene. She was quite the important figure in the Gospel. She was at the foot of the cross during Christ’s crucifixtion and…she was the first to know that Jesus was resurrected. Christ was her Savior…not a beta boyfriend.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary_Magdalene
The fundamental issue here is about whether or not it is acceptable for men (the heads of society) to exclude women. And the answer from everyone (but most egregiously from Christians) is: “No.”
These comments about women’s pants in Asia, or Roman men’s robes, are totally wrongheaded. Whether legs are wrapped versus draped, and which for whom, is a subjective decision of a society. However, subjective does not mean irrelevant, or unimportant. It means we should use our freedom to orient towards the good, the true, and the beautiful. That orientation is more important than whether or not we can suss out the Natural Law of Pants and Robes.[1] The search for the science of pants is a silly distraction used by the perverse and libertine to discredit and mock sound cultural standards and further the destruction of good order. They are like so-called environmentalists who uproot gardens so that weeds may flourish “naturally”.
The importance of holding subjective standards and symbols which (while themselves not objective truths) do point to objective truths and reality needs to be considered much more thoroughly than it is; even by men who think themselves as “seeing”, “woke” or “Red-Pilled”…including myself.
[1] Probably the natural law of human clothing is, “Be sinless and naked”.
@SnapperTrx
Your blogs are festooned with cross-dressed women. I’m boggled by your promotion of, drawing, and gaming with fantasy female warriors.
“Festooned”. Good one, I actually had to look the word up. Don’t be boggled, it has absolutely no bearing on your life, thoughts or actions.
what about women working and their husbands looking after the home
is that cross dressing?
I keep reading articles on how ‘Christian” Sarah Huckabee Sanders is and how she prays everyday ( Trump’s mouthpiece)
yet she has a house husband and plays the role of a man
she does where dresses though so is it fine?
Which cultural standards though Cane? When are they “good” and when are they “bad”? That is the danger of taking the “pants are male” approach many do today.
Why are the 1950s inherently “holier” than now, since they definitely led to now.
@SnapperTrx
Sure it does. We occupy some of the same space. We exchange ideas with some of the same people. Like seeds and infections: Ideas spread and are transmitted in a particular place and people.
Regardless: Gun Girls and fantasy warrior women promote crossdress; especially of the behavioral and spiritual kind. It’s something for you to think about.
@ BillyS says:
December 1, 2017 at 1:36 pm
“Why are the 1950s inherently ‘holier’ than now, since they definitely led to now.”
To answer that question in regards to this particular subject, you need to answer these questions. Was there more clarity in the 1950s about what is a man and what is a woman, or is there more clarity now? Is there more confusion now about what is a man and what is a woman, or was there more confusion in the 1950s?
1950s America had its own besetting sins. Every generation does. But, on this particular subject, that generation had a lot more moral clarity than this current generation does.
Wait till this movie comes out
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/On_the_Basis_of_Sex
We will hear all the complementarians talking about what an excellent husband Martin Ginsburg was…
running the home to sacrificially support his wife
Oscar,
That is true, but the 1950s laid the groundwork for what came after. It seemed good on the outside, but was rotten on the inside. That is the problem with idolizing the past, it has feet of clay.
John Piper is also going off the rails in other parts of theology.
Just google “Brannon Howse John Piper”. Here’s a video link to one of his video’s:
https://www.worldviewweekend.com/tv/video/john-piper-his-own-words-exposes-his-heretical-christian-hedonism-unbiblical-definition
@Oscar
Much as I like a lot of LAUREN SOUTHERN’s views, I don’t trust her
Why doesn’t she “marry, bear children, and guide the house” 1st Timothy 5:14 ?
I mean, after all, she is an attractive woman….yet she continues to avoid relationships etc
@BillyS
At this point it should dawn on you this this question is at the heart of the OP, and that we’ve not only lost the distinction, but the ability to make the distinction.
What danger? There’s fear, but is there really danger?
Oh she talked about that recently.
I am not quite sure how this fits into the discussion on this thread here, exactly, but I do know that it does, somehow.
