18 At that time the disciples came to Jesus, saying, “Who is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven?” 2 And calling to him a child, he put him in the midst of them 3 and said, “Truly, I say to you, unless you turn and become like children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven. 4 Whoever humbles himself like this child is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven.
–Matt 18:1-4, ESV
One of the astounding things modern Christians have done is twist Scripture into a gospel of girlpower. Christian women are now taught that the Gospel is a message of high self esteem. From American Heritage Girls Girl Power and God’s Power:
RECOGNIZING HER WORTH IN CHRIST
It is the prayer of the American Heritage Girls Ministry that girls understand both who they are and whose they are. Through Progressive Programming tailored to the age and ability of the child, AHG Troop Members are given the opportunity to discover their gifts and talents, allowing them to grow in their confidence and self-esteem. In a word, Girl Members are given a chance to find their worth. In a world that places so much of a girl’s self-worth in the way others perceive her, AHG strives to teach girls that they are already blessed with value beyond measure in the eyes of the Heavenly Father.
But even if there were no program like American Heritage Girls to teach girls the gospel of self esteem, they would be bombarded with this message across Christian women’s social media.
All of Scripture is tortured until it preaches a message of feminist empowerment. As Wendy Griffith explains, women are the Pearl of Great Price!
Pearl of Great Price
Ladies, the Lord wants you to know that you are a pearl of great price, a treasure worth pursuing and protecting. You are worth fighting for and, like the pearl in the parable at the head of this chapter, worth everything it might cost a guy to obtain you. You are worth someone sacrificing his time, his routine, his comfort, his money, his whatever in order to have you. You are worth it! You are a prize to be won.
Christian women are of course hearing the message, as the blogger at Drurywriting discovered when teaching college students about sin. In Do Women sin? he explains that while his students have no trouble identifying a list of sins men are tempted by, they are reliably stumped when he asks them to list sins women tend to be tempted by. Eventually the women in his classes remember women’s solitary weakness:
Lack of self esteem
Of all the Scripture modern Christians torture into a gospel of girlpower, Proverbs 31 is probably the most frequently victimized. From A Proverbs 31 Princess at flourishgathering.com:
You are the embodiment of the Proverbs 31 woman.
For many of us, including myself, we read about the Proverbs 31 woman and immediately disassociate ourselves from her. She is described as a “wife of noble character” (v. 10) whose “children stand and bless her” (v.28), and most of the time we hardly feel we fit that description. Consider with me, however, that no matter what season of life you are in, you are a combination of the two truths I have set before you:
You are a Proverbs 31 Princess
The post concludes with:
So, rejoice, dear sister! You are not just an ordinary woman going through the throes of life, destined to stay where you are. You are the jewel in your Father’s crown! You are a Princess who is every bit the Proverbs 31 Woman.
In a followup post titled Embracing the Proverbs 31 princess, the author explains that for Christian women self exaltation is an act of faith:
For many, accepting that we are a Proverbs 31 Princess is an act of faith, in and of itself. It’s contrary to the way we think. The majority of us have never been told that we are royalty, let alone that we’re worthy, beautiful, intelligent, and so-on.
As the author explains, not only is there a biblical tie in to Disney princesses, but there is a tie in to chivalry as well.
You and I have been given so much more than a magic pumpkin turned coach or a charming prince to woo us.
No, our Prince gave His very life for us at Calvary’s Cross to ensure our place in God’s kingdom was secured. Our worth can be seen in the nail-scarred hands of the One who loves us beyond measure. Ephesians 1:4 tells us that “Even before he made the world, God loved us and chose us in Christ to be holy and without fault in his eyes.” (NLT)
Proverbs 31:10-31 provides with a model for being a Christian woman. This woman is set in the context of the culture of that time, but you and I can still aspire to be called “virtuous and capable.” Living in the modern age does not disqualify us nor does it nullify her. As I said earlier this week, it doesn’t matter what season of life you are in, you are the embodiment of the Proverbs 31 Princess.
Related:
- If she has enough self esteem she won’t tingle for Harley McBadboy
- If she can’t demand a husband then how do we expect her to demand salvation?
Imagine a preacher claiming that every man in his audience was “the embodiment” of a Godly, valuable man.
Isn’t the quest to increase self-esteem just a quest to obtain that Hellish vice Pride?
I keep seeing a car around town with a bumper sticker that quotes psalm 46:5, “God is within her and she will not fall”. Only I think the sticker misquotes it to say “fail”. I’ve also seen it on pink t-shirts. Something tells me these women are completely ignorant that the “she” is Israel. I shudder to think what a woman who thinks this is her own special bible verse might get up to in the name of being His special princess.
Just started dating a girl. She has hundreds of selfies in her phone, and nothing else. “This is my niece,” she says, and shows me a selfie of herself with a toddler in the distant background. “Have you visited this lake?” she asks, and shows me a selfie with some sort body of water just visible behind her.
Don’t fathers ever tell their daughters to cut it out; that they are making clowns of themselves?
“No matter what season you’re in…”
Translation: You’re still single like me and have no prospects that meet your huge list of requirements.
The Proverbs 31 woman was praised for her virtue. Specifically, she was praised for the hard work of her hands in serving her husband and her family in the home, not for the fact that she just existed.
A corruption of the “you can’t earn salvation” idea, these women are born princesses of power. There’s no working to be better with these biblical divas and how dare you suggest it. Good day, patriarchy! I said good day!
I think that Ms. Griffith has fundamentally misunderstood the message of the Gospel. We cannot see our worth in the wounds of Jesus, because we’re not worthy. He gave Himself up for us because He loves us, not because we deserved it.
She also forgets that even if her understanding were correct then that would apply equally to men, who would be equally worth of her sacrificing her time, effort, routine et cetera.
Finally not every woman is a Woman of Valor (or “Proverbs 31 woman/Princess”) any more than every man is a paragon of virtue. Most of Proverbs 31:10-31 is a message about how hard a woman must work to be considered one of the Women of Valor. It’s not just a title given to every Christian woman. Most women will never reach that level of virtue, just like most of us men will not reach the loftier heights of Christian virtue.
For a grand total of about 46.3 seconds, American Heritage Girls had the potential to be the alternative to the Girl Scouts.
It’s unfortunate that American Heritage Girls buys into this same line of thought. Girl scouts is not a good option, for obvious reasons. It’s like, if you want your daughter to be in STEM or art or sports or whatever, there are all kinds of programs to be involved with. If you want to train and prepare her to be a good wife and mother, there is nothing. No groups, no programs, no special charter schools, nothing.
It is curious that the Bible book of Proverbs consists solely of verse 31. I’m not kidding, I’ve asked men who are serious churchgoers, men who are officers in their church, “Quote something from Proverbs” and with very few exceptions all that they have to say is 31.
It’s odd, that verse says that a good woman is “rarer than rubies” but apparently them there rubies are everywhere, there’s a whole pile of them in every church and religious org.
Yet elsewhere:
Proverbs 21:9 It is better to live in a corner of a roof Than in a house shared with a contentious woman.
Proverbs 21:19 It is better to dwell in the wilderness, than with a contentious and an angry woman.
Proverbs 25:24 It is better to live in a corner of the roof Than in a house shared with a contentious woman.
Proverbs 27:15 A continual dropping in a very rainy day and a contentious woman are alike. 16 restraining her is like restraining the wind or grasping oil with the hand.
I’ve been told that when a concept is mentioned more than once in the Bible it is important, and very important things get mentioned three times. Here’s four in one book…
I wonder how a man could know one of the Proverbs 31 Princesses just by sight? Perhaps by listening to her words? Or by watching the actions of her hands?
Proverbs 14:1 Every wise woman buildeth her house: but the foolish plucketh it down with her hands.
Nikolai Vladivostok says:
Just started dating a girl. She has hundreds of selfies in her phone
She’s on her best behavior, you know.
Step. Away. Now.
It’s a continuation of the idea. In its practical implication that idea has meant no requirement to repent…therefore there can’t be anything wrong with women, therefore the only problem is a lack of self esteem, therefore every women is the ideal (Prov 31 woman).
Of course the implication of that is every woman is god.
It seems to me that Proverbs 31 is either a praise by men for the type of wife they would honour and love, or I have heard that it is a warning by Bathsheba to Solomon of the type of wife he should seek. Proverbs 31 also says something to the effect or; who can find such a woman.
Any Bible Protestants who disagree should feel free to do so.
From the Miss Griffith quotes above it seems that she is describing a “Jesus eroticism”. Which is a starting point for the few women who are seeking the religious life in a mystic contemplative community such as the Carmelites. But the amazing lack of humility she encourages will bring only misery to a nun and her community in the long term.
Pingback: Proverbs 31 princesses | Reaction Times
Nikolai Vladivostok,
Just started dating a girl. She has hundreds of selfies in her phone, and nothing else.
It depends what your goal is from ‘dating’ her.
She is unsuitable for marriage. Even more so if she is over 24 and still taking that many selfies.
But if your goal is just casual sex for a short while, or even a FB, this may not matter as long as she is pleasant to be around when you are with her.
Pingback: Embracing Feminist Scouting – v5k2c2.com
Hey folks,
I know this is off topic, but I’ve had nowhere to post it since CH’s place went down, and its been on my mind lately. I want to see what you all think of it as an approach to the gay marriage issue. Gay marriage has always left a clear and distinct sting in the back of my head, similar to when someone tells you that a dark alley way is safe while your conscious tells you he’s a liar. My intuition and gut tells me gay marriage is nonsense, but articulating why is challenging. So here’s my way of doing just that:
The tl;dr is: By supporting gay marriage, it is implied that you believe the father/mother is trivial to raising their children, hence their sacrifices make no difference and they have no moral obligations to do so.
In depth look:
If you had two peach trees – one on the left, the other on the right – and for the left tree you decide to ornate one of its branches with a picture of your family, whereas on the other tree you added nothing to it; then you gave each tree the exact same amount of sunlight, water, etc.; In time they grow and bear fruit, each one bearing the same amount of tasty peaches. In the end they bore the same fruit despite one having an ornament on it. You would have to admit as a gardener that adding the ornament of your family did nothing; it did not make the tree bear more fruit. It made no difference whether the tree had an ornament or not, thus the ornament was not necessary – it was arbitrary – in other words, hanging an ornament on the tree is as good as not hanging one on the tree. So why hang one if you don’t have too?
I personally do not believe that a child growing up with a father/mother is as good as a child growing up without a father/mother. The reason is that by equating the two, it implies that the role of the father/mother is trivial – i.e. arbitrary – i.e. why fulfill the role if it makes no difference? However, gay marriage by necessity produces this moral equivalence. By supporting gay marriage, you are in fact implying that a child growing up without a mother/father is worthy of national recognition and protection, and must be respected in the same way as a child growing up in a traditional marriage; hence you believe that to grow up without a mother/father is as good as to grow up with one.
Now, to tell the gardener he is obligated to hang an ornament from the tree, even when it is known it makes no difference, would be ridiculous; the same can be said for the father/mother – that is, that they they are obligated to raise their child even when it is preconditioned, through gay marriage, that it is in fact just as good for the child to not have a father/mother. If it makes no difference, how can the obligation arise? This is ridiculous because it is a contradiction of what one thinks is good/right/moral/obligated/preferable. If it is good for a child to grow up with a father/mother, than it cannot be good for them to grow up without a father/mother.
The argument syllogized:
1.) Gay marriage implies that a gay union is as good as a straight one, hence all that is implied through each one is as good as what is implied through the other.
2.) To grow up without a father/mother is a necessary component of gay unions
3.) Hence to grow up without a father/mother is as good as to grow up with one, thus the father/mother is trivial and their sacrifices unnecessary.
4.) Therefore to believe (1), you must believe (3).
