For context see this post. You can also see the whole series.
This is I believe our longest exchange, and I’ll apologize in advance for any difficulty my readers have keeping track of who wrote what. However, I think at the end we got to the meat of the issue. I’ve separated our emails by marking the boundaries between them. Nathan’s comments are in blockquotes. My responses are in normal typeface with quotes that I use to bolster my argument in blockquotes. Where I’m re-quoting Nathan in my response or he is re-quoting me in his response I precede the quote with “@Nathan” and “@Dalrock“.
Unlike the rest of the series, this discussion wasn’t a response to a specific question Nathan asked. Instead it is in response to a comment he made when proposing the interview. I chose to add it to the exchange because it captures what I think is core to our disagreement:
[—————————————Begin my email to Nathan—————————————]
@Nathan
If I’m not mistaken, you see the work of my pastor and others like him as somehow undercutting the concept of female moral agency. I see your work as needlessly undercutting male responsibility in the name of establishing female moral agency.
The problem is that the most ridiculous things are being claimed as male responsibility in order to deny reality and therefore shirk responsibility. Feminists openly and methodically marched through all of our institutions for decades. Conservative Christians responded to this by simply denying that it was happening. Changing the subject to men, no matter how ridiculous, is the go-to coping mechanism here. This is why we have Pastor Doug Wilson teaching that a Christian husband is responsible for making his wife more physically attractive. Wilson starts by parroting the very feminists he fears confronting:
A common assumption in the world is that women must “keep themselves up” in order to keep a man. In the world of attracting and being attracted, women are taught to view themselves as being primarily responsible for their own attractiveness or loveliness. This viewpoint is inculcated early. Once young girls used to play with baby dolls, seeing themselves in the role of the nurturing mother; now they can be seen playing with Barbie dolls, seeing themselves in the place of the doll. And of course, the doll is both pretty and stacked. The pressure is on and stays on.
But Wilson has a solution to the feminist condemnation of the evil patriarchy. Christian men are shirking their God given responsibility!
The Bible teaches that a Christian husband is responsible for the loveliness of his wife.
I’ll note that this isn’t a dumb comment Wilson made off the cuff. This particular dumb comment is from his book Reforming Marriage*. I’ll also note that Wilson clarifies that he doesn’t mean this metaphorically:
When husbands undertake the assigned responsibility of loving their wives in such a way that they grow in loveliness, they need to understand that the results will be visible.
It isn’t just Wilson who makes up this kind of zany stuff to avoid confronting feminism. Feminists, like gays, have been pushing for decades to fully integrate the armed forces, including front line combat and submarines. If conservative Christians were ever going to find the courage to confront the feminists, it would be on this topic. This is at most a secondary issue for the average conservative Christian woman. Very few conservative Christian women want to don combat boots and go to war. Moreover, what these women are doing is the Old Testament definition of cross dressing. But still, even here the thought of confronting the rebellion of a handful of butch feminists in the pews was simply too much. So conservative Christians invented a fiction that women weren’t coveting men’s roles, and instead men were forcing women to push their way into combat by shirking their responsibility. Can you imagine historians a few decades from now coming across resolutions like this, or the statements I quote here, here, and here? No one outside the rarefied world of conservative Christians believes this is what is happening. Try telling this to someone on the street; they will laugh at you, and rightly so!
Examples of this are everywhere. One common claim is that feminism is the logical reaction to Christian men shirking their responsibilities. In one sense they are acknowledging feminism, but at the same time they deny what is really happening. The CBMW asked Mary Kassian:
In practical ways in your marriage relationship, how do you balance gender equality with male headship?
If you aren’t familiar with her Kassian is a Woman’s Studies professor at Southern Baptist Seminary, and was with the CBMW founders when they created the name complementarian. Kassian replies explaining that because her husband fulfills his responsibility she doesn’t feel the temptation of feminist rebellion (emphasis mine):
…the question of male-female equality has not been an issue in my mind. I am secure and confident in who God has made me as a woman. Brent upholds and guards my “equality” so I do not feel the need to do so.
Pastor Matt Chandler makes the same argument in his sermon Women’s Hurdles (transcript). Chandler explains that if a Christian husband fulfills his responsibility to love his wife, she can’t be tempted into feminist rebellion:
Really, men, here is a great way to gauge how you’re serving, loving, and practicing your headship. If the most secularized feminist in the world showed up in your home and began to kind of coach your wife toward freedom and liberation from your tyranny, our wives should be so well cared for, so nourished, so sowed into and loved, they would say, “What you’re describing is actually tyranny. I love where I am. I am honored. I am encouraged. My man sacrifices so that I might grow in my gifts. He will oftentimes lay down his own desires in order to serve me more. My husband goes to bed tired at night. He pours into our children. He encourages me. All that comes out of his mouth, sans a couple of little times here and there, is him building me up in love.”
…
Men, here is a good opportunity. If you’re like, “Well, gosh, I don’t think she would say that at all,” then, men, I think on the way home, you should probably repent and confess before the Lord to your wife.
This stuff is flat out nuts, but no one notices within conservative Christianity because it is so common and it has been going on for so long. I could offer more examples, but instead I’ll pose some questions to you. Do you believe any of the following:
- The Bible teaches that a Christian husband is responsible for the loveliness of his wife.
- The reason feminists are pushing to open combat for women is because men are refusing to fight.
- Women can’t be tempted into feminist rebellion if their husbands love them sufficiently.
The irony of all of this is men really are abdicating their responsibility. These absurd lies are used by cowardly men to avoid manning up and challenging the feminist rebellion. In this sense I hope we are aligned. You want men to man up. I want men to man up. But manning up doesn’t mean cowering in fear while striking a heroic pose. Manning up means doing what is difficult. We are failing Christian women, and women in general. But we aren’t failing them by not making them pretty, or forcing them to insist on taking on the roles of men, or making it possible for them to feel the temptation to sin.
Again I’ll stop here to let you get a word in edgewise.
*For more context of the quotes, see this post.
[——————————————-Nathan Replied——————————————]
To answer your questions:
@Dalrock
- The Bible teaches that a Christian husband is responsible for the loveliness of his wife.
In one sense, a Christian husband is responsible for everything about his wife. He is her head. This is not mutually exclusive with her being a moral agent fully capable of making her own choices, and responsible for the ramifications of said choices. Do I think that a husband can magically make his wife more physically attractive by caring for her? No. Do I understand, in a general sort of way, what people who make those claims are getting at—that a loved woman is a lovely woman? Yes. Do I think the rhetoric on that point can be overwrought, even misleading, especially among pansy complementariness like Chandler? 100% yes.
2. The reason feminists are pushing to open combat for women is because men are refusing to fight.
Again it seems fairly obvious that both things are true. Women are moral agents who are tempted to rebel. And men are moral agents who are tempted to abdicate. Adam abdicates in Genesis 3, and Eve is straight up told by God she will rebel. We can parse the rhetoric or this or that public figure, but any doctrine that denies men’s temptation to abdicate, or women’s temptation to rebel is wrong.
3. Women can’t be tempted into feminist rebellion if their husbands love them sufficiently.
No. Their husbands must also rule over them and discipline them. And even then, women are moral agents. Some of them will harden their hearts against God. Some of them will fall away from the faith. Some of them will remain submissive and pure-hearted and feminine even if their husbands are jerks who don’t love them at all. There are a lot of women in this world that will do a lot of different things.
But very generally, if a husband loves his wife and rules over her well, she will be less likely to be tempted to rebel, just the same as if a king loves his subjects and rules over them well, they will be less tempted to rebel. That’s just common sense. We can’t throw that out just because many people use that kind of language to deny female moral agency.
[—————————————-My reply to Nathan—————————————]
@Nathan
2. The reason feminists are pushing to open combat for women is because men are refusing to fight.
Again it seems fairly obvious that both things are true. Women are moral agents who are tempted to rebel. And men are moral agents who are tempted to abdicate. Adam abdicates in Genesis 3, and Eve is straight up told by God she will rebel. We can parse the rhetoric or this or that public figure, but any doctrine that denies men’s temptation to abdicate, or women’s temptation to rebel is wrong.
I’ll circle back on the other two**, but for now want to probe you on this. I don’t think you understood what I’m saying. Conservative Christians are saying the reason women are pushing to integrate all parts of the armed forces is because men are unwilling to fight. Do you really believe that is what is going on, even though feminists tell us they are doing it to advance feminism? If so, do you feel the same way about gays pushing into the military? Are they doing so because straight men are refusing to fight, regardless of what gay activists tell us? Likewise, are cis men refusing to fight, which led to transgendereds insisting on being admitted into the military? The other day I heard (second hand) about a man making the same excuse for women pushing to be ordained as pastors; a Christian man said they had to, because men were refusing to become pastors.
[**Given the length of the thread I ended up not circling back on those two topics in this part of the discussion.]
[——————————————-Nathan Replied——————————————]
Of course there are rebellious feminist women out there who are pushing for rebellious feminist agendas. When feminists tell me that’s what they’re doing, I believe them. They are culpable, they are wicked, they should be called to repent.
To use the military example, if every lazy man in America repented and said he was willing to work hard in defense of this country, we would still have to contend with rebellious feminist women who want to usurp their bounds.
That said, it seems obvious that these things tend to grow in an environment where men are evading responsibility. To admit that is not to deny the other things.
[—————————————-My reply to Nathan—————————————]
@Nathan:
Of course there are rebellious feminist women out there who are pushing for rebellious feminist agendas. When feminists tell me that’s what they’re doing, I believe them. They are culpable, they are wicked, they should be called to repent.
But they haven’t been called to repent, and won’t be, because complementarians insist on changing the subject to men. This is exactly what has happened and continues to happen on the subject of women pushing into combat. Complementarians form consensus with feminists that men are bad and women should be cherished, and the matter is left there. In theory someone, somewhere will hold women accountable for crossdressing. But never complementarians, and never today. See the PCA resolution on the subject that Pastor Bayly led. Women rebelled by demanding to take on men’s roles, so the PCA drafted a resolution condemning men for not fulfilling their roles (a lie), and then stressed the importance of cherishing and protecting women (a non sequitur at best). This is cruel to women and girls. Imagine if we did the same thing to boys. Imagine if we responded to [men] cross dressing by declaring that we are appalled that men feel the need to be feminine because women won’t do it, and men deserve more than they currently get from women. This would ironically be more true than the claim for women and the military. But it would still be a lie, and it would be cruel to men and boys who are tempted to sin in the way [crossdressing men] are sinning, because we would be sending the most confusing message imaginable to them in order to avoid offending [crossdressers].