Have at it, gentlemen. 🙂
— Pax Christi Vobiscum
“Much as I like a lot of LAUREN SOUTHERN’s views, I don’t trust her
Why doesn’t she “marry, bear children, and guide the house” 1st Timothy 5:14 ?
I mean, after all, she is an attractive woman….yet she continues to avoid relationships etc”
She’s not Christian, she’s Canadian.
To be serious: I don’t think she identifies as a Christian.
pb says:
“Much as I like a lot of LAUREN SOUTHERN’s views, I don’t trust her
Why doesn’t she “marry, bear children, and guide the house” 1st Timothy 5:14 ?
I mean, after all, she is an attractive woman….yet she continues to avoid relationships etc”
She’s not Christian, she’s Canadian.
To be serious: I don’t think she identifies as a Christian.
Lauren Southern does mention in one of her videos that she was a member of a typical Christo-Leftoid church, as identified as a Christian. She went on a ”short-term mission”, where she got photographed with a bunch of Third World kids, after which she was taken to some amusement park to ”de-stress from trauma”
Southern, and Faith Goldy , her partner at Rebel Media, both identify as Christian (Goldy as an Eastern Orthodox). What is most likely is that deep down, they want their ”freedom” – which Dalrock once described as ”travel, career, implied casual sex, and not having to waste a second of her youth, fertility and time on her husband”. Even if this is subconscious, I believe it to be there.
Just as Tomi Laren appeared on The View and shocked her fans by saying she was pro-choice (read: ”I’ll kill my own babies if it suits me”), these girls are ultimately a disappointment. They might be poster girls, but if civilization is to be saved, or rebuilt, or the ideological war we are fighting turns hot, don’t rely on them.
Lauren Southern is not a Christian. She parades herself around like a typical Western women, fishing for compliments and followers to feed her desires rather than a husband with which to start a family and actually practice a Faith. She is not the woman you are looking for…
Faith Goldy is a different beast entirely, she actually has faith but she has also wasted her youth in search of some other fulfillment besides family. At least she is serious about what she believes.
Neither are going to save Western Civilisation no matter how much they think so.
Much as I like a lot of LAUREN SOUTHERN’s views, I don’t trust her
Why doesn’t she “marry, bear children, and guide the house” 1st Timothy 5:14 ?
I mean, after all, she is an attractive woman….yet she continues to avoid relationships etc
She’s a typical CONservative wo.an, utterly indistinguishable from her leftist sisters except for the fact that she’s less overt in her promiscuity. It used to be that you could at least distinguish “conservative” feminists from run-of-the-mill liberal feminists by their anti-abortion stance. As Tomi Laren proves, you can’t even do THAT anymore with any degree of accuracy or reliability. Just the fact that NO “conservative” women of any renown or influence called Laren out on her pro-choice stance tells us all we need to know.
Neither [Lauren Southern or Faith Goldy] are going to save Western Civilisation no matter how much they think so.
No women of any persuasion are going to save Western Civilization. Women DESTROY civilizations, not build them or rescue them. Any man who thinks that women are the key to civilizational salvation is the very worst and most contemptible sort of fool.
Yet Another Commenter, Yet Another Comment (“Yac-Yac”) says:
December 1, 2017 at 9:53 pm
Unforgiveable. If Hope Hicks were a hideous bulldyke (I dunno. Is she a dyke?), then maybe that sartorial crime would be understandable. Otherwise, she should have been sent home to change into something appropriate, along with receiving a very public reprimand (AND made to apologize to everyone in attendance – especially visiting Prime Minister Abe).
If Hicks’ boss condones such behavior, it’s a very big black mark against him.
I’m so glad this meme is finally taking off. I’ve been attempting to spread it since the old Spearhead days.
The only thing conservatives do is try to slow down the slippery slope the liberals are taking us down. They aren’t actually trying to stop it or turn it around.
I think it got hung up in moderation but Lauren did a 5 minute video on youtube why she isn’t married yet.
You’ll be shocked at her reasoning…it’s almost like she’s a woman.
Men build civilizations…women birth and nurse sons.