The contrapositive would be as follows:
1.) To grow up without a father/mother is not as good as to grow up with one.
2.) To grow up without a father/mother is a necessary component of gay unions
3.) Hence gay unions are not as good as straight unions, thus gay marriage is not possible.
4.) Therefore to believe (1), you must believe (3).
Something else to consider is that no form of traditional marriage produces this clear contradiction. Example: an adopted child will still have a father and mother figure; a child with a step father will still have a father and mother figure; and so on.
Only through gay marriage is this false moral equivalence produced; and it produces a sting in the back of my mind because an obligation is still expected on the father/mother (man up and raise your kids!) while simultaneously acknowledging that it is just as good as if you weren’t there.
People who support gay marriage, yet still expect an obligation on fathers/mothers to raise their children are trying to have their cake and eat it too; they want things both ways even though the two contradict each other (if one is good, the other is not and vice versa).
I know this is long winded, and could probably be articulated better, which is in part why I am writing it, because I want to articulate this argument effectively and smoothly without hiccups when I get in political arguments with friends, relatives and others who pretend like the gay narrative has won the day and all is history now. One thing I’m trying to do is to craft this argument to appeal to someones intuition/gut; it is my belief that almost everyone believes gay marriage is wrong – they know it in their stomach – but they lack the vocabulary to describe it. This is because the truth of the matter is hidden in ones intuition, and careful thinking is required to pull out the proper words so that others can understand specifically why they feel uncomfortable at the thought of it.
What do you guys thinks? What should be added and taken away?
Regards,
safespaceplaypen
JustRae, exactly so. Well said.
Safespaceplaypen, homosexuality is wrong because God said so. Homo “marriage” isn’t marriage at all, because that’s not how God defined marriage.
People who won’t listen to that won’t listen to anything else you have to say against the narrative, anyway.
So much self esteem. So much self-aggrandizement. So much pride.
But apparently, no men are pearls (or rubies, or whatever) of great price, good enough for these nitwit women. But they keep cats, who are good enough. Does that mean cats > men?
safeplaceplaypen,
That’s a sensible way to look at it. It also applies to the mistake of claiming that single motherhood is just as effective as dual parents. If women don’t need a man and kids don’t need a dad, then what logical reason does a man have to marry and support children?
Lots of people wrote articles, even in some major secular publications, during the great gay marriage debate, using logic to make a case for traditional marriage. But the opposite side has emotional arguments, and emotion carried the day. More kids are just going to have to suffer so gay couples can play house.
Hey dudes, here is what I did for Labor Day
https://ljubomirfarms.wordpress.com/2019/09/04/labor-day-weekend-home-building/
So true. Not even churches have such programs. Even church schools prepare girls to be career women.
They dont put much thought into this stuff they compare themselves to. A pearl is a piece of worthless sand that gets stuck in its hosts mouth. And then irritates until saliva builds up and the irritating sand turns into a slick not irritating pearl.
For a clam its a nail in your tire with nothing but fix a flat. Which is exactly what most of these chicks end up like nails in your tire.
Speaking of doing stuff, and the topic of this post.
Self-esteem, which, as far as I can tell was originally simply a new way of saying “a realistic assessment and view of yourself based on actual accomplishments” is now just a stupid nebulous, subjective construct like everything else.
In the days since it first became a thing, it has become a procedural reference point that one “gives” their child by telling them how awesome they are. However, this should be better identified as “false esteem” or something like that. Because as soon as you encounter an actual, real life test of your abilities and you fail, the esteem you had in yourself proves to be dissonant and inconsistent with reality.
You should only esteem yourself if you have real, tangible evidence that it is earned.
I feel like I am stating the obvious and it makes me want to move to mars.
Locusts,
Women are certainly irritating, especially today. They also do not want to be covered with anything since most believe they are already perfect in every way. Smoothing their surface is also out of the question and you will be an abuser/controller if you try that!
@Scott:
Ahnold agrees.
Nah, that’s just how women normally take pictures. Havent you seen the meme that compare ho men vs. Women take pictures
@Scott
Yup, I once heard a definition of “humility” as “seeing yourself as God sees you”. This has multiple facets and dimensions, but I think self-esteem is related. Knowing one’s station, how you stand before the King, and to a lesser extent how you compare to others.
What I think the world passes off as self-esteem is much different… it’s like trained pride. Thinking of yourself as awesome despite a lack of anything concrete to measure yourself by.
How then should we discern between proper Biblical teaching of identity from feminist empowerment?
(im not defending the quotes, dont jump on me guys)
@ white
It would help if Christians actually read their Bibles.
For example, the description of the virtuous wife begins…
Proverbs 31:10 Who can find a virtuous wife?
For her worth is far above rubies.
The passage tells you right there that a virtuous wife is rare, because she’s difficult to find. What makes rubies precious? Their rarity. If rubies were as common as pebbles, they’d be worth what pebbles are worth.
Furthermore, Proverbs 31 is at the end of the book. There are 30 chapters that precede it. Did they bother to read those chapters? Did they read about the loud, obnoxious, foolish woman? Did they read the multiple Proverbs about contentious women, and how insufferable they are? Did the read about the immoral women that Proverbs commands men to avoid? Did they read about the foolish woman who tears down her house with her own hands?
No?
Then, what business do they have reading Proverbs 31, if they haven’t read Proverbs 1-30?
The problem is that few Christians actually read their Bibles. Most Christians only read the few verses their pastor preaches on Sunday morning.
The Bible constantly refers back to itself. The New Testament constantly refers back to the Old Testament, and later books in the Old Testament refer to the previous books. If a person is ignorant of that context; how can he/she know what the passages say?
Christians need to read the entire Bible, cover to cover, Genesis to Revelation, over and over throughout their entire lives.
The most effective way to learn to recognize a counterfeit is to study the authentic article. That’s true about diamonds, money, artwork, and doctrine.
The church as a bride of Christ isn’t a prize to be won. (This is a major theological statement in & of itself). The bride is set apart by God as his own/as a gift to Christ.
There isn’t any biblical justification for this feminist nonsense- it’s just unbridled rebellion. The redeeming-quality of these women’s their behavior let’s the faithful determine wheat from chaff
Search the scriptures yourself. Only listen to those qualified to teach per Timothy and Titus.
safeplaceplaypen, gay marriage became possible after 2 big social changes. The first one, as I believe Novaseeker explained here many times, was the “normalization” of gay people through entertainment media (think Will and Grace). The seedier part of gay culture was ignored, and gay people were represented as doing exactly the same things as straight people, only better and wittier.
The second change is actually older, and it is so insidious that most people don’t even notice it. It is the redefinition of marriage itself. The specific difference of marriage, what made marriage marriage and distinct from other contracts, was that it was an act through which the spouses gave one another public and irrevocable consent to the acts proper to the generation of children (i.e. PiV sex). All other acts could be consented privately, or refused privately, but this specific acts were publically and irrevocably consented to. The only way to withdraw the consent was by the public act of separation/divorce. In Brazil for instance, it was impossible for a husband to rape his wife, but if she sodomized her against her will she could go to the police and he would go to jail, as she had not given consent to that particular act (which was not technically rape, but carried the same sentence).
The moment marriage became a mere co-mixing of assets with some tax repercussions, with NO reference to any type of sexual consent, gay marriage was made possible and, indeed, as a matter of justice, inevitable.
Your argument, by the way, is not an argument against gay marriage, but an argument against the raising of children by gays or lesbians. Your argument could be accepted in full and it would not make a dent on gay marriage.
One thing I’m trying to do is to craft this argument to appeal to someones intuition/gut; it is my belief that almost everyone believes gay marriage is wrong – they know it in their stomach – but they lack the vocabulary to describe it. This is because the truth of the matter is hidden in ones intuition, and careful thinking is required to pull out the proper words so that others can understand specifically why they feel uncomfortable at the thought of it.
What do you guys thinks? What should be added and taken away?
I don’t disagree with the logic of your argument, but I don’t think that most people in our culture view marriage that way any longer.
The arguments about children/family didn’t “win the day” in the gay marriage debate largely because straight couples don’t view marriage as being *intrinsically* about children any longer. Marriage is viewed as an extension of self-actualization — the shared self-actualization of two people who can help each other realize themselves together. This is how the straight world mostly views marriage, and certainly how the straight world of the opinion-making class views marriage. Children may very well be a part of that shared self-actualization journey, and often is, but it isn’t viewed as intrinsic to it, and therefore isn’t viewed as the reason for marriage, or the justification for marriage. Marriage has become about the shared self-actualization, through romantic love and its sexual expression, of two people — children perhaps present, but optional.
Added to that is the reality that the straight world has accepted into marriage all kinds of “irregular” situations when it comes to kids — people marrying after they have kids together, people marrying into situations where one person has kids already, people blending pre-existing families together with their own sired offspring together and so on. Lots of step daddies and step mommies all over the place, multiple sets of bio parents and step parents at Thanksgiving dinner and so on. This kind of chaos has become normal in the straight world. So the tolerance level for it also has gone way up — and the visceral reaction against “less than ideal” situations for child rearing has gone way down, other than among the upper middle class.
For these reasons, the argument against gay marriage on the basis of family/children failed. Straight people are used to looking at their marriages as not being inherently about family and children, and they are also very used to all kinds of irregular chaotic situations around children and family life in the marriages that they actually *do* have. For most of these people, excluding gay people from marriage because they couldn’t have bio kids, or because the children would be raised in an irregular situation, was simply not convincing based on how they view and/or live their own marriages and family lives.
It’s important to keep in mind that the “argument” would never be “won logically”. Almost noone makes decisions on the basis of logic, at the end of the day. Most people are much more intuitive and visceral about that. The logical “arguments” against gay marriage were ineffective for this reason — it was never going to be won or lost on logic, and the gays understood that very well. They didn’t make a logical argument, they made an emotional one, and it worked with flying colors, despite the very real (and persisting) sense of visceral disgust most straight men have when it comes to even thinking about what gay men do to each other. They were able to overcome that visceral disgust (1) by appealing emotionally to women, who do not share that visceral disgust, about either gay male or lesbian sex, and who then leaned on the men in their lives emotionally to set aside their own disgust and (2) because the norms of straight relationships and marriage, which fundamentally changed in the years after 1965 in a way that made the “arguments” against gay marriage, per se, less convincing because of what straight marriage had, in the meantime, become.
In any case, the fight on gay marriage is finished. Lots of people, mostly men, still have reservations about it because we have a visceral disgust about gay sex (for valid reasons), but the court of public opinion has moved decisively so continuing to argue about it is an exercise in wasted effort.
@Oscar
The “pearl of great price”, “worth chasing” and “proverbs 31” teachings are all obvious fruits of chivalry, it’s easy to see how wrong they are.
But what about the quote from American heritage girls?
>”RECOGNIZING HER WORTH IN CHRIST
“It is the prayer of the American Heritage Girls Ministry that girls understand both who they are and whose they are. Through Progressive Programming tailored to the age and ability of the child, AHG Troop Members are given the opportunity to discover their gifts and talents, allowing them to grow in their confidence and self-esteem. In a word, Girl Members are given a chance to find their worth. In a world that places so much of a girl’s self-worth in the way others perceive her, AHG strives to teach girls that they are already blessed with value beyond measure in the eyes of the Heavenly Father.””
While the quote above stinks of feminist empowerment/girlpower, the quote itself is… technically correct. I’m finding it hard to pinpoint how exactly this quote is different from what the Bible teaches. Perhaps I can make a case that the quote “In a world that places so much of a girl’s self-worth in the way others perceive her” is factually incorrect. But that’s a minor infraction.