@Nathan:
To use the military example, if every lazy man in America repented and said he was willing to work hard in defense of this country, we would still have to contend with rebellious feminist women who want to usurp their bounds.
This misses the point. You may as well change the statement to:
If every rude man in America covered his mouth when he coughed, we would still have to contend with rebellious feminist women who want to usurp their bounds.
Because one has nothing to do with the other. Even worse, we don’t have a problem with men being unwilling to work hard in the defense of the country. This implies that Christian men like myself and Pastor Bayly who have never joined the military sinned by not having done so. It is a lie.
@Nathan
That said, it seems obvious that these things tend to grow in an environment where men are evading responsibility. To admit that is not to deny the other things.
Of course it is to deny the other things. As I pointed out with multiple links, this is what is being done regarding women in the military. I urge you to go check the sources and see what I mean. Bayly’s PCA resolution blamed men for non existent sins and didn’t confront women’s real sins. The same is true for the examples I provided by John Piper, Joe Carter, Denny Burk and Owen Strachan here. The same is true for the quotes I provided from Doug Phillips’ Vision Forum here. The same is true for the other example I provided by CBMW Executive Director Owen Strachan here. In all of these cases the sin of women demanding to crossdress and usurp the roles of men was not addressed. Making up sins for men absolutely is being used to avoid holding women responsible. If I’m wrong, it should be trivially easy for you to prove it to me since the links are all there. I urge you, please show me where any of these examples state that a woman wanting to go into combat is sinning.
[——————————————-Nathan Replied——————————————]
I can see that it will take a lot more discussion and shifting through the sources for us to come to any terms on this point. I wouldn’t be surprised if this ends up being the crux of our discussion, and it may be the crux of our eventual podcast on the subject.
However, it would be helpful to me if we could address the broader spectrum of questions I’ve sent you. And then we can circle back around and dig down as we need to. That would help give me the context I need. As we have the deeper discussions, I want to make sure I understand fully where you’re coming from. Hope that makes sense.
[—————————————-My reply to Nathan—————————————]
I’m fine with that. Hopefully I’ll have more for you shortly.
[I then followed up with:]
FYI,
I just went through these myself to make sure I hadn’t missed anything the first time around. I count ten separate references nested the links I provided above.
- Pastor Bayly: PCA report on women in combat.
- John Piper: Co-ed Combat and Cultural Cowardice
- John Piper: More on women in combat.
- Joe Carter: Women in Combat: A Good Idea?
- Denny Burk: Women in Combat and the Undoing of Civilization
- Owen Strachan: Women Should Not Be in Combat (Says a Female Marine Captain)
- Owen Strachan: Women in combat: A complementarian perspective
- Vision Forum issues page
- Vision Forum Women in Military page
- Vision Forum America the Barbarous: New Pentagon Policy Sanctions Women in Combat
I reviewed all of them and they are 10 for 10 in blaming men, and 10 for 10 in avoiding the issue of women’s rebellion. As Dr. Jason K. Allen, President of Midwestern Baptist Theological Seminary puts it:
Biblical complementarity is not fundamentally about what opportunities women must forgo, but what responsibilities men must take up.
[——————————————-End of Exchange——————————————]
Note: Nathan reiterated at the end of our process that he may be adding further replies in the podcast. Also, in our email exchange I referred to a famous crossdressing man. I’ve changed those references to generic terms given the WordPress rules on “deadnaming”.
The US military turns down 80% of its male applicants (according to military.com). The reason: “the military is simply becoming more competitive”.
The idea that there aren’t enough men stepping up to defend the country is absurd. In truth, there is a surplus of men volunteering.
Matt chandler is most likely a homosexual. I have believed that for years.
As per kassian, a woman would define things like that to make her exempt from sin. She thinks the man is a replacement of God, and has that power and authority. In reality, we are all tempted to sin, regardless of what we do ourselves.
It is our hearts that are sinful, not external forces that cause us to sin.
People who think otherwise are dangerous, and have a twisted version of sin.
The blame for this “women in combat” push lies directly at the feet of bitter female Army officers who could not receive credit for combat actions taken in war zones, and we’re not getting promoted due to lack of combat credentials. IE, Army females who were deployed downrange and got in a firefight (a common occurrence with convoys) could not legally be credited for any actions taken. This problem was caused by the Army linking a member’s MOS to the type of awards they received. The Air Force, believe it or not, had more women getting shot at than the Army did back at the height of OEF because this silliness. The Air Force also didn’t have that MOS barrier for awards (although rated officers will tend to get promoted over non-rated ones).
Stopping the complaining required two things; fixing the MOS barrier for awards, and holding firm on the idea that promotions to the higher officer ranks, where one is more likely to direct men in battle, logically must go to those that have the most experience in battle. In other words, a simple administrative correction coupled with holding women to standards.
This was not done, the Left picked it up as an issue they could run with, and here we are today. It had NOTHING to do with men shirking their duty. It had everything to do with women coming into a system and demanding the rules change to fit them.
Interestingly, a lot of military females (myself included) protest this action. Why? We all know that we cannot physically perform like men do. But more subtly, this ruling takes away the double standards that allow us to be here in the first place. Women get a lot of small and large “special treatment” in the military – everything from allowing us to have long hair to lowered PT standards from the men to pregnancy being an excuse to not be deployed. All of it was justifiable before on account that we weren’t in combat roles. That justification is gone. When you obviate the distinctions between men and women in something as physically demanding as military combat, women are now reduced to underperforming, overly entitled men.
The end result of this will be that conservative patriotic women will probably be driven out of the service, and replaced with leftist reactionaries who will make their male counterparts’ lives miserable. It will reduce combat effectiveness, cost American lives, and discourage the right young men from signing up. It’s a disaster.
Shame on Christians who try to frame this as men’s fault. Shame on them. They are as bad as the White Feather women who guilted British boys into signing up for the Army back in World War I. And that insanity was used as leverage to get female suffrage approved. What political fallout might come from these Christian pastors’ cynical reframing of the truth?
“example, if every lazy man in America repented and said he was willing to work hard in defense of this country,”
If Nathan doesn’t enlist in the military, he is a lazy coward and a liar. Look at these fools- demanding others serve and die for them, but unwilling to do so themselves.
They want you to serve this evil, vile, and wicked nation. Go die for the lgbt agenda and for feminism. Show them you are a man!
Warhorn folks are nuts
“The irony of all of this is men really are abdicating their responsibility. These absurd lies are used by cowardly men to avoid manning up and challenging the feminist rebellion. In this sense I hope we are aligned. You want men to man up. I want men to man up. But manning up doesn’t mean cowering in fear while striking a heroic pose. Manning up means doing what is difficult. We are failing Christian women, and women in general. But we aren’t failing them by not making them pretty, or forcing them to insist on taking on the roles of men, or making it possible for them to feel the temptation to sin.”
This has been my assessment for a while. Well said.
The impression Im getting is Nathan is not at all serious about thinking or learning where you are coming from. He is transparently disengenuous. You make some really good points then he basically says “I’ll have to think about this”. The whole point of an e-mail exchange is it gives you time to think before you write so it is basically just him saying “I’m not getting anything I can use to easily caricature your views so let’s move on to something else.”
Here is the problem with ending that promotion system: 1- less important we have seen that the changes in promotion within combat arms led to many long term personnel maintaining lower ranks, due to fewer advancement opportunities, and thus massive waves of experienced veterans left the forces altogether.
2- the military exists to destroy our enemies. For the army, the only two things that matter are combat arms and logistics. If you don’t have experience in either of these, you do not need a command post. Create some alternative system where you still increase in pay and responsibilities, but the overall command of the army should be by those who know combat and what it takes to get people to the field of battle.
3- the comment illustrates the feminine imperative of taking over male spaces. First they want in the military, then they want control. But they want that control without going through the gauntlet of merit, ie combat or massive amounts of training. So they lower standards. And we end up with sub par commanders who lead and make decisions for men without the slightest comprehension of the true task at hand.
Yep. Same here. They are trying to take Dalrock down, or convert him, because they want to penetrate the red pill arena to proselytize weird theology. Dalrock stands in their way.
https://lexetiustitia.wordpress.com/2019/02/08/dalrock-and-doxxing/
Slightly off topic:
There’s two things going on in these discussions about men’s and women’s biblical roles.
1) Many, even Christian authors and theologians, really don’t know what Scripture and tradition actually say about men’s and women’s roles, their relationship to each other, their relationship to God, etc.
2) Christian authors and theologians do know what Scripture and tradition say; but won’t say it because they’re terrified of what the womenfolk will do to them and their churches if they say it.
Tradcons have one card to play that they use to appease women, “it takes two to tango”. Under no circumstances can women ever receive over 50% of blame. Men must always receive between 50% and 100% of blame.
It doesn’t matter if a women pays to go to a sperm clinic and then decides to abort it, “it takes two to tango”.
Problem with child being born out of wedlock? 10 women all having kids out of wedlock with one guy, I guess the guy is 10x at fault. “It takes two to tango”.
Single women destroying the country voting far left, I guess its the fault of men not being good enough to tempt them into marriage, “it takes two to tango”.
[D: We are trapped on Slut Island and Traditional Conservatives are our Gilligan]
Think men should actually man up and take away voting rights from women? That’s pure evil because equality.
My instant reaction is that either Nathan is trying to set you up (notice his loaded question about your own marriage with the assumption of a need to balance gender equality – he means sexual equality – with headship) or alternatively he is not tall enough for the subject – and probably both.
[——————————————-Nathan Replied——————————————]
Dayyummmm son, you sure talk a lot! Do I look like I care?
Look, why don’t you catch your breath for a bit while we talk about somethin’ else. For um, you know, “context” and mutual understanding. We can do this later!
I’m making sense, right?
@Opus
I think you are referring to CBMW’s question to Mary Kassian. My apologies for the confusion.