I bet Piper has taught plenty of times that a husband should be first to apologize in a stalemate and taught husbands that wives are right to correct us, but here comes his blindspot: These pastors never teach that husbands should correct their wives. So our lead should be demonstrated in prostration only, never in strength, unless its romance, then its ok, but I see to much overlap with prostration in romantic gestures. These leading pastors burden so many men and marriages. Not only do they not answer for it, but they fight hard against any correction.
@earlthomas786
Nah I won’t be shocked at her reasoning…….Lauren is a wolf in sheep’s clothing, and a typical woman
Her garbage excuses for why she isn’t married in that video of hers are so laughable that most of the comment section are taking her to task for her hypocrisy
‘Lauren is a wolf in sheep’s clothing, and a typical woman’
She’s a typical woman. I’d put her in the same camp as Tomi Lahren…she looks pretty and can repeat scripted talking points that’ll attract plenty of male attention, but if you push her into a corner her true colors come out.
Cane,
You failed to make the case exactly why a given set of “cultural standards” is correct, at least in the context of wearing pants. No Scripture prohibits it (or even mentions pants that I know of), so it is not a point to take a Biblical stance on.
Though I have raised the “what does it mean for a woman to dress like a man today” with several leaders only to get blank stares in return along with the “I won’t force women to wear skirts,” so it is clear few leaders, if any, think about the issue.
I don’t dispute that women should not look masculine, but I have to have clear Biblical support to make it a Biblical mandate, by definition. I don’t think even Earl could find it in past RCC teaching.
She’s a typical woman. I’d put her in the same camp as Tomi Lahren…she looks pretty and can repeat scripted talking points that’ll attract plenty of male attention, but if you push her into a corner her true colors come out.
This is an accurate blanket description of EVERY woman that the CONservative media outlets put in front of a teleprompter or a keyboard.
The only clothing mandate I could find is that you dress modestly. I’d argue that needs to be stressed more.
@BillyS
I didn’t fail to make a case for women not wearing pants because I didn’t try to make such a case. The case I made was: The problem is that men aren’t allowed to exclude women from anything (including clothing), or to make sound subjective decisions about how women should behave.
However, you did provide a perfect example of the dismissal of subjective authority that I wrote about.
Have not read all the comments so I apologize, but its very hard to get worked up about this amid a host of other sins. Even if I were to get worked up, clothes are fashion and fashion changes. Our host correctly focuses on the principle represented.
Are pants boy clothes? I could be accepting a feminist proposition or I could be rejecting the proposition that fashion has an eternal standard. I think working the principles that God recognizes gender differences and feminists seek to obscure them is reasonable. In our hosts responses he makes it clear that this is so obscured that we cannot even imagine a way a woman could cross dress. The real problem is that “cross dressing” is a symptom of a disease where we have lost Gods understanding of our gender and identify.
But isn’t it possible that this symptom is also not related to the disease? Not everyone with a fever has the flu. Could it be possible that women could not “cross dress” because of fashions developments and for there to be no relation to their widespread rebellion?
Societies reflection that only boys can cross dress is also a reflection that boys fashion has always been more narrow in Western nations. But even things like boys getting earrings can become fashion and be normalized. Is that a sin, are boys with earrings cross dressing? What if they come to Christianity from cultures where the boys wear the earrings? In their culture they are not cross dressing, but if they come to the US they are?
We correctly focus on the importance of the roles God has for us, but in this case I think the clothes are as often a diversion as they are a symptom. Women display rebellion in so many more ways clearly linked to the principles that God has outlined that it seems worrying about trying to correctly diagnose which clothes are cross dressing and which are fashion isn’t worth the effort. My advice to my daughter would be – be modest, have longish hair, and act feminine. Focus on being a woman, and don’t worry about fashion because God has not given us nearly enough information pertaining to today to be actionable beyond the represented principle. If He gives personal direction to quit wearing pants – do that. But otherwise, not worth getting worked up about. And don’t wear combat boots.
Pingback: But Pants Aren’t in the Bible! | Things that We have Heard and Known
Addressing cross-dressing is certainly relevant, as it at least makes clear that God has set identity boundaries on male and female behaviour, which should be respected by society. In that sense the whole relatively new idea of “gender” — the proposition that gender identity is a personal choice, not a biological trait — comes very close to intentionally blurring these boundaries.