Perhaps I can argue that girls are not “already blessed with value beyond measure in the eyes of the Heavenly Father.”” and that they need to humble themselves before the Lord, accept she’s a wretched and hopeless sinner who can do nothing without Christ. But that does not change the fact that God loves her and values her beyond measure. Which is the point of the quote.
Perhaps I can argue that the AHG should not single out girls (and girls only) in this quote, in a world where there are boys and men too. But that does not mean the quote is incorrect.
So as much as I cringe at the above quote, I can’t pinpoint the exact reason why it is unbiblical. I was hoping one of you can be of help at this.
If consent can be withdrawn, it’s not irrevocable. Divorce and remarriage paved the way for gay marriage.
@White:
To my mind, self-esteem comes from exercising your gifts and talents, not merely “discovering” them. As a programmer, I did not have much self-esteem at work until I got good at it.
Boy Scouts once upon a time “discovered” their self-esteem by camping out, building stuff, learning to shoot, build fires, and other forms of competition. We conquered nature in small but significant ways.
Our worth in Christ and self-esteem are not directly related. Our worth in Christ is a gift given by God to us through Jesus’ death and resurrection – we are adopted into a family that God is putting together. Yes, we are “blessed with value beyond measure”, but not for who we are by creation – only for the value of Christ in us.
@Novaseeker:
One contributing factor to the normalization of homosexuality in our culture was the acceptance of male-female anal intercourse. Once women and men get used to the idea of a guy sticking his penis up her poopchute, it’s not that far a step to two guys doing it.
@ white
What does the Bible say about “self esteem”?
What does the Bible say about how God sees humans?
Self-esteem, if it is a worthwhile endeavor, can be developed by acquiring it honestly. It takes a lifetime, and it is hard work. The child is exposed to challenges with incrementally increasing levels of difficulty. Each success gives the child the confidence to try the harder step.
Failure along this trajectory do not need to be seen as a disaster, but rather an opportunity to learn and adjust fire for the next round.
One can quickly see, however, that this approach eventually leads to acknowledging certain truths about how abilities are normally distributed among people. A child moving along his path in life will inevitably look to the children to the left and right of him and conclude that some are better at X than he is and some are worse. And that this distribution of abilities appears to be a natural phenomenon.
“Hey dad, its really cool playing basketball out here on the driveway and all, but how come Lemonjello is able run circles around me on the court at school and doesn’t even break a sweat?”
“Well, Billy, look at his muscle tone, his size, his strength, his speed. Its almost like the guy was built in a lab for playing basketball.”
“But if I eat right, work out, and practice out here all year, can’t I just beat him. My teacher, Mizzter Frankie-Kelly says I can be anything I want to be!”
“No. But you beat everyone you know at chess. That means your mind is organized and built to make you a keen strategist. You may really love playing basketball, but you should focus on developing your strengths. The probability of you going farther than high school as a bench warmer is very low.”
“People have different innate abilities? Wow, dad! Thanks for telling me the truth about life! I really like Lemonjello and he is super cool to hang out with. I will always enjoy watching him play and will admire his career from afar as we grow up together! Time to hit that chess board so I can develop MY talents just like he his developing his!”
“Great, son. And remember, no matter what you are innately good at, everyone is obligated to the right thing at all times.”
No one has to “hate” anyone or feel resentment. People are set free from the false chains of “You can be anything you want to, as long as you set your mind to it.” Everyone falls into their place, and lives with appropriate levels of self esteem–an esteem earned through trial and error.
Mars, here I come!
@safeplaceplaypen & Ranger,
You both make very good points. I would just add that gay “marriage” (I can never resist putting it in scare quotes) didn’t just come out of the blue with no groundwork. It was preceded by a number of developments, the most obvious of which was the erosion of the marriage contract through no-fault divorce. A marriage could be cancelled by one party, against the will of the other, for any reason or no reason, which undermined the idea of marriage as a public promise. But just as odious, though less obvious, was a subtle shift in the conception of marriage from what had been for thousands of years its reason for existence–the creation of a socially recognized unit for the procreation of the next generation, one that offered protection to women and children–to a concept of marriage as private and “companionate,” one that had a legal dimension but no real social one. That revised conception of marriage, along with the growing acceptance of in vitro conception and other reproduction technologies, made gay “marriage” inevitable. Many people have commented on how sudden the change came about, and how little real discussion or debate preceded it. What debates took place were usually concluded with a pious appeal to “love” (“Love is love, after all”), as if marriage were only about a frisson of emotion. (Since when are our affective states the concern of society?)
But there was actually a lot of change that came before it. I have to admit, though, that I didn’t see it coming either. Up to the Obergefell decision, I continued to think that it might turn out to be a passing bandwagon issue, one that would eventually fall out of vogue, but now I can see how blind I was to what was going on.
Timfinnegan, there have been hundreds of societies with divorce and without gay marriage, so it’s not the presence of one that paved the way for the other. Divorce is legal and has been legal in pretty much all muslim countries since forever, and it doesn’t look like they will be legalizing gay marriage anytime soon. The divorce prohibition is a specifically Christian thing (and basically the best example of how Jesus Christ was NOT a “man of his time”, whose views were shaped by his environment. It was a radical departure, as were many others of His teachings).
However, in all these societies, the basic understanding of marriage as public consent to PiV sex, requiring legal formalities for it to be withdrawn (if at all possible) has been understood, at least implicitly. This understanding has been changed (and pretty much completely lost) in the modern West.
“the creation of a socially recognized unit for the procreation of the next generation, one that offered protection to women and children–to a concept of marriage as private and “companionate,” one that had a legal dimension but no real social one. That revised conception of marriage, along with the growing acceptance of in vitro conception and other reproduction technologies, made gay “marriage” inevitable. ”
An excellent point. There have been highly homosexual societies before but they never felt the need to claim marriage, for the obvious reason that marriage held a different purpose. As marriage became revised to be symbolic of eros(which to some degree requires marriages to be ended when the eros is gone or weakens) marriage became attractive to all whose relationships were built on eros.
@Ranger and @Novaseeker
Most people in the world do not support gay marriage. full stop. Yet most nations in the world have a legal approach to marriage, so it would appear that gay marriage is not a necessary step from one crappy law to another. In some cases it might be. But I simply don’t think its inevitable. It all depends on the citizens of the country making it so.
@Ranger:
“Your argument, by the way, is not an argument against gay marriage, but an argument against the raising of children by gays or lesbians. Your argument could be accepted in full and it would not make a dent on gay marriage.”
I fell ya, but what I’m saying IS a clear argument against gay marriage, because a *necessary* implication of gay marriage is that fatherhood and motherhood are trivial – i.e. meaningless sacrifices that make no difference on the life of the children. By calling a gay union a “marriage” you are saying it is as good as a traditional marriage, hence everything that could *possibly* come from it (which includes the *potential* for children) is as good as well. This *by necessity* makes fatherhood and motherhood *in general* obsolete responsibilities (i.e. trivial/meaningless/as-good-as-not-being-there).
Gay marriage is a direct attack not merely on marriage – which is an impersonal social institution – but on fatherhood and motherhood themselves, which are personal to every man and woman on the planet who either has children or wants to have them. Gay marriage undermines father hood, because if the circumstance of two moms raising a child is *as good* as the circumstance of a father and mother raising a child (which is a direct implication of gay marriage btw), it thus follows that the father is trivial – i.e. his sacrifices (working two jobs, playing ball with his son, talking about deep subjects and how to get a girlfriend lol) are meaningless – i.e. they make no difference. You cannot have it both ways. You cannot think that supporting gay marriage is good and that being a father is still meaningful – it is a contradiction.
This argument is actually both emotional and logical – emotional in that it appeals to fathers and mothers wanting to believe their sacrifices for their children actually matter; and logical in that it is consistent. By focusing on the necessary implication gay marriage has on fatherhood and motherhood themselves, we are then able to rebuild marriage back to what it once was. Talking about what “marriage was meant for” is absolutely unnecessary and amounts to arguing over definitions; definitions are concepts, and concepts are almost always vague silhouettes of things that occur in reality. In reality we have the sacrifices that mothers and fathers make for their children, and the passion they have for the well being of them. By demonstrating that gay marriage makes their sacrifices meaningless, we can further demonstrate that meaning in fatherhood/motherhood can only be found in traditional definitions of marriage, but the latter should not be the direct approach because (as I said) it is arguing over definitions which never appeals to someones soul.
I remember getting in an argument way back in 2016 with some college friends who were supporters. One college friend was on the fence and the other was deep into supporting gay marriage. Off the cuff I said, “It’s kinda implied that gay marriage makes being a father trivial; so the sacrifices your father made for you, as well as what you will make for your kids, doesn’t really matter. This is implied through gay marriage. It makes growing up with a father as good as growing up without one. There is no way to get around it.” And there really was no way for them to get around it. In fact, in that moment my friend who was on the fence changed his mind considerably, and my other friend really couldn’t say anything because he would be forced to admit that he thinks fatherhood is a meaningless role, which he doesn’t truly believe.
You really need to ask your buddies who are gay marriage supporters one question:
“Do you think that the sacrifices fathers/mothers make for their children are meaningless?”
If yes, then you cannot change this persons mind. They are too far-gone.
But if no, then it is impossible for this person to genuinely believe in gay marriage, because gay marriage implies that very statement.
You can also change the question to: “Do you think being a mother makes a difference in the child’s life?” or “Do you think fathers should have a responsibility to raise their children?” All produce the same effect.
I think that the tides will turn against a lot of the retarded liberal changes that have swept the finer parts of the planet. Most people in the world don’t support gay marriage. That in itself is a good reason to think that the west is off base in their thinking – our common sense is momentarily out the window, so to speak lol.
safespace:
Heartiste is up at http://www.heartiste.org.
AnonReader, Sept 3 at 6:09 pm
And the rest of the verses in Proverbs you quoted there point to woman’s main sin, her main failing:
Her contentiousness. Her tendency to fight with people, especially men, especially her husband, to establish dominance, or just for sport, just for the sake of fighting. From the very get go, women contend with men, fight with men, over who will rule the roost, who will call the shots, who will make the decisions, who will run things.
Women can’t physically overpower men and beat them into submission, so they over time developed their strongest powers: Granting and denying access to sex, manipulation, shaming, deceit, subterfuge, sabotage.
“Your desire shall be to your husband, and he shall rule over you.”
To me, women’s contentiousness is the root of all their other sins:
–sexual promiscuousness
–selfishness, self absorption
–laziness, sloth, disorganization, clutter, messiness
–perpetual dissatisfaction, whining, complaining
–lying, manipulating others for their own ends
I’m sure there are others. The point is not to deceive ourselves that women don’t sin.
“Don’t fathers ever tell their daughters to cut it out; that they are making clowns of themselves?”
They would if their fathers were actually there.
@white
AHG is all about ‘me’ whereas the Bible is all about God. Boy scouts is about becoming a better person, Bible is about becoming sanctified, AHG is about feeling better about herself. Same actions, different end.
white @ 1:02 am:
“How then should we discern between proper Biblical teaching of identity from feminist empowerment?”
In the context of Heritage Girls, stop teaching then leadership and outdoors stuff (independence) and start teaching home arts. One day they’ll be keeping a husband’s home, not running a Fortune 500 company.
One-upping the Girl Scouts by selling homemade cookies for fundraisers instead of Corporate Cookies(tm) would be a great start.
What many commenters are showing is that these notions move along based on only half the story being told. It’s a spin technique. The half that you tell can be perfectly true.
Like when we are treated only to meek and mild Jesus without reference to Him calling pharisees hypocrites, or telling them they are like white washed tombs, or chasing money changers out of the temple with a lash. Or when a congregation is told that men should serve their wives, but not that wives also have responsibilities or obligations. You tell half of it. The half that influences the audience your way. You know, like a modern journalist.