“That said, it seems obvious that these things tend to grow in an environment where men are evading responsibility.” – This is the crux of the issue. Both sides agree that men are evading responsibility, but in different ways. Nathan seems to be contending it is men being willing to fight in combat (not sure where he gets this from) and Dalrock is contending that it is men evading responsibilty for confronting women in their sin.
Lexet, Cynthia
The whole time I was in the army I felt like basically a civilian doctor who wore a superhero cape with rank on it.
The entire mental health apparatus in the military is superfluous.
This was not a popular position to take because everyone likes to feel like what they are doing matters and is important
It became impossible for me to see, even in the abstract how what I was doing was increasing combat effectiveness, so I left.
bigjohn33 says:
February 8, 2019 at 8:35 am
Yup. You stole my thunder here.
As I said in the last thread, the most productive thing to come out of this exchange will be the creation of the best preserved evidence ever that Complimentarian Tradcons are morally and spiritually bankrupt cowards to whom truth is what Kryptonite is to Superman.
thedeti says:
February 8, 2019 at 8:52 am
You’re not OT at all here. This fully explains Nathan’s (and every other Complinentarian’s) weasely, evasive BS in response to Dalrock’s questions, which are in no manner unclearly posed.
The entire time I was in, from training until I retired this video was shown to us mental health providers as an example of what NOT to do and to show “how far we have come.”
But the whole time I always held in the back of my mind “yep. That looks about right.”
… but then again, I’m Serb-Irish.
“Nathan seems to be contending it is men being willing to fight in combat”
As I posted above, the military turns down more applicants than it accepts. There is no shortage of males willing to fight in combat, there is actually a HUGE surplus.
The entire “men not willing to fight” argument is a red herring based on inaccurate data.
How does a surplus of men willing to fight force women to fight in their place? It doesn’t. If every woman quit the military tomorrow, they would immediately be replaced by volunteer men (and they would still have to turn down most volunteers due to not having enough openings). The surplus is that big.
@Cynthia
It’s the same old feminist envy / “blank slate” bogusness that’s been around since the 80’s or the 70’s. During the invasion of Panama back in the 80’s, there was a female MP captain whose unit got into a brief gunfight at a dog kennel compound controlled by Noriega’s forces. The MP’s won. She wanted to be awarded the CIB because “gunfight = combat”, and naturally her sisters in feminism agreed.
They didn’t want to hear any of that boring old mansplaining about how “Infantry” and “Military Police” are not the same thing, either.
Same thing as the convoys in the sandbox that countered ambushes. Yes, women National Guard truck drivers got out into a gunfight for a while, sort of like a 2-way “3-gun match”. They had been trained well and responded to the challenge very well…but no, that’s still not the same thing as infantry combat. No CIB, sorry.
There are sound reasons for preferring officers that have “seen the elephant” as leaders. There are also sound reasons for recognizing physical and mental differences between men and women, but that’s strictly forbidden in today’s world. Denying reality won’t do anyone any good.
Pretty sure that the PRC and Russia aren’t as stupid as the Pentagon when it comes to women. That’s cause for concern right there.
I served in the U.S. military until I was discharged due to a service-connected disability. Even after my injury, I was still stronger, more endurant, more competent, and more lethal than practically all females currently serving, yet I was shown the door because it was not in the Army’s best interest to keep a soldier with an injury history. Yet scores of females, homosexuals (and now, transexuals, I guess) are allowed to serve despite all the obvious headaches they cause because the Pentagon has been completely overcome with political correctness.
We all served only at the pleasure and convenience of the United States of America. No one has the right or the entitlement to wear the uniform. *No one*.
@Lexet is right with comment #3. Yes — even here on this blog — we have comments from those who have been so consumed by feminism that they miss the point of what is obviously the sin of cross-dressing and the jealousy-inspired drive to invade male spaces.
So yeah, let’s go ahead and abolish MOS distinctions, and pass out all the combat decorations we need so the womenz can get all the General spots, because that will be both sound biblically and definitely in the interest of national security. /s
@Otto
Captain Capitalism has pointed out that private corporations treat hiring like a woman in her prime selecting a suitor. The more options they have, the more they are sure none of them are good enough. I don’t know the data you are referring to but it sounds like the military is doing the same thing. A masculine approach would be “This is the stock of men we have to work with, so here is what we have to do to transform them into the soldiers/sailors, etc we need.” Instead, we have the feminine approach of “You are a prize to be won!”
See Also: An attitude of abundance.
I’d like to see Nathan answer these questions directly. “I don’t know” would suffice.
@bigjohn33
I got a similar impression. Nathan could have easily admitted that it appears men are in fact handling one particular masculine responsibility well. Even something like “it appears men are handling their responsibility to protect the country in combat. this is encouraging.” He would not even have to say he accepts the evidence, just that it is positive. It seems to me Nathan was uncomfortable being presented with evidence that men are in fact doing something good.
Please delete if this is a double post.
[D: I found the original in the spam bin and unspammed it before moving it to the trash. Askimet generally works very well, but every now and then does something weird.]
These arguments are a bit difficult for me to follow, and one of the reasons I keep reading here.
Nathans response has nothing initially objectionable. The problem is in what he leaves out.
Complementarian pastors are projecting when they talk about weak men not stepping up, because they are the weak men not stepping up to preach the truth to the women they are responsible for in their congregations. It is not love to be responsible for leading a person, but then refuse to correct them.
There a couple of unspoken, underlying premises held by most churchians that are important to keep in mind in all of these discussions.
– Christian men have a moral obligation to marry, no matter the circumstances. It is not the duty or burden of the collective church to explain or justify why they have the moral high ground to pressure men into “marriage.”
– The state definition of marriage, enforced at the point of a gun, does not contradict or affect the life of a Christian man who wants to have a biblical marriage.
– The fundamental problem in our society is that weak Christian men are screwing up the “progressive” view of marriage as dictated by our society, culture and government. If only they complied, the system would function as intended. Everyone else is getting it right, or would be if it weren’t for meddling young Christian men and husbands.
@Dalrock,
The data comes from this article: https://www.military.com/join-armed-forces/2014/05/14/80-of-military-recruitments-turned-down.html .
The bottom line reason is: the military doesn’t have enough openings for all the applicants.
“Army Sgt. 1st Class Terrence Hoard reportedly told the Kansas City Star that he used to need to sign on 16-20 soldiers every month, and now he can get away with 10-12.”
Of course, with fewer openings, the military is becoming more selective. So what; why shouldn’t it be? But that doesn’t change the fact that the military doesn’t need female soldiers to operate.
The #1 reason men are rejected is their weight. A problem that can easily be corrected in training camp, but since they have a surplus of volunteer males, why bother?
Not a single woman is filling a “cowardly man’s” slot in the militart–not one. There are plenty of male volunteers to fill every slot, and then some.
7817
It is not love to be responsible for leading a person, but then refuse to correct them.
But, but, but, correcting someone is not nice! What about niceness?
Part of the problem with life inside the church bubble is “niceness”.
Try this with church going people: in the context of family, such as parent/child, is “love” a noun or a verb? Do parents have the authority to correct their children, preferably in a loving way?
Now, about that concept of “authority” – I don’t see it in any of Nathan’s text so far. Wonder why?
Thanks Otto. I wasn’t challenging the data, just noting that I’m not in a position to confirm it.
@Anon Reader
Not only is it not nice, it isn’t chivalrous.
Off Topic – Important and relavent movie:
Well done Dalrock!
[D: Thank you.]
Dalrock
Not only is it not nice, it isn’t chivalrous.
D’oh! How could I forget?
Scott:
That Patton clip reminds me of this:
“You can act like a man!”
Now, about that concept of “authority”
It always comes back to this, and I hope it is discussed during the exchange.
Nathan: “I see your work as needlessly undercutting male responsibility in the name of establishing female moral agency.”
Perpetual starting point. Men’s responsibility is paramount. All else follows, so this is the thing that has to be got right first.
Then we’ll say he needs the authority commensurate with the task. Then they’ll say he has it by right. Then a detailed examination of practicalities will show that he actually has very little authority, and that diluted.
It takes two to tango
False analogy.
It takes two to tango, but only one to stop dancing.
It takes two to tango, but only one to file for divorce.
@Lost Patrol
We do touch on it in either his 8th or 9th question (out of 9 total). I bundled some of the questions up when replying so I think there are around four more posts to come in the series.
Oh my, yes indeed. And it is especially so now. I’ve been with my current employer for almost 8 years now, and a year ago I thought I’d dip my toe into the job interview pool. I have never seen employers pickier than they are today, which contradicts all the “low unemployment” stories one hears in the media. It seems that rather than trying to find a reason to hire you, they look for reasons why you aren’t good enough. I saw positions go unfilled for 6 months or longer (as I kept receiving emails from head hunters and job site bots for the same job). I also heard through the grapevine that many jobs I applied for were never filled, apparently because they couldn’t find the perfect candidate. A 95% match wasn’t good enough, it has to be 100%.
Then you read the glassdoor reviews for these firms and you find out many are awful places to work.
By Dalrock
By Lost Patrol
That last quote is part of Lost Patrol’s excellent explanation of how the Churchians set the frame for discussion and won’t be moved off of it. So we get things like what I just quoted from Dalrock here as a matter of routine. Got to figure out how to force the Churchians off that frame and it seems that no amount of dialectic will do it. Dalrock’s dialectic is very good, even brilliant at times, but it’s not enough. Hence dialectic alone won’t do it; we need rhetoric that stings, that gets the audience thinking there is something to what’s being said here. Vox Day has some suggestions on what good rhetoric should look like.
Because WordPress bans “deadnaming” we cannot write the truth.
@cynthia
Alternatively, men can refuse to serve a mercenary force which admits women into its ranks, as I have done.
Is an example of “deadnaming” like using the former name of the entity now known as “Caitlyn Jenner”?
[D: Exactly.]
Something interesting in Catholic media here: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Q-fXNjGB43Y
It’s “The Patrick Coffin Show” and someone comes out and says the whole history of Christianity shows that women owe men obedience in marriage. He says he has a book coming out on it soon. He takes John Paul II yo task for “mutual subjection.”
In my time in the AF I have known the first females trying to be a part of male-only combat arms AFSCs (TACP/ALO). Never once has it been articulated that men aren’t willing to do the job. It has always been described as allowing competent females that WANT in a shot at the pipeline. Even the best of those girls was weaker and slower than the average guy after 6 months of hard training.