The same could be said about ‘head covering’ in 1 Cor 11, which also is related to wearing a visual token that represents the different authorities in man and woman.
In general: society trying to remove clear male-female boundaries is clearly in for a lot of associated evils.
Even though men and women wear the same garments women’s and men’s clothing does exist and can be distinguished fairly easily. Just like ancient robes of men and women were distiguished sure everyone’s wearing a tunic but they are different.
And yes you can tell a cross dressing woman, they’re called dyke lesbians. These women can easily be distinguished from your average woman. even women dressed in combat gear often look like lesbians, these garments absolutely make the women look masculine. Now yes it’s not as offensive when a man dresses like a woman, but I don’t think that’s because of modern feminism I think in any era this would be the case, it’s just different because women who dress like men can more easily still attract males who have a lowed standard due to sexual competition while men dressing like women are absolutely repulsive to women who seek the strong “alpha males” or males who can protect and provide (beta males).
@Paul
Gender is not biological sex is. Gender is that which we associate with sex. Ex: the color pink being associated with women and girls is gendered, feminine. The problem today is confusion surrounding these words and their definitions. Gender is relative to sex, without distinct sexes there can be no genders, also there can only be as many genders as there sexes, two. The idea that sex is completely “separate” from gender and that gender can somehow exist outside the concept of sex is what’s causing all this confusion. Now that gender has been detached from sex it has literally no meaning at all, hence the infinite number of “genders”. What’s worse is this word seeks to replace sex, as to erase the concept from our minds, humans are no longer a sex they are “genders” — the word still has no definition but an anti definition “not your sex”. We need to use the words correctly and fight the insane liberals trying to “redefine” everything. Gender is feminine or masculine humans are male or female. A male human can behave or dress feminine but that does not ever change his sex.
@Evegreys
I know gender is by definition not biological sex. However, gender as concept was introduced (!) less than a century ago to separate male-female identity from their biological sex. Feminism pushed (!) the idea of gender to blur the male-female identity lines. [Before this ‘gender’ was ONLY used to indicate grammatical constructs]
Although we now consider it ‘neutral’, even ‘normal’ to talk about gender, it absolutely is not.
Pingback: This Week In Reaction (2017/12/04) - Social Matter
I tired of Piper’s smug liberalism a long time ago.
Pingback: Don’t worry. We’ll get used to it. | Dalrock
I’ll leave this here:
Last night I switched on my wireless to listen to a concert given by the BBCSO under its chief conductor the Finn Sakari Oromo. It being exactly one hundred years since Finland became an independent Republic (rather than an autonomous Grand Duchy under Russian overlordship) Mr Oromo made a little speech. Half way through the short address he remarked that Finnish women were strong. He paused and slowly grew a gathering of applause. He then mentioned a female artist, a female poet and a female sculptor from his country none of whom I had previously heard.
Why strong women are a good thing and what attribute is required to be a strong woman is never explained. Finland, last year, produced just fifty thousand live births which is to say as low as the births produced in its famine of 1867. Strong women must thus be women who fail to reproduce. Applauding such is the applauding of genocide. Happily Finland will go on as it has its full quota of Somalians, Syrians and Iraqis.
Had Mr Oramo really believed what he implied he would surely have handed over the podium to a woman and the music played would have been by a woman. Oramo played Sibelius. Hypocrite.
Pingback: Are We Careful to Not Cross Dress? – The Transformed Wife
Pingback: Christians Say the Darnedest Things: Women Who Wear Men's Clothing Are Rebellious Crossdressers | The Life and Times of Bruce Gerencser
I think intent is very important here. If a woman is trying to be seen as “masculine”— especially in a sexual way it is against the Bible and God. The same goes for men. However if it is a practical matter, as it is in factories (for safety etc.) and other physical labor work, then God I believe has no issue. Skirts/dresses for men, such as kilts and robes etc. can be quite comfortable in certain situations as well, and if it is a matter of pure comfort and not because the man is trying to be like a woman for sexual or other purposes then again it seems ok. Intent is key.
Pingback: Cross dressing snuck up in our blind spot – Ellustar Fashion
Pingback: Will trans acceptance push women to look more feminine? | Dalrock