American Heritage Girls Ministry explains that girls are … already blessed with value beyond measure in the eyes of the Heavenly Father.
All to the good, but there is more to the human condition to include words to the effect that all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God. The concepts go together and form the basis of the Gospel, but this is a girl power message and the whole story is not necessarily wanted for that.
The woman-firing-arrow poster:
Stop agreeing with the lies of the enemy and start fighting by believing the promises of God.
Another half of the implied story-line here might be which promises? – “in the world you will have tribulation”? “You will be hated by all because of My Name”? Telling all of it dilutes the empowerment meme and so is avoided.
Tell only half the story long enough and you get the attitude revealed in flourishgathering.com:
…we read about the Proverbs 31 woman and immediately disassociate ourselves from her.
Why not immediately aspire to be more like her rather than disassociate from her? Because the half of the story being used is the “prize to be won” half only. Eventually you can simply declare, as the author goes on to do – “You are a Princess who is every bit the Proverbs 31 Woman.”
You are her! And the project was entirely effort free! Born to it, as it were.
It has long been a puzzle to me as to why women lack self-esteem and they must lack esteem for otherwise they would not always be encouraged to do things for which they are either unsuited or uninterested and with the perennial call of you-go-girl – when any casual perusal of any of their Facebook pages will reveal photographs with smiles the width of the Grand Canyon and certainly on that basis having a far more encouraging time than ever I do. It remains to me a puzzle.
When I was younger Pride was said to come before a fall and was one of the Seven Deadly Sins, but no more apparently for women must wear pride in their achievements indeed their very existence as do Soldiers their medals. The same of course goes for those other professional victims the Gay Lobby. I await the little boy who cries out laughing at their antics and likewise at female pretension.
When I was younger anyone who said any words on behalf of queers would be met with the accusation ‘you must then be one yourself’. People who had sympathy then kept their mouths shut. Now it seems to me it is exactly the same people who once were aggressively anti-homosexual who will tell you the moment you have any reservation as to Homosexual behaviour that you are obviously a bigot and probably a National Socialist. Frequently it is a case of projection. Again, people keep their lips sealed. My theory is that secretly the elite are just as dismissive of the Gay lobby as are the rest of us but are amused by the antics much as they would once have been by the Fairground’s bearded lady or its midget.
As Hamlet put it ‘Lay not that flattering unction to your soul’ or as we would say ‘stop virtue signalling as to how wonderful you are’.
I think a lot of “dads” not only approve this behavior, they encourage it.
Lost Patrol
Eventually you can simply declare, as the author goes on to do – “You are a Princess who is every bit the Proverbs 31 Woman.”
A large part of this is due to deep differences between men and women that we cannot discuss in polite society. Because equalist blank slate equalism is a major shibbolith of our era.
Diving down to the basic biology, the Basic Woman (BW) has the unique function of being impregnated, carrying a child to birth, and caring for that child for some years (5 to 7 in many societies). No man can do those things, but the normal, average woman can do so from somewhere in her mid-to-upper teens into her 30’s. She doesn’t have to do anything to achieve that status, she just “is”.
A man must be competent in more than one way, at the basic level. He must be able to provide protein and protection to his woman/women and their progeny. He must be able to move them from place to place if need be. He must have skills that are not innate, but rather are learned. He must become a man.
Deep in our heads, we know this. Each sex projects its own worldview onto the world. Women “just are” and men “must become”, so women expect to “just get” stuff and men must earn it.
This is showing up in our entertainments. One of the more recent $tar War$ retcons involved the girl in the junkyard who “just could” use the Farce; contrast that with the 1970’s movie where Luke must learn and learn. First from Obi, then from others. He was not competent for some time.
In the world of tool using, the sequence ideally is from incompetence to competence, with unconscious competence as the proper end state. A framing carpenter doesn’t have to think through nail driving, it’s just done — because of a lot of previous experience with bent nails and hurt thumbs.
So it is completely natural to the innate feminine worldview that women “just are” special princesses merely for existing. However, that only works in the female world of cooking, caring for babies, etc. The older German term is succinct: “Kuche, Kirche, Kinder” or “Kitchen, Church and Children”. Those roles are played by the female rules.
Trying to play “world explorer” but rejecting the male rules of testing, accountability. etc. fails, as we can see from Dalrock’s OP.
Dalrock,
Have you ever reviewed any content from Allyson Rowe of Kingdom Crowned Ministries? She is a perfect example of this nonsense.
Off topic:
Powerlifting takes on the Woke by banning trans from competing as women. It will be interesting to see if they can make it stick, or wind up caving sometime in the future.
https://www.outsports.com/2019/2/1/18204036/usa-powerlifting-trans-athlete-policy-jaycee-cooper
I’m suppressing the urge to put an Austin Powers meme up right about now…
JR writes:
To understand why the Am Heritage quote, modern gynocentric Churchianity and the woder prosperity/hypergrace “gospel” is wrong answer the following question from the Bible.
What is worth of a person apart from Christ?
What are some of the many reasons that Christ die for us, and what one reson is emphatically denied?
When is it wrong to forgive?
Do NOT seek the advise of pastors or “those qualified” to answer. Read the Bible yourself.
If possible look up the actual meanings of the Hebrew and Greek key words.
I would especially recommend the one Apostle who had most reason to have a very high self esteem: Paul, nee Saul of Tarsus.
However, the interchanges between Peter and Jesus are also quite valuable, as is the writings of James, Jude, John and the entire OT.
To just quote one, Paul compared his very best works as “copros” before God. Copros is a street Greek word for excrement, not refuse, s**t.
Has anyone, even the very rare Prov 31 woman done half as much as Paul did?
I often boast of my intelligence, knowledge base and many other things that put me in the 0.01% of the population.
When I do I am explicitly vclear these are unearned GIFTS from God. Like they used to append at the bottom of old books “Solo deo Gloria”.
What am I apart form God?
I am no better than a serial child rapist who tortures his victims by dismembering them while still alive in front of their mother for money.
In other words I am no better than the abortionist or the woman who pays him to remove the inconvenience.
He of course is horrible, but oh how precisous she is, right?
I have neverperformed an abortion and refused to watch when was asked to learn in medical school; but wo Christ I would be an abortionist.
If there be found ANYTHING Good in me, it is from Christ and forced upon me by the Holy Spirit Whom I resist and grieve daily.
I am disgusted with myself, but only a fraction of how much I should be disgusted with me BUT,
Oh Glorious BUT,
I am in Christ. When the Father looks down He does not see me, but Christ.
Ponder how the omniscient Father can fail to see me, and how He can forget my sins, then tell me God is bound by the rules of logic.
How dare anyone tell anyone else they’re worth Christ dying?
We need to go much further than Mars, more like to the core ae supermassive black hole, to understand how far the modern Church
has darkened Truth.
When my wife of 40 years and I feel especially loving towards the other, we wish each other a quick death as soon as possible.
When we are selfish, we wish each other long life and health, for the sake of our own coN-fort.
She is my left hand, and I am her right one, but God has given the gift of woman to man, and not man to woman:
1 Corinthians 11:9 for indeed man was not created for the woman’s sake, but woman for the man’s sake. NASB
No, the wife (even Pr 31) is not a prize worth winning, rather a gift worth protecting and thanking GOD (not her, God) for.
No, the husband is not there for his wife, rather she is there for him to better accomplish the purposes of God.
No, Christ did not die because we were worth it, but because He loved us despite there being NOTHING lovely about us. Also to display the Glory of God, and to be glorified further by the Father, and many other reasons. If you can have more than one motive for doing something, do you think God can’t have many motives for an action?
How totally reverse we have it. Read Job, tell me what God thinks of “the most righteous man on the Earth” at that time.
Any idea yet how upside down most Pastors have turned the Bible yet?
She is not worth you. You are not worth her. Neither are both of you, nor the best of all humans but Christ together worth anything.
Not exactly a message of self-esteem is it? Yet, in Christ, I account myself great indeed.
Almost as if I had to die to self to be worth resurrecting. Jesus H Christ, where have I heard that before? Sorry for swearing…
Oh yeah, I think it was Joel Osteem (Esteem?) who said that on Oprah, wasn’t it?
I do not apologize for this rant. Solo Christus Gloria.
@My 2 Cents
I’ve only watched some of her videos on finding a husband, but I can imagine that she fits squarely in this space. I did a post on some of her videos here: https://dalrock.wordpress.com/2019/05/01/the-season-of-singleness/
Lots of good posts. I particularly enjoyed “Anonymous Reader.”
For giggles, I Googled their domain for the word, “submission.” The two cached results link to a 404 page. So, that’s been wiped. I also checked for the word, “submit.” You get about a dozen results, of which the majority link to “submit” for forms in lists. The only “submit” is to God (great, OK), but no training on submitting to your future husband.
As Dalrock has pointed out many times, the sin of chivalry is to invert God-ordained roles of men and women. AHG is–sadly–no different.
The idea that women are not just as tempted to sin as men are is truly the work of Satan.
Polls show that today’s female voters tend to prefer Democrat candidates. The 2016 presidential election showed an 11 point gender gap. This is no disrespect to female voters who are on the right side. It is just a fact.
And it’s those Democrat candidates who are primarily the driving political force behind societal immorality and persecution of the righteous on behalf of the immoral, government corruption (RINOs play a major role in this too admittedly), academic radical leftist totalitarianism, “fake news” media and publishing, and disingenuous narratives that severely injure the truth overall and outright murder it (like they murder their unborn babies) in specific instances.
^ Most women are voting for THAT, whether or not a specific Democrat voter realizes it.
My poll shows that there is no “right side” in elections because voting is stupid.
“Progressive Programming”? Ye cats.
Yes I know what they were going for, but the fact that they picked these words is either malice or stupidity. Neither is a great quality for people wanting to teach kids.
I voted for Trump last time because I thought it was worthwhile. It likely made absolutely no difference since no state is 1 vote off, but he was worth it to me.
I still expect it to ever turn around though. I think we have gone too far down the bad path.
On homosexuality and a culture (may be illegal to display in your country!):
That is the groundwork, rejecting God as the Creator. How many Christians dispute that we were “made” by randomness, chance and many years rather than created by God?
The consequences of that rejection:
Homosexuality pervading a culture is a clear result of rejecting Him as the Creator and crediting something else. Our path is not good since that is unlikely to change anytime soon, in spite of the massive evidence against particles-to-people evolution working at all.
====
I do dispute the assertion by safesapaces that a child is better off without a mother and a father when growing up. Perhaps I misread his post, but he seemed to be claiming that, which is utter idiocy. Other arrangements may have to happen at times, but the ideal is what God setup.
Lost Patrol
The woman-firing-arrow poster…:
…looks a lot like Katniss Everdeen from the movie “Hunger Games”.
Totally a conincidnce I’m so sure.
Totes. A. Coincidence.
If consent can be withdrawn, it’s not irrevocable. Divorce and remarriage paved the way for gay marriage.
Contraception did most of the paving. If sex is not primarily for procreation, gay marriage is inevitable.
I just saw this:
For those who don’t want to click, it’s a t-shirt, which shows a cartoon of a woman holding a sword and wearing armor and reads, “OCTOBER GIRL I AM A DAUGHTER OF GOD STRONGER THAN YOU BELIEVE, BRAVER THAN YOU KNOW SMARTER THAN YOU THINK.”
I get that she’s supposed to be wearing the Armor of God, and that’s good, but the message seems to go in the wrong direction. Does a secure person feel the need to make these types of announcements about oneself? Despite all that he endured, Paul said he would boast in his weaknesses, not his strengths, right?
Every American “conservative” no matter what particular positions they take is holding to a faulty presupposition
That if only we could elect such and such politician(s) and implement such and such policies, America would return to some previous (and assumed better) order of things.
We are just one “right” election/outcome away.