This is the crux of the issue. Both sides agree that men are evading responsibility, but in different ways. Nathan seems to be contending it is men being willing to fight in combat (not sure where he gets this from) and Dalrock is contending that it is men evading responsibilty for confronting women in their sin.
This is correct, but the difference is very instructive.
In the first, the focus is ultimately on men’s behavior — the idea being that if men stepped up and served, then women wouldn’t “need to serve”. (No evidence for this at all, of course, as has been pointed out several times in this thread, but that’s the argument). The impact on women is indirect — it assumes that the behavior being exhibited now (women wanting to serve in combat) is a direct result of men failing to serve, and the idea is that if you force men to change their behavior, it will have an indirect impact on women’s choices and behavior.
In the second, the focus is more directly on women’s behavior itself — the idea being that if men stepped up and pointed out women’s sins openly to women, women would be directly influenced in their behavior by the confrontation. It doesn’t rely on any assumptions about the indirect influence of men’s behavior on women’s choices, but confronts women directly about their choices. That’s extremely different.
It’s this extreme difference that yet again brings up the core problem that Dalrock has spoken about many, many times. The main difference between the first and the second approach is that the first doesn’t directly confront women and the second does. Men are acting in each instance, but the action in the second involves directly confronting women. The church crowd is absolutely dead-set against that, hates it, abjures it, and does everything it possibly can to avoid it — again for the reasons Dalrock has laid out many, many times — the most salient one not being “fear” (as some suggest, and which for obvious reasons gets the churchian dander up faster than anything else) but the rather more basic fact that it doesn’t feel good or righteous, from a chivalry/culture perspective to call out women on their behavior, whereas it feels amazingly great and righteous to call out men.
“It seems that rather than trying to find a reason to hire you, they look for reasons why you aren’t good enough.”
This problem almost always occurs when trying to get through the HR department (which is, not coincidentally, dominated by women).
It’s the primary reason you need to go around HR and contact the hiring manager directly.
There are just as many hiring managers wondering why they opened up a job six months ago, and HR hasn’t sent any candidates to interview.
The biggest cause of this is the qualification laundry list. Because HR doesn’t really understand the qualifications for a job, the can’t differentiate between “must have” requirements and “nice to have” requirements. I’ve heard of programming candidates being filtered out by HR, because the didn’t have Microsoft Word listed on their resume.
And who make laundry list requirements?
I am currently involved in a discussion of responsibility, submission, and authority on another blog. It seems that many churchians (and maybe even ignorant or misled Christians) believe that submission is only required when the authority acts responsibly. In other words, if the authority doesn’t do it right (and the subject gets to be the judge of that), it’s okay for the subject to not submit.
On the contrary, the Bible teaches (commands) in Romans 13:1-5 that we are to obey the authorities (unless they contradict other commands of God). This does not apply just to civil authorities, but includes marriage even, gasp, with a husband disobedient to God as we see when Peter writes:
Dalrock, I’m a longtime reader, ultra-sporadic commenter. We’re two posts in on this email exchange, and it’s now obvious why so few of these people you’ve been calling out ever want to tangle with you directly. You’re a very capable debater. More importantly, you have the better arguments by a country mile, and they’re not arguments these folks are familiar with.
This is also why some people would like for guys like you to drop the pseudonym and dox yourself, maybe there’s some dirt they can find on you, then. (I’m not saying everyone who supports people using real names only wants that to destroy their enemies, just that there are some out there that would like that opportunity.) This is also why some people would like to see you on podcasts: maybe you’d be easier there, because you’re definitely not easy to handle in writing. I urge you to keep up with your format and what you’re doing.
Big respect to Nathan for agreeing to do this. If this were a boxing match you’d have a couple of easy 10-9 rounds under your belt. Can’t wait to see where the rest of this goes, and thank you for all you do.
This is probably a good place to drop this: Jazz Shaw doesn’t get it.
For background; the Army’s physical fitness test is getting a lot tougher starting next fiscal year, and the standards are not segregated by sex or age. They’re segregated by job specialty.
https://hotair.com/archives/2019/02/07/new-army-fitness-standards-may-eliminate-many-women-older-soldiers/
Why would we want to encourage more women to enlist? Why do we need women in the military at all? Is there some military specialty that only a woman can do, and a man can’t?
He takes John Paul II yo task for “mutual subjection.”
Indeed JP2 was quite feminist in his theology of the family, much to the contrary of long-standing Catholic doctrine on the matter. He also wasn’t that great at managing things in the Church, as we can see from how he dealt with the massive problem, of which the Vatican was well aware, of priests diddling boys. Yet there was a rush to canonize him, only 9 years after his death — something that some Catholics may indeed rue in the years ahead.
It looks like Nathan didn’t even bother to read the sources before he replied. That’s not how one argues in good faith.
@Cynthia
The end result of this will be that conservative patriotic women will probably be driven out of the service, and replaced with leftist reactionaries who will make their male counterparts’ lives miserable. It will reduce combat effectiveness, cost American lives, and discourage the right young men from signing up. It’s a disaster.
Yes, and it’s a deliberately engineered disaster.
Our “betters” are globalists. It doesn’t matter what ideology or party affiliation they claim (all of which is theatrical window dressing). Their ultimate goal is the imposition of One World Government and in order to do that they must destroy America and erase its founding principals from the world stage. Destroying America’s military might, along with its economic base, is the way to do this. Destroying its religious underpinnings (e.g., encouraging the rise of churchianity in place of genuine Christian faith) is a very close second goal. They are well on their way to achieving their goals in all of these areas and the disasters we see unfolding in the U.S. armed forces are already having their intended effect. Needless to say, this won’t end well, but the prophecy of the end times has already made us aware of this.
@Dalrock
I think it’s going to be easier to get a loaded camel through the Eye of the Needle than @Nathan admitting that women should be called out to repent for their sin.
@ Novaseeker
The Catholic Church has been studiously ignoring that problem for centuries, so JP2 was par for the course.
The church crowd is absolutely dead-set against that, hates it, abjures it, and does everything it possibly can to avoid it — again for the reasons Dalrock has laid out many, many times — the most salient one not being “fear” (as some suggest, and which for obvious reasons gets the churchian dander up faster than anything else) but the rather more basic fact that it doesn’t feel good or righteous, from a chivalry/culture perspective to call out women on their behavior, whereas it feels amazingly great and righteous to call out men.
These aren’t mutually exclusive. “Bad feelz” and fear frequently overlap as reactions to certain stimuli, in this case the fear arising from women’s badfeelz and resulting anger over being disciplined.
GirlPower Moxie in Alabama as all-girl Scout troops form…
https://www.counton2.com/news/national-news/boy-scouts-of-america-allows-two-all-girl-troops-to-form-in-central-alabama/1762138841?utm_medium=social&utm_source=facebook_WCBD_News_2&fbclid=IwAR0DGdtpwTKISNkp8bMShQMB18gUKhxj6lxG1I4ehbw1Cj4YI1_4BkY6-xw
… of course feminists will be thrilled because another male-only space became mixed by sexes and now is becoming female-only. More territory marking!
TradCons will sadly shake their heads, because, sadly, them Duke boyz just didn’t Man Up enough to keep the Scout troops going, so the girls just had to get their Girl Power working and do it for themselves, clearly this is All Men’s Fault once again.
Regrettably, more beatings will be required until morale improves.
I stand by what I said yesterday: you have literally nothing to gain from this exchange. He’s simply not looking to do anything but proselytize for complementarianism.
I used to attend a church that had someone with their picture on the CBMW site as a pastor. It’s funny: for all the crying about women’s submission and being proper Christian women, his daughter went/is going to a university with questionable theology and has had a “boyfriend” for nigh on four years now.
@ OKRickety
Thanks for backing me up, by the way. I would’ve said so over there, but comments are now off (I think).
“Even the best of those girls was weaker and slower than the average guy after 6 months of hard training.”
Women have the physical ability of 13 year old boys. http://masculinebydesign.blogspot.com/2017/01/adult-women-have-physical-strength-of.html?m=1
Even the elite female athletes would be also random on boys high school athletic teams. It’s no wonder the women in your example couldn’t keep up.
Novaseeker
Men are acting in each instance, but the action in the second involves directly confronting women. The church crowd is absolutely dead-set against that, hates it, abjures it, and does everything it possibly can to avoid it — again for the reasons Dalrock has laid out many, many times — the most salient one not being “fear” (as some suggest, and which for obvious reasons gets the churchian dander up faster than anything else)
Actions. Words.
“What they do” vs. “what they say”.
i.e. the truth hurts them…
but the rather more basic fact that it doesn’t feel good or righteous, from a chivalry/culture perspective to call out women on their behavior, whereas it feels amazingly great and righteous to call out men.
…because feelings are emotions. We are not surprised when women are ruled by their feelz.
Men are supposed to be able to control feelings, emotions, and use reason. TradCons tend towards the emotional and away from the rational. Like women…
So pay attention to what they do, not what they say.
thedeti
Is an example of “deadnaming”…
Yes. It is one of the new, modern sins that cannot be forgiven no matter how much someone grovels. Like writing a check to the wrong political campaign, only worse.
Women are moral agents who are tempted to rebel. And men are moral agents who are tempted to abdicate. Adam abdicates in Genesis 3…
I object.
Eve didn’t rebel because Adam abdicated. According to the Biblical timeline, he was still sinless when she sinned.
I object.
Eve didn’t rebel because Adam abdicated. According to the Biblical timeline, he was still sinless when she sinned.
Yup, yup.
Much of this, from the theological perspective, stems from a bad exegesis of Gen 3. The fascinating thing is that God actually confronts Eve in Gen 3. Unlike churchian pastors, God actually confronts Eve directly as well:
9 And the Lord God called unto Adam, and said unto him, Where art thou?
10 And he said, I heard thy voice in the garden, and I was afraid, because I was naked; and I hid myself.
11 And he said, Who told thee that thou wast naked? Hast thou eaten of the tree, whereof I commanded thee that thou shouldest not eat?
12 And the man said, The woman whom thou gavest to be with me, she gave me of the tree, and I did eat.
13 And the Lord God said unto the woman, What is this that thou hast done? And the woman said, The serpent beguiled me, and I did eat.
Pastors today would rebuke God for having done that, of course, because rebuking women directly is not a good look, feels bad from a chivalry perspective, and requires too much energy — God ought to have just booked Adam, and ignored Eve’s sin, or at the very least, not have confronted her about it directly. Bad pastoral practice, there, God.
Pingback: Warhorn interview: Male responsibility and female agency. | Reaction Times
“That said, it seems obvious that these things tend to grow in an environment where men are evading responsibility. To admit that is not to deny the other things.”
Of course it is to deny the other things. As I pointed out with multiple links, this is what is being done regarding women in the military.
The entire exchange is summed up by this passage. As you pointed out in your post “99% servant, 1% leader,” these folks are obsessed with linguistic constructs and (dubious) formal logic. Yes, a pastor who only addresses male sin isn’t technically denying the existence of female sin (in the realm of formal logic). However, he is distracting from the existence of female sin. He is deprioritizing it so he can act as if female sin didn’t exist.
Any action can be justified as a difference in priorities, rather than beliefs. Say you don’t like vanilla ice cream. Result: you won’t buy vanilla ice cream. Now say you do like vanilla ice cream, but less than every other flavor. Result: you won’t buy vanilla ice cream. The rhetorical distinction between these two beliefs has no impact on reality. Similarly, Nathan keeps defending his side by claiming they recognize the existence of and oppose to female rebellion. However, if (1) they always prioritize men’s sin, and (2) men are never without sin, then they will never get around to fighting female rebellion. They get to have their beliefs, without said beliefs ever impacting the real world. Complementarians get to be kings in Narnia, as long as the crown comes off when they cross through the wardrobe.
Bad pastoral practice, there, God.
Can you imagine?
And Pergamos, Thyatira, Sardis…way to abdicate, Jesus.
Yer
This is rather like the married woman with children who claims to her husband that she absolutely and positively wants to have “couple time” with him, but first she has to take care of a few things left over from work and the children need attention and the living room is a mess and she hasn’t been to the gym lately and if he will just be patient he can have is wife back. Real soon now.
Then she doesn’t get it when he complains of being ignored for weeks, months and even years. Because she intended to get busy in the bedroom with him just as soon as all the other chores were done. The more important ones. Don’t her good intentions count?
Traditional Conservatives are always just about to point out women’s bad behavior but there’s always just one more thing that needs to be gotten out of the way first. Just one more thing…
Let’s do this again.
Read it out loud. How does it sound?
@Yer
What you said is as concisely and well put as anything I’ve read explaining the phenomenon and I think we all need to take a second and acknowledge that. That is a sharp observation.
If flawless Eve, living in a flawless world with a flawless husband wasn’t satisfied with how God Himself loved and provided for her, what makes any fatally flawed woman, living in a fatally flawed world think that her fatally flawed husband is somehow going to satisfy her with his love and provision?
@ Novaseeker, Drifter, Oscar
I might actually find it within me to have at least a modicum of grudging respect for these people if they were honest enough to put what is obviously their message into such starkly irreverent, even blasphemous terms. As it is, I find their dissembling, and the accompanying insult to the collective intelligence, more offensive than any overt blasphemy they might utter by simply expressing their feelings honestly and frankly.
“Again it seems fairly obvious that both things are true. Women are moral agents who are tempted to rebel. And men are moral agents who are tempted to abdicate.”
No, men are tempted to encourage female rebellion. That’s what happened in Eden, what is happening in the modern Church and I daresay it’s what you’re doing now, Nathan. You don’t want to hold women responsible for their own behavior even though when asked, you’ll say correctly that God gave them “moral agency”.
“But very generally, if a husband loves his wife and rules over her well, she will be less likely to be tempted to rebel,”
Women are most tempted to rebel by the absence of drama in her life, not a surplus. Women are not men, they do not instinctively enjoy a smoothly functioning society.
Women are not men with breasts. In fact, they are a separate act of creation from men. I just blogged on a Republican female statesman who despite being raised as a boy… she was the first female to graduate South Carolina’s Citadel military academy… proceeded to get a graduate degree in social studies (journalism/poli sci), operate a business in social behavior (marketing & public relations, heck, she’s still a motivational speaker) and go into politics to “help people” just like every feminist battleaxe ever.
Her father ruined the Citadel in order to turn his daughter into a son but once given the chance, she spent her life gossiping over the backyard fence like every female ever. She merely monetized the behavior instead of submitting to her husband and raising her kids at home.
https://gunnerq.com/2019/02/08/the-nancy-mace-quote/
Women are not men, Nathan, and the difference is not a mere organ swap.
IN many protestant circles and in current “family ministries”, that passage in Gen. 9-13 is almost always exegeted to blame Adam for Eve’s sin.
The first interpretation is usually that during the entire time when the Serpent was beguiling and deceiving Eve, Adam was standing right there watching and listening to the whole thing. Thus, Adam should have intervened and stopped Eve from sinning. This interpretation is often given even though we’re not told that Adam was right there.
The second is that Adam is more culpable than Eve because his reply to God in verse 12 is him blaming Eve for his sin.
Of course, neither of these make any sense, because they were both culpable in God’s eyes, and both were punished. Eve’s sin: rebellion and disobedience. Adam’s sin: listening to Eve and heeding her “command” instead of God’s; and disobedience. The kind of disorder that still exists today.
As stated succinctly above, “two to tango” doesn’t pass muster because each party has 100% of the ability and authority to STOP and not sin. So each party is completely guilty of sin. It’s not 50/50, its 100/100 😉
The same is true with Biblical commands to women. If women have agency, they have 100% of the ability and authority to follow those commands. So they must follow them even if the whole world rejects them for doing so. If they are not, then it is their responsibility to correct that behavior.
Thus, it’s often posited that Adam’s sin was that he didn’t prevent Eve from sinning. His sin is that he didn’t throw himself between the serpent and Eve so as to remove all temptations. She has no responsibility to resist temptation; rather it is her husband’s responsibility to confront and remove all temptations for her. If she’s never tempted, she won’t sin, we’re told.
So we are often told that wives sin only because husbands are shirking and falling down on their responsibilities to keep their wives from sinning. If only their husbands were there to prevent her sin, all would be well.
This is nonsense, of course, but it gets a lot of play in Protestant/evangelical circles.
Of course, neither of these make any sense, because they were both culpable in God’s eyes, and both were punished. Eve’s sin: rebellion and disobedience. Adam’s sin: listening to Eve and heeding her “command” instead of God’s; and disobedience. The kind of disorder that still exists today.
Right.
The interesting thing is that God is very specific in Gen 3 about the sins they committed — he calls them out specifically. And he never mentions Adam being responsible for Eve’s sin, or abdicating his leadership responsibilities over Eve or anything of the sort — if it were the entire crux of the matter, as it is in the prevalent contemporary American exegesis, one would think that God would have at least mentioned it somewhere in Gen 3, particularly given that He does quite well enumerate and describe the sins that, at least then, mattered to Him.
Ah, well, it is in Genesis, after all, right? Right at the very beginning. God was kind of a “noob” then, right? I mean if He had gone to seminary in the US in the 20th-21st Century, He’d probably want to go back and rewrite Gen 3 to make it say what we all know it *should* say, right? Pfft, noobs … what are you gonna do?
You’re doing a yeoman’s job, Dalrock, but this set of replies from Nathan more than the last convinced me that you are casting pearls before swine. He clings to a fantasy that there are lazy men who won’t defend the country; he clearly excluded his pastor from this list. He actively makes sure to not seek out any facts about it; the illusion is so pretty. Like a man with a forked tongue, he suggested more discussion in the hopes you could say something by which he could catch you, disqualify you, and declare victory. You have proved that his rationalization was not based in reality, and his brain cannot accept the cognitive dissonance.
There’s one of the elder’s at my church who, when he tried to tell me that men were responsible for divorce and unworthy of pity, I told him about a friend of mine who was on active duty in Iraq when his wife back stateside discovered she preferred to have another man in her, and thus divorced him and took his combat pay. I remember it, because he was being told by everyone he knew that it was his fault for neglecting her (while being shot at in Iraq!). This same elder looked me in the face with empty, dumb eyes and said that he did not believe it happened, because men are responsible for divorce and unworthy of pity. I have come to realize he’s a tired old man rather than take offense at him calling me a liar, because I know who wept with the weepers on that one.
When his rationalization requires remaining dumb to facts, it’s really weak. The cognitive dissonance is going to cause him too much pain and he’ll never accept it; sometimes, you have to let the dumb be dumb.
@Gunner q et al, Nathan is making an empirical claim the basis of his theological argument without it being proven. Namely, that women are only tempted to rebel when men aren’t Manning right.
He should be called on to prove it every single time.
Really getting at the heart of this is the profound denial occurring within the Church. I think it comes down to a variety of motivations/reasons.
– Laziness. Let’s face it. From our viewpoint, fixing the situation would require a lot of hard work, effort, and hardship by anyone trying to spearhead the movement. Everyone wants a short-term, quick fix approach. Also, admitting the problem will require a lot of people to rethink what they have been taught and believed their entire lives. That also involves effort.
– Financial. He who pays the Piper calls the tune. Gentlemen, we ain’t calling the tune, so they ain’t gonna play our song. They might include a few cues from our song in the hopes we toss them a few bucks, but song will contain the same lyrics; the problem is with men, not women.
– Fear. The truth is in direct contradiction of the Western social, cultural, political and religious narrative. If you don’t adhere to it, you get ostracized; which goes back to the financial thing. Good luck trying to earn a living when you get deplatformed and/or banned.
– Pride. The older generation doesn’t want to it accept what has happened because then they might feel culpable for allowing it. And instead of lecturing the young, they might feel humbled at what they have failed to do to prevent it. Or worse, they might have actively aided and abetted these changes.
– Treachery. We know the gig. The Judas. The Quisling. The Wormtongue.
There are probably more, but I think those are the big ones.
Oscar,
You’re welcome. I believe the comments there are still on (until Tuesday sometime probably).
Deti
This is nonsense, of course, but it gets a lot of play in Protestant/evangelical circles.