The “left” used a similar rubric.
The problem with the modern Proverbs 31 Princess in modern churches is…she isn’t a Proverbs 31 woman.
A Proverbs 31 woman is married, works damn hard, spins her own wool, feeds her family, who “are clothed in scarlet and warm in winter ”ensuring they love the family, buys things shrewdly and carefully and has a husband that everyone looks up to and calls him blessed – because he has a diligent, hardworking wife.
All of the things that make this woman great are demeaning in the modern Western world, courtesy of feminism..
Every American “conservative” no matter what particular positions they take is holding to a faulty presupposition
That if only we could elect such and such politician(s) and implement such and such policies, America would return to some previous (and assumed better) order of things.
That’s not true. I’d say most folks just hope for the lesser of evils.
Which is more reasonable than the alternative…isn’t it?
@Scott
Well. You brought it up. In Russia for centuries this was a common idea among the peasantry.
“If only Batushka, the little father Tzar, knew…If only he knew!”. If only the little father of all Russians knew…about bad nobles, about greedy moneylenders, about too many taxes, about all bad things, why, he would fix them. It was only the bad aristocrats hiding facts from Batushka that kept him from knowing.
In 1905 finally a petition was physically carried by a delegation of workers and peasants, led by an Orthodox priest Father Gapon right to the Winter Palace in St. Petersburg. It could have gone better.
https://novaonline.nvcc.edu/eli/evans/his242/Notes/Gapon.html
Saw this on a feminist website: My gift as a woman to a man partner is over. I have been plaything, mother and nurse all my adult life.
“The lesser of two evils” in formal cooperation (voting) is still a sin. (I believe)
Scott says:
September 4, 2019 at 6:01 pm
That adults with IQs (supposedly) north of freezer temperature still fervently and earnestly believe such nonsense, even after DECADES of in-your-face evidence of just how ridiculous the idea is, provides us all the evidence we need that there is no hope whatsoever for the future.
Well, Scott, we’ll have to disagree.
But I’m certain non-conservatives are surely grateful that some conservatives believe in that paradigm (I would be, in their position) and would like everyone else to give them carta blanch as well.
Just to add (and I’m sure I’m not going to change anyone’s mind, but just throwing it out there)…
Are folks willing to fight for what they believe in?
If the answer is yes, is voting worse than killing?
Things would look very different right now if Hillary were president.
Just to add (again): For starters we’d be flying test patterns over Syria. The whole modus operandi of dominos falling around the ME to make military contacts and enrich the Clinton foundation would continue. That’s something worth fighting for, in my estimation….even if the alternatives aren’ saints. There aren’t a lot of perfect human options, that’s kind of the way it has always been.
“The lesser of two evils” in formal cooperation (voting) is still a sin.
“Unless Jesus is on the ballot I’m not voting.”
Liz
I’ve written about this elsewhere, but I do not conceptualize the US as a “nation” or “nation-state” with all the dimensions of homogeneity required for me to want to “fight” for it.
It is an economic opportunity zone with physical boundaries, a currency and a military. It is made up of 300 million disconnected atomized consumption units engaged in various forms of interconnected monetary and other types of transactions amounting to nothing of moral significance
7817
It’s a little more complicated than that.
I don’t vote because it is rationally incoherent to do so when I no longer subscribe to enlightenment concepts about where authority comes from.
I don’t vote because it is rationally incoherent to do so when I no longer subscribe to enlightenment concepts about where authority comes from.
Yeah I get that. My point was towards that argument and not you personally, because that is a common argument especially with never Trump types.
AR-
I understand that we have been living for so many generations now in nations that pretend to consult with the people about how to run things that it is way outside the headspace of most people to consider something else. Heinlein was talking about being a “citizen” of a nation in that quote. What characteristics of “nation” the entity known as the USA have? 1/2 of my fellow “Americans” would not piss on me if I was on fire, and I feel more or less the same about them. I will not fall on my sword to protect a “constitution” (a stupid abstraction) now anymore, either.
A new format or organizing principle–one that we have not considered yet perhaps–would have to be conceptualized and implemented for me to care about what happens to her now. She had a good run, no doubt. But I am now just waiting for something else to happen, or at least preparing my kids for it. I play by the rules set up by the society as best I can, but the reason they are impossible to understand is because of “democracy” in the first place. All the legal fictions (a woman on her way to an abortion clinic is killed and the suspect can be convicted of double murder, for example) are so irrational that only a country that has no idea what right and wrong are could come up with it.
I refuse to participate in such an irrational system of choosing leaders and policies.
Men in the gulag being worked literally to death wept when “Daddy Stalin”–who had them put there–died. The old refrain: “If only Daddy Stalin knew [none of this would be happening to us].” Of course, none of them were ever fool enough to try to tell Daddy so he could fix things.
Some cultures have a huge (unmerited) superiority complex, “paid for” by a state of perpetual enslavement. Voting is important so we don’t become enslaved, ourselves.
My father was imprisoned on three separate occasions in Tito’s Goli Otok
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goli_Otok
He was there for speaking out against the regime. On his third time as a guest there, while being forced to labor in the camp, he received permanent damage in the form of frosbite to the backs of his hands. I am aware of the evils that totalitarian regimes are capable of inflicting, and was reminded of them every time I saw my fathers hands.
But he was tortured in a forced labor camp not because he did not have the “right” to vote. He was there because of the immense human capacity for evil. It is always the “true believers” who make this world hell on earth while promising heaven. The form of government is not important–governments govern. In doing so, they force us to make choices between one thing and another thing in the form of laws, and the enforcers of those laws.
In the US, the ostensible “loyal opposition” who are supposedly protecting our “freedoms” are drawn from a pool of limp wristed, soft jawed Pillsbury doughboys like Brad WIlcox and Dennis Prager. These are the folks laying out the arguments against what Antifa, Keith Ellison and Nancy Pillosi would have in store for us once their hegemony is complete.
The electoral college, the consent of the governed, presupposed endowment of rights from a creator only work with a particular type of informed, high IQ, and dare I say “elite” electorate. Not every damn 18 year old with a heart beat. The problems of this rotting on the vine leftover remnants of a “nation” are way beyond a political solution.
Nikolai Vladivostok wrote: “Just started dating a girl. She has hundreds of selfies in her phone, and nothing else.”
Experience has taught me that women like this are poison. I found it best to screen them immediately, save time for higher-quality women.
And by “immediately” I mean cut the date short and salvage the evening to drink with my buddies.
A quick look at her FB profile will tell you plenty. I screened any woman who had more than a few selfies or any scantily clad photos.
The Bible is totally right about the nature of women.
I don’t know why a bisexual atheist is considered an expert on men’s issues, she doesn’t speak for me, but Mr. Reagan likes her. https://youtu.be/BZjp9NkLngg?t=328
We always assume that our leaders have our best interests at heart. Such was the case in the year 1381 when a deputation led by one Wat Tyler put his trust in the young King, the second Richard. The King agreed to the demands, the rebels dispersed satisfied and shortly thereafter fifteen hundred of the rebels were cut down by the King’s forces. Not that the rebels were themselves bloodless for they nearly killed the future Henry !V. Without him there would have been no Henry VIII, no split with Rome, no Mayflower, no revolutionary War, no President Trump nor Scott building a fine house in the middle of what looks to me like nowhere. You can thus blame all your American woes on The Poll Tax or The Black Death as suits you. A butterfly flaps its wings.
As for the second Richard, as Shakespeare who as usual was conveniently at hand to transcribe the King’s words put it ‘let us sit upon the ground and talk upon the death of Kings’ for Richard was some eighteen years later executed by the very (and then future) Henry IV who had so narrowly escaped death in 1381. Karma or what! and may the same miserable fate befall all the Brexit traitors.
Proverbs 31 praises a woman who works her butt off. It never calls her a princess. If these American women took that passage seriously they would see that it sets a very high standard. Her husband trusts her completely. How many Christian women in America are trustworthy?
Of topic but someone might be interested in this read:
https://www.menshealth.com/health/a28845067/the-manconomy/?utm_source=pocket-newtab
In the US, the ostensible “loyal opposition” who are supposedly protecting our “freedoms” are drawn from a pool of limp wristed, soft jawed Pillsbury doughboys like Brad WIlcox and Dennis Prager.
That stings. Bring forth your champion! — Really? Those are your guys?
– Federales declare pot illegal. Individual states override.
– Federales declare illegal immigration illegal. Municipalities become “sanctuaries”.
– People vote for. A judge overrules.
– People vote against. A judge overrules.
These are the folks laying out the arguments against what Antifa, Keith Ellison and Nancy Pillosi would have in store for us once their hegemony is complete.
Pickup trucks, steak dinners, personal firearms, and refusal to date a tranny declared illegal. Will there be counter-sanctuary cities?
It reads like a call for more pedestalization.
And by now I think more guys know how that all ends.
I like where you’re going with all that Scott.
At the same time though, when we can we’ve got to support those who oppose the evil. I figure voting is one way to do that.
Voting is just letting yourself be counted among the supporters. The men of Israel gave their support to David, 1 Chronicles 11:1-3. I don’t see voting as ME choosing, it’s more that I am lining up behind a leader, being counted on their side.
Scott is correct about the two political parties:
Whether you vote for the republocrats or the democans you are voting for the same team. The only reason they look slightly different is their handlers coach them well. And the American media does a great job of hiding the truth from the American people.
@go Figure
Fem-correct, fem-approved masculinity and how to capitalize and monetize it.
I would disagree that these social media marketing campaigns, podcasts, etc. are generating substantial revenue. Ad revenue maybe, but product sales, etc.? I’d like to see more compelling evidence than the mere say-so of a feminist author from Men’s Health.
I used to be a subscriber of this magazine in my 20s. It was loaded with solid weight-lifting and nutrition advice back then. Then they started adding female writers, writing about sex, and giving relationship and sex advice to predominantly male readers. Then the calls for white knighting and feminism articles showed up. I cancelled the subscription and have never bought one of their magazines since.
Mens Health is primarily a US and UK publication anyway, and pretty much irrelevant outside of these two already saturated markets.
It’s now pretty much a magazine for heavily blue-pill, feminized metrosexual and/or homosexual men.
To exemplify this, just look at the roster/titles of Spencer Dukoff’s articles that he has written:
https://muckrack.com/spencer-dukoff/articles
If Hillary had won, she’d have put hundreds of her closest friends into key positions in government. We’d have a no fly zone over Syria, and we’d be on the way to becoming ever more dependent on China.
So, respectfully, I think there was a great deal of difference between the two party choices that last election.
Liz,
You can believe what you like. It does not make it true.
Just for counter example the POTUS has launched two large cruse missile attacks on Syria based on fabricated (for western media) stories. Without declaring war. Congratulations you now voted for and support a war criminal (based on just about any definition). Good thing you didn’t vote for the other war monger.
Prey tell, which one of the candidates would have done anything productive regarding the war in Yemen?
Yes, that bloody little war that the western media won’t tell us anything about and that is completely supported by the good old USA and its companies.
OH dear me, you’re right. A couple of airstrikes are just as bad as a continuous air occupation over Syria. One broken radio away from potential WWIII with the Russians but hey…whatever could go wrong?!
Interesting, now you are concerned with identifying how much evil is the right amount. Sorry, I going to stay out of that discussion.
now you are concerned with identifying how much evil is the right amount.
I made that very clear in my first post on the subject.
Doing nothing in the face of evil is a choice. Yes, sometimes there are no good choices. There are just better ones.
Deciding to support evil is still supporting evil. Glad you are happy with your choice.
Doing nothing is not the only other choice. That is a false dichotomy.
Doing nothing is not the only other choice. That is a false dichotomy.
Correct. This is also where the bizarre line of reasoning “if you don’t/didn’t vote, you have no right to complain” comes from.
When I spent 20 (of my best) years serving in places like Afghanistan, or babysitting (and manipulating) the detainees at GTMO and being told where to live, how to cut my hair, what I could spend money on, obeying stupid orders from careerist commanders, had I done enough to earn the right to complain? Did I do “nothing?”
When my property taxes go to schools that teach children to have contempt for men like me, have I earned the right to complain?
Raising 5 children to be good, kind, neighbor loving, sacrificing grown ups is more important than voting.
The business I owned in the 90s paid the salaries of 15 people (at its height) who fed their families, paid their mortgages, etc. Was that enough? Or was that doing nothing?
The truth is, I can’t believe I fell for the BS made up “civic obligation” to participate in the system by voting for as long as I did. What has been offered is this–I am obligated to predict which candidate will do what 3 years after I voted for them and then if they do something bad, I can say “well, I voted using the best information I had at the time, and anyway, I am not the one doing bad things, the president is” This creates the illusion that I am obligated to stop the greater evil, because voting. Nope.
How utterly bizarre. Governments govern, as I have already said. The fact that we have this constitutional, representative form of government designed to make us feel like it is not governing is irrelevant. The people in charge make laws that we all have to follow using their monopoly on violence and coercion regardless of how they got there. If the people in charge want to blow smoke up my ass and make me think I have some say in it, they can keep it.
Doing nothing is not the only other choice. That is a false dichotomy.
In the voting system you either vote, or you don’t.
If one is obviously the more evil option, then no vote against is the equivalent of a vote for.
If no one votes against the worst candidate (out of the compunction to not support either), and others vote for the worst, the worst candidate obtains office.
Now, Scott: We’re speaking of the voting system.
If you don’t vote you’re not participating in the voting process. That doesn’t mean you are doing nothing in general. I don’t know you and you seem to be doing a lot of good in the world (from what I’ve read). But if you aren’t voting, you’re not participating in the process. You don’t have to, but please understand that’s exactly what supporters of the worst candidate want you to do.
Grace and Peace,
-liz out
Again you present more false dichotomies. With shaming language thrown in.
There are actually more than two political parties in the USA. But the Republicrats and the Demicans both support more government and more control on peoples lives. It is helpful to remember that government is essentially ‘authorized force’. So if you vote for anyone who wants more government you are essentially voting for totalitarianism. Maybe not today or tomorrow but it will come.
That is just one groups perspective.
Most American make political choices based on these false dichotomies that are presented as absolute. But there are no dichotomies in American politics just endless variance of what people are willing to support.
If you really want change you need to start your own political movement where you live.
And now for something completely different..
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-49574448
Well, if enough conservative people feel that way, I guess we’ll have president Kamala next.
At least the catastrophic Hillary tragedy was averted.
Pingback: Making Much of Singleness: Did God really say "it is not good for Man to be alone"? — Podcast - The Chi Files
This is also where the bizarre line of reasoning “if you don’t/didn’t vote, you have no right to complain” comes from.
Yes, and that attitude has it exactly backwards.
Those of us who do not vote are declaring “we recognize this corrupt system for the crime that it is and will have nothing whatsoever to do with it, nor do we recognize it as a sovereign influence over our lives.”
Those who DO vote, on the other hand, are the ones responsible for perpetuating the evil power, be it “lesser” or “greater.” THEY are the ones with no grounds to complain, as THEY are the ones who enabled “the system” by pulling a lever in a voting booth and condoning it with their electoral endorsement. The rest of us have clean hands, and, more importantly, clean consciences.
I was once quite liberal, in the real sense of the word, believing that every man could just as easily self-govern and assume responsibility as the next. The election of DJT and the ensuing drama here and elsewhere has only served to disprove that notion. Some, more than is flattering to admit, people need to be told what to do, and they know it. So they vote for or tolerate totalitarianism because they would cease to function without it. The precise form of a government is irrelevant: a responsible population has a responsibile government; an irresponsible people, the government they need.
The beauty of Christianity is that it orders such people about while allowing for the responsibily inclined the autonomy and authority to do as is right in unusual circumstances.
TL;DR: good government comes from good people, whether dictatorial or democratic, which comes from fear and reverence for the Truth.
@Liz
Well, if enough conservative people feel that way, I guess we’ll have president Kamala next.
At least the catastrophic Hillary tragedy was averted.
Relevant and relevant.
A warning to those who would take no sides. If you do not take a side, no one will be on your side.
A warning to those who would take no sides. If you do not take a side, no one will be on your side.
In biological sciences this is know as being part of the heard. In contrast, many people that come to Dalrock’s site are Christian. The bible does not indicate being part of the heard is a good idea.
Please over look my spelling error(s).
Liz trolls
Well, if enough conservative people feel that way, I guess we’ll have president Kamala next.
Nah. Kamasutra Harris is out of the running, she’s polling way down, although better than Bobby “Beta” O’Rourke. Right now it’s still the Eye of Biden or Fauxahontas with Commie Bernie in third… although the primaries are still months away.
goFigure
In biological sciences this is know as being part of the heard.
What? Huh? Eh?
Expat Philo
I was once quite liberal, in the real sense of the word, believing that every man could just as easily self-govern and assume responsibility as the next.
What did you base that belief on?
All of our public leaders are active satanists. I refuse to vote for any of them. I have researched this extensively for instance 911 was a satanic sacrafice. The scariest movie ever youtube channel did have great evidence dont know if it still does?
Magicians use real majic through witchcraft. Watch some of the things magicians are doing around the world these are not tricks they can alter physical reality. This stuff cant b kept from the wrong hands because it comes from the wrong hands. Satan
They are decievers leading us down a road it is unstoppable.
Men’s lives destroyed, women most affected
https://www.spectator.com.au/2019/09/metoo-is-destroying-lives-oh-and-opportunities-for-women/
Fewer marriages due to shortage of Beta Providers: https://www.studyfinds.org/why-are-marriage-rates-down-study-blames-lack-of-economically-attractive-men/
Marriage rates have steadily declined over the past few decades, and now researchers from Cornell University are offering up a possible explanation: there just aren’t as many economically-attractive men for unmarried women to meet as there used to be.
@Red Pill Latecomer
Interesting post…
I was tempted to blow it of as collective hampster spinning in the gem centric zietgeist (no it couldn’t be women waiting to long chasing hawt guys folowed by the leftover betas just checking out… no couldn’t be).
BUT, there may be some truth to it.
Pore men have always had a harder time locking down a wife than more financially secure men. The exception being when a poor men could knock a girl up and then tye couple were socially pressured to get married.
Expectations for our standard of living in the west have probably gone up a great deal over time making to difficult for lots of guys to keep up with the expected standard, which in our present time is an unrealistic fantasy created by women who…. if they must settle for a beta,… damb well expect him to be an extremely well off beta.
RedpillLatecomer:
The article refers to beta providers as “economically attractive” men. LOL.
I suppose that’s pretty accurate. Except for the ridiculous overuse of the word “attractive” to mean something it clearly does not mean.
Fewer marriages due to shortage of Beta Providers:
This is GOOD!
Remember, at one time we thought that this well would never run dry.
I would say this is a major, major indicator of a cascading pop of this bubble of misandry.
Remember, at one time we thought that this well would never run dry.
I would say this is a major, major indicator of a cascading pop of this bubble of misandry.
Most women are not going to care. Most women are their own providers. They don’t need men to fill that function. They would like a man to do that for them, but they don’t need it. They’re more than willing to share attractive men for sex.
Neither women, nor society at large, will miss the disappearing beta provider.
Neither women, nor society at large, will miss the disappearing beta provider.
I don’t agree. Just because most women have jobs doesn’t mean they like those jobs, or the concept of going to work every day.
The unmarried woman with a middling career and who is over 40 (so no more carousel) will probably be envious of the pampered housewife for the foreseeable future, and not even because of children, but rather the ease of her life.
Scott,
It depends on the context. You will never have a perfect choice in this life. Even attempting to follow Him will involve imperfect people, thus we have to make “the lesser of 2 evils” choice all the time.
Voting may not be efficient, but I am not aware of any Scriptures calling it evil nor any church doctrine, since that is more your direction.
Anon:
It is true that many women work jobs they don’t like, or are particularly good at. It is also true that if a woman can do it, she will work less, or not at all.
But a woman would rather work a job and support herself than be married to a man she’s not attracted to and does not want to have sex with, just so that man will support her financially.
deti
I suppose that’s pretty accurate. Except for the ridiculous overuse of the word “attractive” to mean something it clearly does not mean.
Well, someone has to do this. Must be up to me.
Attractive….
thedeti: But a woman would rather work a job and support herself than be married to a man she’s not attracted to and does not want to have sex with, just so that man will support her financially.
It’s a matter of degree. Many women prefer a sufficiently wealthy Beta Provider over a Crummy Job. But sufficiently wealthy varies for each woman. Each does a cost benefit analysis, weighing her job’s worth (in earnings, workload, fun, and status) vs. his earning power.
As fewer men earn high salaries, fewer women can find men they’d settle for. For many women the choices are:
1. …. Alpha Lover.
2. …. Wealthier (than her) Beta.
3. …. Crummy Job.
4. …. Poorer (than her) Beta.
Today, more women are getting their third choice, instead of their second choice. Their options have fallen by a notch.
RPL
And I overstated the principle, simply to make the point that women strongly prefer supporting themselves than relying on an unattractive man to support them.
In actual practice, what is happening is that women are still marrying, but are marrying considerably beneath them. More and more women are marrying men they outearn and don’t respect, only to divorce later after the last kid gets to school. Why? Because those women can then say they were married at one point, and so they can get their child(ren). A divorced woman is higher status in the Feminine Social Matrix than a never-married woman.
“The lesser of two evils” in formal cooperation (voting) is still a sin. (I believe)
That would tend to contradict the behavior of the early Christians. You are supposed to obey the authorities in all things except wherein you are asked to go against God. This includes going to one’s own torture and death.
Consider another perspective. The choice between two elected officials will matter in people’s lives, and we are definitely supposed to care about each other. Even if the choice is between someone who would murder 100,000 and someone who would murder 90,000, for the sake of those 10,000, would it not be worthwhile to vote for the one who would do less harm?
They don’t need your vote so much as they need your tax dollars anyways. But even then, the Bible specifically directs us to pay our taxes.
“The bible does not indicate being part of the heard is a good idea.”
Well, not other than that little bit about our Shepherd…
Seriously, voting is not some metaphysical acquiescence to The System. It’s a simple choice to be involved in government, and God ordains governments. Sometimes he allows evil ones; that’s life in a fallen world. That does not make it evil to render unto Caesar in the form of a vote.
Neither women, nor society at large, will miss the disappearing beta provider.
Someone has to do the hard maintenance work of society. Robots are not ready or they would be in use.
Similar to the pent-up unreleased power of an earthquake, the Lord’s anger will necessarily be released, somehow and sometime –for His Word will never return to Him void… that anger either upon YOU, or upon His Son Jesus, the Word… if you have truly surrendered to that Word.
I have come across microscopically few women that have noticeably surrendered to His Word …and incredibly observed nearly every leader in the church endorse the woman’s ‘blasphemy of the Word of God.’
I have never seen any man that has not ultimately proven guilty to surrendering to her blasphemy by readily endorsing it in some fashion. I am guilty. I am making amends, to radically live His Word as it relates to the roles of male and female, for that is the rest of the iceberg, the unrecognized problem in the church, materially separating His people from Him. I am glad to see many men here recognize His Word and take steps, but there is more to learn of Him, and more to act on. Much more.
‘O women, I am against you, and I will stretch out my hand against you and make you desolate.’
Uh oh. One of the 300 million anonymous, random, disconnected from me in any meaningful way economic consumption units (AKA “Americans”) has warned me about which “side” to take in the impending apocalypse.