I’ve participated from the sidelines in that argument:
“How do you know? How can you be sure Adam wasn’t somewhere else at the time, doing his job and expecting the same from his helper? Hey, just asking, ok?”
Some people get close to losing the power of speech, they become so worked up. There is clearly a lot of emotional investment in that particular interpretation.
Maybe it’s because it is so chivalrous?
Awesome Comments, Deti, that is exactly how I have always heard the story of the fall preached, to my unending discouragement.
As a similar example: in my own church recently, my pastor recently preached on Job, and when he reached 2:9, where Job’s wife tells him to curse God and die, he inserted, “and then Satan speaking through the woman…” as if a woman was not capable of saying that as simply as the text had said.
And he quickly sped past Job’s rebuke of her, “You are talking like a foolish woman. Shall we accept good from God, and not trouble?” so as not to give any husbands in the audience any ideas of how they might be required to respond to their own wive’s foolishness.
If you listened to the sermon without knowing/focusing on the text, you would know nothing of this GREAT EXAMPLE of doing the opposite of Adam and not listening to your foolish wife, but instead rebuking her.
@ Cynthia
The “MOS barrier”, or whatever you want to call it, was simply an excuse, although it touches on an actual issue, namely careerism. Within the service, it is true that careerism by women officers is a factor in the push for sex integration, although as you note from your own experience it’s not really that powerful a force. In reality, the push for integration comes from outside the military, and the motivation is political/ideological. The careerist impulses of junior-mid level women officers is a tool used by these external actors. Once it is no longer available, there are other tools to pick up — the inevitably low numbers of women in combat roles, their inability to advance, sexual harassment and assault, etc.
On another level, the Army is fundamentally about ground warfare and the Air Force is fundamentally about flying planes. There are important jobs to be done in both organizations that do not directly involve the one or the other, but it is absurd to claim that these activities are really just as important as the basic mission of the service branch. Given that the Air Force’s attempts to pretend that their pilots shouln’t be entitled to any special career considerations appears to be a significant factor in their continued mismanagement of the flight-rated officer population, I’m not sure why you bring them up as a positive example at all.
Yer, +1. Brilliantly put.
The spirit of this age denies any type of appropriate hierarchy (since true hierarchy flows from God), and many otherwise conservative Christians have no idea how much of this spirit they’ve absorbed through culture. That’s why I disagree with some here who see this back-and-forth as fruitless. Rather, this exchange is very useful because it will be seen by those who won’t fall for overt feminism but aren’t guarded against subtler forms feminism. The point isn’t to convince Nathan/Warhorn, its to convince those who read the arguments.
@ Anon Reader:
Some people get close to losing the power of speech, they become so worked up. There is clearly a lot of emotional investment in that particular interpretation.
Maybe it’s because it is so chivalrous?
I know that our current model of chivalry is touted as the main reason for Christians’ reluctance to confront women’s sin or even point it out. From my experience, it’s abject fear. Christian men in general and pastors in particular are deathly afraid of the reactions they get when they do this. Even when they just confront people over nonsexual sin. Even when they confront women over sins peculiar to them, such as gossip, manipulation, backbiting, or just being generally mean to other people.
The hue and cry and wailing and gnashing of teeth are deafening. Women complain and bitch to high heaven. “How DARE he say such a thing to us! Why, I never….” Women go positively apoplectic. They literally have heart palpitations. They stand their flapping their hands near their faces to fan themselves as their faces contort into bewilderment, then pain, then sheer rage. Women get the vapors. They need smelling salts and fainting couches.
After their initial recovery, they start letter writing and phone call campaigns against the wrongdoer. He gets hauled in to his bishop. The women sic their husbands on him. They threaten to leave the church and take their volunteer time and tithe money with them. He gets threatened with replacement, with discipline, with all manner of professional and ministerial difficulty. A small group sides with him, while a larger group ostracizes him. They start bullying his wife and children. They tell their husbands “you take care of this and you side with me or i am leaving you and divorcing you and you will never see the kids again and I will ruin you personally and i will take you to the cleaners”.
Pastors and men in churches are terrified of these reactions. Just terrified. They won’t step up and tell their wives to shut up and stop acting like shrews. This is what Cane has been talking about when he says husbands need to be in charge and act like it. They’re scared to death to take charge and tell their wives to be silent, because they don’t want to make Mommy mad and they don’t want to deal with strife at home. And they really don’t want to go without sex for weeks or months, which is truly the veiled threat and innuendo being conveyed to these men.
@Scott, they just played ‘Midnight Express’ and ‘Southern Comfort’ repeatedly on Saturday nights on Westpac for us.
When the fleet got to Okinawa, some poor bastard from our ATF sat down on the wrong park bench to rest a bit and that park bench happened to have a box under it containing a lot of heroin which was under surveillance. Talk about being in the wrong place at the wrong time.
The nips swooped in and arrested him. We heard it took a lot of politicking from the U.S. government to get the innocent sailor back but he was brought to the pier and placed on his ship by a company sized number of Japanese police officers and instructed to NEVER EVER set foot on Japanese soil again for the remainder of his life or he would be taken into custody and prosecuted.
He had to remain on whatever ship he was on for the remainder of his Naval career whenever they moored under Japan sovereignty.
It also ignores the fact that there are “quotas” on force structure that recruiters are aware of
Yes, in fact. It’s the MOS of getting pregnant on deployment to avoid said deployment
I know that our current model of chivalry is touted as the main reason for Christians’ reluctance to confront women’s sin or even point it out. From my experience, it’s abject fear.
+1 to this. Last two churches I attended, both pastors openly, from the pulpit talked about how they weren’t going to call out the women. This was done in a joking manner, as if it was a game, but they were not joking.
He followed her into sin
During my toe dipping experience last year, I had no problem getting past HR. It was in the technical interview process that I got tripped up with. I would participate in the now ubiquitous day long, technical interviews (where you are grilled by multiple groups of peers), and on some I thought I did very well. After that there would inevitably be a prolonged radio silence, which could last for several weeks. Sending emails to the hiring manager would be futile, as they would not respond. Sometimes I would get an terse email saying they were not moving forward with me, no explanation. Thanks for applying!
And at my current employer we get piles of resumes from our HR recruiters, since producing candidates is a metric for them. Before we would even talk to a candidate we would give him/her a “homework assignment” which involved writing, running and testing a non trivial coding assignment. If they didn’t ace it, they were done, and few aced it (it was timed). Many would not bother to turn in the assignment. At some places I interviewed I also was given a coding assignment, which was often done online, on a website, with the clock running. To me this is absurd, as I’ve never seen an actual work environment where code has to be slammed out in that fashion. Yet this is how you will be tested.
After running this gauntlet several times I managed to be impeccable once and I received an offer. In the end, for various reasons I stayed put and declined the offer, and stopped looking for a new job.
What is that delicious smell emanating from the page?
Ah! At long last! It is the delightful aroma of toes being toasted in the fire. And I am SO famished!
The biggest cause of this is the qualification laundry list. Because HR doesn’t really understand the qualifications for a job, the can’t differentiate between “must have” requirements and “nice to have” requirements.
The top “must have” requirement for any corporate or government job these days is diversity (i.e., no Straight, White Men need apply).
I recently read some articles where AirBnB was accused or racism in 2016, because some of their hosts rejected black guests. (Google “AirBnB racism”).
AirBnB promised …
* To agree to be regulated by the state of California.
* To fine or suspend hosts who refused to rent out their homes due to racism.
* To increase diversity hiring within AirBnB.
* To implement diversity training seminars for AirBnB employees.
Don’t see how “diversity hiring” and “training” within the company will prevent hosts from discriminating against guests, but there it is.
AirBnB’s CEO apologized, saying that the company was started by “us three white guys” (boo, hiss) who weren’t fully sensitive to these issues, etc. etc.
I was about to scold Dalrock for wasting his time and ours with a discussion whose outcome is 100% predictable. But then I realized that not everyone has the same amount of experience as I, and there could be many who will profit by this exchange.
My only comment on Nathan: he’s a weasel.
The cunt-worshippers at Whorehorn Media don’t sound like the early church fathers when they speak about women:
Saint Clement of Alexandria says:
[Women’s] very consciousness of their own nature must evoke feelings of shame.
Origen Says:
For it is improper for a woman to speak in an assembly, no matter what she says, even if she says admirable things, or even saintly things, that is of little consequence, since they come from the mouth of a woman.
Tertullian says:
And do you not know that you are (each) an Eve? The sentence of God on this sex of yours lives in this age: the guilt must of necessity live too. You are the devil’s gateway: you are the unsealer of that (forbidden) tree: you are the first deserter of the divine law: you are she who persuaded him whom the devil was not valiant enough to attack. You destroyed so easily God’s image, man. On account of your desert — that is, death — even the Son of God had to die.
Augustine says:
“. . . woman was given to man, woman who was of small intelligence and who perhaps still lives more in accordance with the promptings of the inferior flesh than by superior reason. Is this why the apostle Paul does not attribute the image of God to her?”
My deep thanks to the Feminazis on the web who compiled these lovely instructive quotes showing how the early church correctly taught about the role of women. They meant them to shame the early church, but I’m rightly proud of their divine wisdom, that is clearly in the Red Pill vein.
“I can see that it will take a lot more discussion and shifting through the sources for us to come to any terms on this point. ~ Nathan”
Losers do not dictate terms.
“I can see that it will take a lot more discussion and shifting through the sources for us to come to any terms on this point. ~ Nathan”
‘Sifting’, Mr. Glasses. Sifting, not shifting. Although shifting’s what you did in that sentence; the world is round and God is Truth.
King Jeshua and his host are into the whole sifting thing too.
While reading one of the sources for the Tertullian quote, I came across this gem of a quote from Tertullian also:
For such delicacies as tend by their softness and effeminacy to unman the manliness of faith are to be discarded.
Out with the gay “Jeesssuuhhss is my boyfriend” praise music.
*Wiping away a tear of laughter after reading Sharkly says: February 8, 2019 at 10:06 pm*
I’ve never heard them called that before. ROFL!
I used to believe that Adam was right next to Even when she was tempted, per the “with her” in the Scriptures. But I have become convinced that Adam was only “with her” as in the garden with her, just as 2 people can be in the same house “with each other” even if they can’t see or hear each other.
The key point I see is that God only held him accountable for “listening to the voice of his wife,” not for not stopping her or for abdicating anything.
I do find it ironic so many preach how much spiritual wisdom a wife has, when I can only find one example of that in the Scriptures – when Abigail advised Nabal (and was ignored, but did right anway). Adam listened to the voice of his wife and sin entered the world. Abraham listened to the voice of his wife and had Ishmael. (And Sarah later blamed him for listening to her!)
The Biblical evidence once again shows the man should be the leader, not the follower.
Otto,
All hiring troubles are not the HR department. I have been finding it hard to get a good match in my IT line of work for the reasons noted here. I have even had several interviews that seemed to go well, but which either resulted in the organization just vanishing (without notice to me) or a “we are going with someone else”. The former is far more common as well, both before and after any interviews or phone screens.
I am not impressed with hiring managers either at this point in time and it is much harder than many realize, even for those with significant experience. Of course I am not as cheap as some, but their requirements require more than their cheap desire allow for. Though I do always let them know my salary target before interviewing, so it isn’t just that.
Some likely age discrimination, but it also has to be true that they are looking for any reason to not hire me rather than to make sure I could do the job.
https://www.breitbart.com/sports/2019/02/08/watch-ellen-degeneres-shaves-off-julian-edelmans-beard/
Mr. American Football Hero, Super Bowl MVP. All got the same disease. Nothing new under the sun.
Make that sam sun.
Most preachers are definitely afraid of the outcry they would get from women if they stepped forward. I had a preacher admit this to me recently, before he quickly switched to another excuse. Women would complain. Many church men have Stockholm Syndrome and almost enjoy being abused and lied about in this manner.
Frank,
I have blown off a few of those tests. They are not paying me to write code, why should I jump through hoops for them? I focus on a different area now, but I have seen similar ones I can’t recall now.
Unfortunately my last job parting was not voluntary and my current temporary work seems to be ending, so I am really faced with what to do. I do have the challenge of being too broad and not miles deep. Proving the value of that experience is tricky.
@Dalrock
If one thing is clear there to anyone with eyes, it’s that Nathan is actively avoiding addressing your point that there simply is no basis whatsoever to claim that men are abdicating anything on defense. If anything, per the citation from military.com in the combox above it is more likely that good men are being denied opportunities to let someone’s little sally dress up and play soldier.
@Frank K,
The never call back after a technical interview was a phantom interview.
My current employer had a hiring freeze for a while. One manager continued to interview people for non-existent job opening, because “she wanted to be ready with a list of candidates when the freeze was over”. Never telling the candidates there was no job.
As far as the tech project before an interview–I don’t do those. I keep examples of my work on Github. I don’t have time to waste coding projects for a maybe job offer. If they don’t like it, well…it’s a seller’s market in IT at the moment.
@BillyS
Stop giving your salary target before the interview. You want them to want to hire you before they even have a chance to think of a specific salary level that you expect. If you give them something to high they write you off for obvious reasons, too low and they wonder if something is wrong and will do the same just to safe a perceived hassle. This is speaking as someone that’s been on both sides of the hiring process in IT and software development.
I honestly believe that if Adam had simply walked away and gone about his business after seeing Eve eat the fruit and not drop dead immediately, he would have been doing no wrong. After all, God specifically rebukes Adam for listening to his wife (that is, following her in her decision), not for failing to lead her or abdicating any kind of responsibility. If this really was an abdication of authority by Adam, then Paul would be leaving out a very important detail when discussing authority in the Church in 1 Timothy 2:12-14. I don’t see where people get this idea that Adam was somehow responsible for how Eve exercised her freewill.
“Stop giving your salary target before the interview.”
And never tell anyone what you are making now–including recruiters.
Otto: One manager continued to interview people for non-existent job opening,
It’s customary in Hollywood to interview people for non-existent jobs. Producers, talent agents, and executives do it all the time. When I first discovered this some 30 years ago, and asked why this was so, I was given two reasons …
1. To see what talent was out there, just in case (i.e., lookiloos).
2. Hollywood types love to show off. They want young people, film students and such, to come in and admire their impressive offices and high positions (i.e., ego-stroking).
I once interviewed with a music/film CEO, in his 60s, who asked me how old I was. He was pleased that I was in my 20s. He bragged to me that he was surrounded by young people. He said he had a young accountant, a young attorney, young employees. I discovered there was no job opening. He just liked to have young people come in and admire him, and affirm his hipness.
@Dalrock
A suggestion: It would be interesting to see how the French/Anglo tales of chivalry/courtly love compare to Germanic tales such as those recounted by the Brothers Grimm. It seems that the chivalry tales were for the aristocracy and nobility, while the Grimm tales were told by ordinary people for ordinary people and thus focused on practical moral lessons.
I find radio silence after an interview to be utterly unprofessional. I think the concept of interviewing when there are no openings to be bizarre. Do they really expect the candidates to still be available and interested after months and months of radio silence?
I found that the percentage of would be employers who require you to take a non trivial coding test to be rather high these days. I also declined to proceed with many who required such a test, as I have better things to do than spend a Saturday afternoon stressing myself taking said tests, then getting even more stressed out with the day long interview, trying to ace all the trick questions, just to get the radio silence treatment for weeks after that.
What is even crazier is that a former manager would like to hire me to work at his current place. There are other former coworkers there as well, so I am not an unknown to them. In fact, I was one of my ex manager’s best rated workers. But I would still have to take the test and from what I have been told it’s one of the toughest ones out there. If I got this job it might mean getting a small bump in pay, but it would also mean working in one of those “bench seating environments” that the young people seem to love so much and its in downtown Boulder, CO, meaning I would have to about $200 a month to park my car. So no, I’m not interested.
I know there is a huge debate going at the moment, but, did we talk already about the “could have been a hero?”
https://www.rgj.com/story/news/2018/04/23/sparks-fighter-pilot-911-september-11/476064002/
Frank K @1:45 pm:
“I have even had several interviews that seemed to go well, but which either resulted in the organization just vanishing (without notice to me)
“I find radio silence after an interview to be utterly unprofessional. I think the concept of interviewing when there are no openings to be bizarre.”
On both counts, it’s primarily a legal issue. If candidates know why they weren’t selected for a job then they might have grounds to sue; therefore, a smart employer never gives the reason. Why, then, make a point of giving a “we didn’t hire you for nondisclosed reasons” notice?
Also, the new hire might not work out. In which case, the company that gave notification ended up encouraging candidates to not wait around just in case. The smart candidates don’t wait anyway, of course, but the company looks bad when it says “we found someone better than you but oops, we now think he was actually worse. Want a try?”
Similarly, sometimes interviews/tests need to be held for a position to “prove” there was competition for it when a good candidate had already been selected. The manager doesn’t want to waste his time but compliance with corporate/gov’t guidelines often requires going through the motions. This happens most often with internal promotions conflicting with anti-favoritism rules, which sounds like your current situation.
If there was less gov’t & frivolous litigation then hiring managers would be more honest.
All you need to do is look how the women got into the military, military academies, Virginia Military Institute, the army infantry, fighter jets, and now they are trying for the Navy Seals. In every single case, some feminists sued the government or the school for being excluded, and some judge ruled in their favor. In every single case the men in the previously exclusively male branch of military service strongly resented the women forcing their way in. There is no lack of men willing to serve. Women are in the military because they demanded to be there, and for no other reason.
Our company is required to interview at least three candidates for every opening, even if they know who they’re going to hire. It’s usually a dead giveaway if you’re getting the job, because they’ll “guide” you through the interview. It also means that for at least two people, t’s a waste of their time. But when have women cared about wasting men’s time?
@thedeti
3. They are wolves in sheeps clothing especially if they look to be approved opposition. False allies. And working with the enemy.
Gunner Q,
It is not a privacy issue to have no response. At least saying, “we have decided to pursue other candidates” or something else generic would be much more responsible and have no risk. I suppose it could if they were lying and they interviewed you for a position that didn’t exist, but that is another ethical issue as well.
I would dispute that today. I am convinced much of the BS is the individuals, not the government requirements.
“Some alternative system,” sounds like the upper-rank Specialists that the Army did away with in the ’80s. One wasn’t automatically either an NCO or unpromoted. I have felt for years that they should bring them back.
And as to women in military service, it isn’t that no women can, though most cannot. It’s because it’s not a woman’s role or function. In my twenty years’ in and around the Army Reserve, I’ve known quite a number of women in uniform: most were best-placed in desk jobs, and (Dare I say it? Yes.) most were trying, consciously or not, to Be Men.
A significant reason for that JJG is that the job of the military is to destroy things and kill people. That should fall on men so any woman trying to be a significant part of it will be inherently acting like a man.
Teaching things that have been learned over a decade or more of observation, analysis and argument in the Christian manosphere to those who have not taken the journey themselves is always going to be difficult. Much of what we know is the consequence of committed engagement with these ideas and collegiate pounding in the test-against-scripture crucible. It’s almost impossible to teach to someone these ideas who isn’t willing (or hasn’t the motivation or reason) to go the distance for themselves. Can’t do it if your interlocutor’s primary motivation is to sell copy. Interviews invariably fall short for this reason.
Complementarians and other blue pill purveyors of Christianity are looking for a ‘nutshell’ argument to take the place of masculine revelation. This is the basic problem with the Red Pill/Blue Pill metaphor – it’s not actually some instant enlightenment a man gets by taking a pill, it’s the result of a series of awakenings on a long journey of masculine development. Men need to travel this journey themselves. Red Pill wisdom ’emerges’ in manhood rather than simply being shared in writings on the internet. It could be re-termed ‘the making of a man’ for what it reveals in a man’s being.
Problem is that it’s the wisdom of the elders in an age where age has no meaning. This exchange with Nathan is taling place in an age where bite-sized chunks of information and identity politics have taken the place of healthy masculine development. He wants neat little parcels of information that fit into what has been taught to him in the church that describe red pill wisdom. Never going to work untill he goes on the journey himself, not for his audience, but for himself, driven by a personal need. You can lead a horse to water but you can’t make him drink.