Because my aformentioned 20 years of sacrifice to this “nation,” wearing her flag on my right arm in harms way, being injected with drugs for her against my will, permanently coughing up burn pit and fecal particulate that I breathed in in shit holes all over the world was not enough to prove my loyalty. I have to vote too.
I forgot, missing birthdays, holidays, graduations and my wife’s embrace while higher ranking officers sniff around her workplace trying to see if she will sleep with them.
For freedom and democracy!
Lost Patrol,
Most drugs were not illegal until well into the 1900s. It was idiotic to make them illegal, as bad as they are. Just a control move by government, not some righteous cause. You seem to have fallen for the trap that keeping them illegal is the only moral thing to do, even though it enables a powerful government to enforce that.
Uh oh. One of the 300 million anonymous, random, disconnected from me in any meaningful way economic consumption units (AKA “Americans”) has warned me about which “side” to take in the impending apocalypse.
What’s equally astounding is how many of those atomized economic consumption units, most of whom couldn’t locate their own states on a map, let alone the shit hole countries they want to see bombed into oblivion, are as thirsty for foreign blood as an alcoholic in detox is for booze. This despite the fact that not only would they not know one end of a gun from the other, but wouldn’t dream of suiting up in a government-issued costume and putting themselves in harm’s way to spill the blood they’re thirsting for.
Scott,
A moral society is very hard to achieve and maintain, even with Christians involved. Human sin still has a significant impact in this world and fighting it takes time.
I tend to agree with you about voting, but fully following your advice to the end would not even allow you to strive for a strong family, since that too is prone to evil, especially today.
Yeah, things really suck, but God is still in charge and we must always realize we serve Him as stewards, whatever the environment we live in.
Just to be clear, I have given many reasons in this thread why I stopped voting. But here is the main one, and I know it makes me sound like a snob.
I don’t vote, because they allow JUST ANYONE to vote. So, it isn’t special.
Only three broad categories of people should be allowed to vote. At the bare minimum, they should be a citizen, have a minimum IQ and not a convict. Then, have AT LEAST ONE of the following requirements met:
Property Owner
Business Owner (with a payroll)
Military/Ex-military
In my case, I meet all three.
Everyone else should sit back, relax, and let the vetted, self-sacrificing types keep them “free.” Go to the mall. Eat yourself into obesity. Have guns. Whatever. But not be allowed near the levers of power.
Now, there are those who would say, “but that means in the aggregate you HAVE to vote to balance out the detritus.”
I get it, I really do. I just reject the notion that I MUST go to the polls to hold back the tide of stupidity that should never have been allowed near a polling place to begin with.
Claiming that voting or not voting is a moral issue (for a Christian at least) shows that those who are doing so have little understanding of their faith. This is true whether you are Solo Scriptura or some organizational structure (such as RCC, Orthodox, etc.). Neither the Scriptures nor any of the appropriate traditions prohibit (or command) voting.
It would do well for some of you to tone your views down a bit in this light and the direction of this board.
@Scott
Just abolishing the female franchise might have the outcome you’re looking for.
@ BilllyS
Hey Billy. What I wrote that has the word pot in it actually has nothing to do with drugs. Probably would have been better to leave that stumbling block out of it.
Think of it as musing upon our wobbly system of selective compliance.
Sinful Silence – When Christians Neglect their Civic Duty: https://www.worldcat.org/title/sinful-silence-when-christians-neglect-their-civic-duty/oclc/56473330
The devil appreciates and wishes to thank those of you who are Christians but choose not to vote. It makes his job so much easier. In fact, he couldn’t do it without you.
I empathise with Scott yet find Liz the more pragmatic.
We are always being told that we live in a Democracy: I beg to differ. Everywhere people preface their arguments with a call to the democratic rightness of their cause much as two centuries ago they would have referred to the Christian rightness of their cause yet Democracy was the umbrella for that Atheistic French Eighteenth Century wishful-thinking embracing Liberty Equality and Fraternity – the forerunner of Marx – a self-serving rhetoric for those intent on shafting the then (Christian) elite.
Before that, in the earliest writings as to the respective excellence of the three possible types of government , that is to say rule by one, rule by some and rule by all, Herodotus comes down (and he an Athenian!) in favour of rule by one i.e. Monarchy.
The novel notion that just because you lived in and were citizen of a country that that in itself should give you the right to vote in elections was first promulgated in 1647 during the Putney debates. That is how it is now, yet I cannot see why it is more moral to allow everyone a vote every four years than it would be to allow everyone a vote at the AGM of any major company (say Walmart) even if one is not a shareholder therein.
There is a British movie with Peter Cook (but not Dudley Moore – but with various Pythons) entitled The Rise and Rise of Michael Rimmer (1970) in which Cook as Rimmer becomes Prime Minister and enacts true democracy putting every government decision to public vote. This soon tires the populace who getting fed up with the constant voting allow Rimmer to become President and thus Dictator.
Occasionally the posturings of democracy are lowered to reveal that it is nothing more than a fig leaf the elite never having any intention of complying with their promises or enacting the rule of the people – consider Brexit! Freedom and Democracy are not mutually exchangeable words.
Now I’ve done it. I’ve abrogated my “civic duty” and I am in cahoots with the devil.
Opus has made a point that can be analyzed heuristically. Does anyone think that if your vote was important the PTB would let just anyone do it?
Does anyone think that if your vote was important the PTB would let just anyone do it?
Yes, of course. The “just anyone” demographic votes for them.
That said, I respect your decision to not vote. Voluntary participation in government is neither mandated nor condemned by the Bible or Christian tradition. And that said, I vote and on balance I think we’d be better off with more orthodox Christians doing it.
I can appreciate Scott’s position, but at the same time, appreciate the decision to vote in a way to counter the stupid, ill-informed voter. That is, at this point, one of the only reasons we still vote.
And Matt is correct, the PTB let “just anyone” vote because they keep their power on the strength of an ignorant, emotional, poorly educated populace.
Vandicus
“The lesser of two evils” in formal cooperation (voting) is still a sin. (I believe)
This is untrue for a couple of reasons. First, failing to make a choice is still making a choice, and one is still responsible for the consequences of that choice. For instance, agnostics who say they don’t believe or disbelieve in God are still making the choice to not accept Christ. Second, what leader other than Christ has ever not been evil in some way, meaning what leader has ever been without sin? God chose kings who all had some sin in their lives, but some were worse than others as we observe when reading scripture.
Hank
So, by not voting for anyone I am responsible for zero politicians doing things I did not want them to do
People who voted for Trump are responsible for air strikes in Syria
People who voted for Clinton, who lost, are responsible for?
PTB let “just anyone” vote because they keep their power on the strength of an ignorant, emotional, poorly educated populace.
This is true, but the point is that this isn’t a feature merely of “this rancid populace we have here”, but it’s a standard feature of *all* human “populaces” once you broaden the definition to include “everyone”. Most humans are poorly educated (regardless of schooling), ruled primarily by short-term thinking, emotions (which are typically short-term), and ignorance. This is how human populations *are*. If you narrow the scope of “voting populace” so as to reduce the percentage of people who are like that, you can improve the result, but of course that moves away from “democracy”. In an actual “democracy”, you will always be having a mostly ignorant, emotional, short-term thinking mass of humans voting. It’s a feature, in other words, not a bug.
This unveils that democracy is actually nothing other than an effective window dressing to the rule of elites which has always predominated in human culture. By enacting “democracy”, and knowing full well that most of the “voters” are easily swayed by appealing to their short-term thinking, their emotions, their biases and prejudices, the elite can easily manipulate them into supporting this or that faction of the same elite class while at the same time believing that they, the “voters”, actually have power!!! It’s the most brilliant political swindle in human history, because it helps to preserve elite rule by precisely appearing to eliminate it. Sheer brilliance really.
Nova
Indeed. All political systems eventually merge toward some form of oligarchy (elite rule).
Might as well erect a system that maximizes the probability that the elites are vetted to be intelligent, nuanced, benevolent and nobly obligated in their intentions and actions
I believe this was the intent of the original restrictions on voting in the USA
In other words, I have accepted the fact those who rise to power will always be from the pool of highly motivated, tireless, driven overachievers who only require 2 hours of sleep every night. I know people like that from my moms days in politics, my time in the army, my time in graduate school.
I’m quibbling over the subtype of “good” within that group.
I believe this was the intent of the original restrictions on voting in the USA
Likely it was, but they were foolish to think that this kind of restriction was tenable in the longer term. What they failed to see was that transitioning away from monarchy towards rule-by-enlightened-elites was merely the first step of a process away from rule by the few towards rule by the many, in *logic* (of course, it isn’t that in practice). Once you open Pandora’s box, you don’t get to decide where the trend you start actually ends — many a revolutionary is guilty of this oversight, alas.
Seen in that light, the system we have evolved into — one which gives optical gloss and lip service to the inexorable demand for “popular sovereignty”, while at the same time maintaining elite rule — was a necessary adaptation to actually keep things running well enough despite “popular sovereignty”. Of course, that adaptation leads to a lot of corruption among the elite class, but every human system is always subject to corruption. Corrupt as it is, it is probably preferable to actual “popular sovereignty”, which leads to disastrous misrule for rather obvious reasons (do you really want the clerk at 7-11 running the country? Or even the person that said clerk thinks would be good at doing so?).
This is why Moldbug’s solution — kind of a committee of experts that is elected by a much smaller population of people who are pre-qualified by cognitive and life-result tests — has some appeal on the theoretical level. However, getting from here to there is impossible on the realistic, pragmatic, level.
Which brings to the final point. Pragmatically, what we see now in the world are two emergent models: the “democratic” model (which is a popular sovereignty fig-leaf over rule by elites) and the “authoritarian” model. It’s presumed today that the former is more stable than the latter, although that is being challenged in this decade — the challenge arising precisely from the refusal of certain electorates to be as adequately manipulated by the elites as they would like (e.g., Trump, Brexit). The elites still win in the end — Trump’s Washington is as overrun with elites and elite interests as any other has been — but they would prefer if the unwashed, voting masses were a bit more compliant at their role in the kabuki dance called “democracy”.
@ Novaseeker
On the contrary; they did foresee it. Thus, Jefferson’s quote that “the tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time by the blood of patriots and tyrants”, and the 2nd Amendment.
The Founding Fathers were truly educated men, and they understood that all forms of government eventually tend towards tyranny, because of man’s sinful nature. They expected just that to happen eventually to the nation they created. They couldn’t predict how it would happen, but they knew, from the many examples in history, that it would happen.
First, failing to make a choice is still making a choice, and one is still responsible for the consequences of that choice.
and other comments
This concept that voting for or not voting for someone makes a voter responsible for the actions of said person is just wrong. In the community where I work a sheriff was elected multiple times and unbeknownst to all the sheriff ended up doing some money skimming from the county, taking sheriff equipment and adding it to his personal equipment, seizing and keeping property from others. Ultimately he got caught, lost his job and his life changed a lot.
So according to some of the commenters here; the people who voted for him are now responsible for his actions. Meaning everyone who voted for this sheriff should be required to correct and repay the damage and theft caused by the sheriff.
The responsibility of any voter consists of acknowledging if they vote or not. If they voted they would have to acknowledge who they voted for. That is the end of the voters responsibility on that choice. Period. So far (thankfully), we do not have a government agency assessing the voters responsibilities.
People who voted for Clinton, who lost, are responsible for?