Christian men like Nathan find the RP difficult to swallow because it seems like a reactionary fix by angry men on the internet rather than the learned wisdom of a different kind of ‘elders’. Many men don’t see the trial by fire we’ve all gone through to learn and absorb this wisdom. It’s on us to share it with others, but I don’t think it can be done easily by public debate. It’s more suited to a 1:1 mentoring relationship where questionable ideas can be talked through in conversation and over time until they’re fully understood and appreciated.
High Plains Drifter,
I like your reasoning and explanation. I wasn’t able to articulate that, but now that you did, I will use it as one of my primary reasons for why I hope Dalrock doesn’t get distracted by getting into writing a book, like so many here want him to do.
Otto and Captain Generic (great name BTW) and others are 100% correct: there is a massive surplus of men willing to serve in infantry roles.
Saying otherwise is a flat out lie and a slur and should earn that person a punch in the face.
Yes in WW II and Vietnam we called out many more troops, but today’s modern munitions are far more powerful and accurate than those of WW II and Vietnam. Combined with air superiority, this means large concentrations of enemy troops will be destroyed quickly. You could have cleared the German trenches in WW I in a week with a half dozen AC-130 gunships.
So we won’t see large masses of troops banging together, and hence we need a lot fewer infantry, but the remaining infantry must be very good, so both the physical and intellectual the standards have risen dramatically.
Army infantry today are trained to special forces standards of WW II (i.e., to the level of Rangers or paratroopers as seen in the Band of Brothers HBO series). That means you get a whole division (100,000 men) where the tip of the spear is absolutely first rate. To get all those top-flight infantry (not even talking special forces yet) you need 3x or 4x the actual number you end up with since the wash out rate is so high.
If you don’t believe me, listen to what this French soldier who served with our forces in the Middle East said about them. (And no jokes about the French: they are excellent soldiers and sailors.)
“Heavily built, fed at the earliest age with Gatorade, proteins, and creatine- they are all heads and shoulders taller than us and their muscles remind us of Rambo. Our frames are amusingly skinny to them – we are wimps, even the strongest of us – and because of that they often mistake us for Afghans. And combat? If you have seen Rambo you have seen it all – always coming to the rescue when one of our teams gets in trouble, and always in the shortest delay. That is one of their tricks: they switch from T-shirt and sandals to combat ready in three minutes. Arriving in contact with the enemy, the way they fight is simple and disconcerting: they just charge!
They disembark and assault in stride, they bomb first and ask questions later – which cuts any pussyfooting short. Honor, motherland – everything here reminds of that: the American flag floating in the wind above the outpost, just like the one on the post parcels. Even if recruits often originate from the hearth of American cities and gang territory, no one here has any goal other than to hold high and proud of the star spangled banner. Each man knows he can count on the support of a whole people who provides them through the mail all that an American could miss in such a remote front-line location: books, chewing gums, razorblades, Gatorade, toothpaste etc. In such a way that every man is aware of how much the American people backs him in his difficult mission. And that is the first shock to our preconceptions: the American soldier is no individualist. The team, the group, the combat team are the focus of all his attention.”
https://warriorlodge.com/blogs/news/16298760-a-french-soldiers-view-of-us-soldiers-in-afghanistan
So the next time Matt Chandler or some other effeminate complementarian lies about men avoiding military service, feel free to punch them in the face for me.
As far as the tech project before an interview–I don’t do those. I keep examples of my work on Github. I don’t have time to waste coding projects for a maybe job offer. If they don’t like it, well…it’s a seller’s market in IT at the moment.
Are you saying no one had to tell you, “Learn to code?” 😀
@Cynthia “The end result of this will be that conservative patriotic women will probably be driven out of the service, and replaced with leftist reactionaries who will make their male counterparts’ lives miserable.”
The problem is that conservative patriotic women have no business being in the armed forces in the first place, in any capacity. The medical branch should be completely separate from the Army. If Geneva Convention bans shooting at doctors, nurses, and hospitals, why put them in uniform to begin with?
As a man that’s been fighting against the evil feminist court junta for the past 8 years, I learned a long time ago that its best to choose your very best arguments and go with those.
IMO a great example of this is to choose the military combat argument. Observations/comments:
1. Nathan is slick. It took me 2 readings to ‘catch’ what he is trying to do.
2. Notice how he uses the general to answer the specific. Specifically, do women need to go to combat because men won’t do it? (general) answer:
…”And men are moral agents who are tempted to abdicate.”
3. I believe the prudent thing to do when one reaches a point like this is to STOP. Ask for a responsive SPECIFIC answer to the question: Do women need to go to combat because men won’t do it?
If he refuses to answer responsively, we all know he is not dealing in good faith.
Women shouldn’t be serving at all. I realize there are conservative women serving in auxiliary roles who never wanted to see women in combat, but armies are a male enterprise entirely. Roman auxiliaries were all men and Seutonius recorded how easy it was going to be for the Romans to slaughter the British because they brought their women with them. Also, women entering into previously-male organization changes the masculine culture of the organization and discourages men from joining. Women in the service was always foothold for the Left.
It’s true that 80% of men these days can’t meet the physical, mental, and criminal standards to join. Joe Rogan had a SF solider on his podcast who was talking about this. We have a lot of high-tech weapons and even basic marksmanship isn’t for dummies. A lot of inner city youth who make up most of our children have some sort of criminal background and low academic achievement and IQ. Kids are also not active anymore. Even if none of this were true, the Army would STILL have trouble finding competent men who want to service in pointless, interminable overseas globalist nation-building follies. Now the culture of the army is so irreparably changed that men are never going to join. Who wants to serve with whiny, aggrieved women, homosexuals and trannies and report to incompetent milicrats?
I hasten to add that our military is not being used to “DEFEND ARE COUNTRY!” If only it were! Has anyone besides me noticed the 30 million invaders from Latin America? If the government wants to raise a levy to throw out the invaders, I’ll take 2 years off of work and get an age waiver. I’ll have no problems passing a PFT. Until the army is used in defense of our borders, I recommend men not enlist.
@Sharkly
You’re on to something. Compiling a list of statements by the fathers, reformers, etc., pertaining to this topic, could prove helpful. And to be on the right side of any argument is to take the opposing side of the feminazis (fortuitous, indeed).
I think anonymity is necessary. Safety is a key reason, but public spectacles are another.
Here is an illustration.
My grandmother was one of those socially conservative individuals who voted with the left for most of her life because she perceived she was voting for JFK’s “ask not what you’re country can do for you” even though her vote in reality was for WJC and BHO’s “I’m gonna get mine.” Now, forgive any discrepancies as I’m recounting a conversation from quarter century ago, but I believe it was 1996 when the reform party split into a right-wing and left-wing faction and had two conventions. The left wing convention went off without a hitch, because the other side left them alone. However, when the right wing convention was held to nominate Pat Buchanan, the other side sabotaged it. Observing how the left wing convention went off smoothly and the right wing convention was a fight, she concluded “that Pat Buchanan is bad news, the people at the other convention didn’t act like this.” The perception betrayed the reality that it was not Pat Buchanan’s side that was fascist.
SJW punishment of others through humiliation, job loss, etc. is part of it.
The other part is the SJWs, with a supportive media, wants others to see a circus any time an opposing view is heard, so ill-informed observers will associate the SJW circus with their opposition, and not with them. SJWs seem less controversial, not because they are, but because their opponents are more tolerant and leave them alone.
I’ve never seen Dalrock endorse violence, quite the opposite actually. Yet, go to feministing or jezebel and you will regularly hear about threats usually castration. But Dalrock is more at risk of losing his job and his family being harmed, specifically because he is more tolerant than SJWs that preach tolerance.
it serves a dual purpose of scaring the believers into silence and causing observers to think “this only happens when them nasty christians/conservatives/republicans come to town.” Sort of like how Christians are called fascists despite their kindness, and Islam is called the “religion of peace” based on a history violence and intimidation: people know, even subconsciously, who to be afraid of.
I agree that the U.S. military isn’t being used to defend America.
I heard recently that Trump changed his mind and is keeping U.S. troops in Syria after all, because Israel wants us there. We’re also saber ratting against Iran for the same reason.
We might go into Venezvuela because corporate globalists want regime change.
No U.S. troops on the U.S. border, but U.S. troops all around the world because other nations, and corporate globalists, dictate our military policy. And if a president opposes it, the media will attack him for all sorts of bogus issues, until he “gets with the program.”
Those are the new deacons and priests of modern women:
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-6663453/Why-tough-admit-dont-want-baby-FARRAH-STOR-reveals-doesnt-want-mum.html
Many of my comrades and I retired earlier than we planned from the US military. PC is put above the mission for the grrlz all the time. When they take over a command, everything discussed in the manosphere happens. The best officers often retire as soon as they become eligible to maintain sanity. This of course adversely affects readiness long term.
And, when there’s even a whiff of combat deployment, all the grrrrrlllllls magically become preggers. Or get BS profiles. Or claim “sexual assault” and get PTSD $$. All the while the command fudges their PT scores to keep the numbers up.
We are in decline.
blu on Nathan
Ask for a responsive SPECIFIC answer to the question: Do women need to go to combat because men won’t do it?
If he refuses to answer responsively, we all know he is not dealing in good faith.
Excellent. An hypothesis that can be tested is always preferable to wordy wordiness handwavy wordiness.
Perhaps in later installments of the interview we will see Nathan’s positions and intentions clarified.
If you want me to be responsible for the well being of my wife then you’d better give me some authority to go along with that. Responsibility without authority is slavery. Authority without responsibility is tyranny.
Pingback: Warhorn interview: Have you stopped beating your wife? | Dalrock
Pingback: Why Warhorn Media’s duplicity matters. | Dalrock
Pingback: Warhorn’s projection | Dalrock
Pingback: Did I lie about Matt Chandler? | Dalrock
In Nathan’s rebuttal to comment #3 he said, ”No. Their husbands must also rule over them and discipline them.”
Can he or anyone give an example of how a man can ”discipline” his wife? Take away her credit cards?
It seems like anything a man does to discipline his wife could be cited as evidence of being ”controlling and abusive ” in a divorce hearing.
Is Nathan incapable of seeing that he is advocating something that does not exist? Under today’s laws any form of discipline a man attempts to impose on his wife can and will be used against him in a court of law. Husbands have no recognized authority today. At best they can psychologically manipulate her into believing he has authority. But most women are far better at mind games than their husbands are.