Attempting to get a person in office who would’ve made an air occupation over Syria, and toyed with starting WWIII. More than that, she would’ve placed all her people into positions of power in government and that legacy would’ve lived on a long while. And there’s the USSCJs she would’ve placed in. The list goes on. Anyone who sat in tent city in the land of Mecca and Medina for a decade knew the whole time that would bit us in the backside…but Bill was so inept at foreign policy (“it’s the economy stupid”….yeah, foreign policy is an irrelevance to economy, sure), he wanted those personal military contacts through the ME, so the no fly zones were a stall tactic until we were (inevitably) attacked.
@Hank Flanders
I was quoting Scott and rebutting that point, sorry if unclear.
As for moral responsibility for another person’s actions, you don’t control other people. You do(at least Christianity holds you do) have an obligation to act for the benefit of others. If one were morally culpable for every action from a leader one supported, than the soldiers who followed King David were responsible for the murder of Uriah. This is obviously untrue.
The moral weight of voting tends to be very small. Consider if one intentionally votes for the worst of candidates in the full knowledgeof their inferiority, considering how small their influence is it would be like stealing a small sum of money. Certainly you shouldn’t steal, but it is hardly the gravest of sins.
Then the more general case of voting from erroneous belief or while uncertain. The person is presumably doing what they think is right given their fallibility and limited knowledge. This can happen in a variety of circumstances in life and is nigh unavoidable. One would generally consider this form of culpability to be negligible at best.
While not voting does indeed neglect the possibility of rendering aid to one’s fellows in that instance, it again remains small. It may also be that the reasonable dilligence required might be better served by other activities, in which case disregarding it would be better anyways.
Perhaps the original people of Iceland had a reasonable idea, at least reasonable for their culture.
https://infogalactic.com/info/Althing
One function of the man leading it was to read / recite all the laws. All of them. Every single one.
I like the part in Revelation where the Princess of Babylon destroys the Beast with her magic bow and marries Chad Christ.
Lost Patrol,
I would agree with you then. Many “conservatives” today think keeping drugs illegal is a moral issue. It is, but not the one they think. The damage from such efforts is far worse than the drugs they oppose.
Scott,
For being idiots?
Heartiste made a great post today on Gab.
Here’s his quote, and my response.
What you’re describing is the opposite of a golddigger: the hopedigger. This is the woman who falls in love with a man before he has made his mark on the world, because she sees something great in him that needs time to burst forth. She places her hope in him.
Some may say this “debunks” the concept of female hypergamy, but it does no such thing. Women have an evolutionarily refined hindbrain antenna that picks up the tiniest signals coming from a man which hint at his potential for future alpha greatness. Colloquially, it’s called a sixth sense.
When a young woman places her hope in a young, unformed man with no money and no status but lots of passion and ambition and confidence, she is investing in a future payoff. Female hypergamy in this context is an investment based on psychosexual financials that indicate a future payoff.
The Hopedigger is a prize most men dream of obtaining, for her love is authentic and her loyalty unbounded by cost-reward calculations. The difference between her and the Golddigger is the transactional nature of their relationships.
The Golddigger seeks already established men who can instantly shower her with luxury. She barters her pussy for black AMEXs and a lavish lifestyle. But if those luxuries are ever withdrawn, her pussy likewise withdraws, betraying the lack of true love in her heart for the man on the other end of the transaction.*
In contrast, the Hopedigger first falls in love with the man before he can buy her love, and when in time he *can* buy her love, she is already his at no additional cost. If his money or status ever runs out, she won’t. He knows this subconsciously, so he loves her back with a fervor no Golddigger was ever loved.
There are limits to true love. If the Hopedigger’s man gets mired in an occupational or social wasteland, eventually her love for him will wither. But where the Golddigger bolts at the first sign of a chink in her man’s armor, the Hopedigger will stick it out for years, “mothering” her man to be great again.
The saddest break-ups are those in which the woman gives up on her man after painfully appraising his unwillingness to be motivated by her love. Her tears are tragic, because they fall out of her wrested by primal forces she can’t control or barely understands.
*This isn’t to say all Golddigger relationships are equally soulless. Some Golddiggers genuinely fall deeply in love with their sugar daddies, because women deeply desire powerful men, and a very wealthy man has immense power. But often enough, the Golddigger enters the mutually beneficial arrangement with a heart that will never be as open as it was for her senior year high school boyfriend.
This Hopedigger is very much the #Christian view of #marriage , founded in the text of Genesis.
Now “Christian” leaders and counselors promote spiritual Golddigging. In this she barters her pussy as the man is supposed to shower his wife with constant (often unmerited) affirmation and encouragement for her to realize her royal position as a daughter of God. And if it includes some luxuries, so be it…she’s a f’n princess!
If he fails, or if she perceives him failing, or if he sins, she withdraws, b/c he is no longer worthy of royalty. And she’s encouraged by leaders to withdraw or even bolt, while he receives the blame.
My exwife used that very thing (I had potential) when she married me, but implying I failed to live up to it so divorce was just in that case.
This Hopedigger is very much the #Christian view of #marriage , founded in the text of Genesis.
Founded yes, and transformed in Christ.
The gold and hope that such women dig for are fools gold and false hope. Christian men are no longer ambitious for such things.
Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation; old things have passed away, and look, new things have come. (2 Cor 5:17)
Women want a pre-made man.
The world wants a self-made man.
Christ wants a re-made man.
American: Sinful Silence – When Christians Neglect their Civic Duty: https://www.worldcat.org/title/sinful-silence-when-christians-neglect-their-civic-duty/oclc/56473330
It’s interesting how some Christian pastors keep discovering new sins not in the Bible (e.g., low self-esteem, not voting, not doing the dishes for your wife), yet ignore the sins that are in the Bible.
The devil appreciates and wishes to thank those of you who are Christians but choose not to vote. It makes his job so much easier. In fact, he couldn’t do it without you.
You’re assuming a ballot offers a choice. I live in California. Have you seen the choices on the ballots out here?
It used to be bad enough. But now California has “top two” — an open primary where all candidates, of all political parties, run. Then the “top two” vote getters go on to the general election.
This means that in the general election, for many offices, I have a choice between two leftist Democrats.
Last election, I was offered two choices for Senate. Kamala Harris and … some other leftist woman that I forget. So I left that office blank.
What do you do what the two choices on your ballot are Stalin and Mao?
And if we do “win” the election, the Deep State blocks it. Britain still doesn’t have Brexit. Trump’s nationalist populist programs were all sabotaged — by his own party. The only thing Trump is allowed to do is increase aid for Israel (i.e., Israel First, instead of the America First that people voted for.)
Scott and gofigure,
I didn’t say anything about being responsible for all the actions of a leader. If I were to believe that not voting for a leader makes one responsible for all of a leader’s actions, then I would also have to believe that voting for a leader makes one responsible for everything that leader does, too, and if I believed that, then I probably wouldn’t vote either, because the pressure would be too great. However, I am saying that non-voters and third party voters are no less responsible for the leadership that’s elected than the rest of us who do vote are. Maybe they’re not more responsible, but they’re not less, either.
Further, due to its far-reaching implications if every believer were to adhere to it, I do object to the idea that voting for lesser of two or more evils is wrong or sinful, because where you have men, you’re going to have sin (i.e. evil), so the choice is always going to be the lesser of an evil. If we all lived by the philosophy that voting for the lesser of an evil is wrong, then the country that you served, Scott, (thank you for that) and the world, too would be much worse places to live. For instance, we may not even be able to have these discussions, because sites like this or even just electricity could be shut down, or entire portions of the Internet could be blocked like it is in China, and even these examples are minute compared to how bad, evil, oppressive, poor, diseased, immoral, crime-infested, and filthy our home could be. We could all be living in a North Korea / Skid Row-type nightmare if only the wicked and non-believers voted.
vandicus
@Hank Flanders
I was quoting Scott and rebutting that point, sorry if unclear.
OK, I see, now, thanks.
Off topic. More log home stuff
https://ljubomirfarms.wordpress.com/2019/09/07/another-main-beam-and-huge-section-of-floor-joists/
@ DrTorch
That “hopedigger” phenomenon is how hypergamy is supposed to work. That’s it’s purpose.
Men are supposed to be providers and protectors. The hope of marriage and family is supposed to motivate young men to become good providers and protectors. The hope of securing a good provider and protector for herself and her future children is supposed to motivate young women to attract a young man who has the potential to become one. That’s how it works in a culture that runs rationally.
And, yes, we’re talking about potential. You can’t judge a man in his 20s on achievement, because – with notable exceptions – he hasn’t lived long enough to achieve much. You can definitely judge a man in his 40s on achievement. If he has few career achievements in his 40s, chances are that he never will. But the same is not true at all of a man in his 20s.
That’s why we’re seeing so many Peter Pans these days.
Today, young women give sex away for free in their 20s, and don’t bother to even begin trying to secure a father for their future children until their 30s, when 90% of their eggs cells are dead. That provides young men with little, or no incentive to develop their potential in their teens and 20s.
Female hypergamy, like male aggression, isn’t necessarily a bad thing. It has a purpose in a rational culture. But it has to be harnessed for that purpose, not allowed to run wild, as it is now in the West.
I get it.
Be upset with the present situation.
But lets get past our ego being hurt. As men we fully know the destructive messages and betrayal from false teachers in this present day.
Hate is not an option.
Girls and women have been deceived and distanced from salvation, just as we have been with all the current degeneracy and attacks on male leadership.
We dont need to wife up these deceived females, but at minimum approach with love, as fallen sinners, just like us. Try to realign them with scripture and the gospel message. Or make it clear that you are trying to do so yourselves.
Walk away if need be, but at least know you have shared gospel, verbally or through your actions, and thank our Blessed Saviour Jesus Christ.
There has to be some end game to all these posts about hypergamy, false teachings, gynocentrism in the Church.
The Holy Word has given us direction.
We may never have that family, kids, faithful and devoted wife, but lets face the current situation with the righteous leadership of our Saviour. And I know it is a daily struggle.
Blessings
Jay
Self-esteem, which, as far as I can tell was originally simply a new way of saying “a realistic assessment and view of yourself based on actual accomplishments” is now just a stupid nebulous, subjective construct like everything else.
“Self-esteem” was pushed because it is a euphemism for pride. As in, pride: the sin that God will humiliate out of all of us, if we are so fortunate.
Its promotion as a virtue is satanic propaganda. Meme-mento mori.
The fact that it is so akin to the charged “pride,” and that no one seemed to notice or raise the hue and cry or even particularly care besides and op-ed here and there, and that we, the stupid cattle, adopted it wholesale… makes it hilarious: the barely-there inversion and queasy irony are hallmarks of evil. When you look around, you see it everywhere.
That explains why it was pushed so hard, so early, on vulnerable minds once moral gangrene set in the post-cultural revolution era. I’m sure many of the late xer, millennial and zyklon readers remember learning ALL about “self-esteem” in school. Right? They couldn’t give you enough “self-esteem.” They always target the kids first.
I was thinking about this song for some reason, and I didn’t know where else to comment on it.
It was recorded in 1996 by the country band Alabama.
He rattles his glass, she jumps up fast
And pours him a glass of tea
Deep in her heart she believes
That’s the way it should be
Yeah, and I’ve seen my dad get fightin’ mad
Over one little four-letter word
He’ll tell you fast you don’t talk like that around her
We may not see it the way they see it
We may not do it the way they do it
But she lives here life for him
And he’d gladly die for her
And even in this modern age, it works
Though he’s been down in his back
He still jumps out of that sack
Ev’ry mornin’ at 5 a.m. Having her home
With the kids has been worth it to him
Yeah, and she takes pride in bein’ his wife
And making their house a home
And sometimes she wishes the world
Would just leave them alone
We may not see it the way they see it
We may not do it the way they do it
But she lives here life for him
And he’d gladly die for her
And even in this modern age, it works
If the good Lord’s willin’ there will come a day
When our children will say
We may not see it the way they see it
We may not do it the way they do it
But she lives here life for him
And he’d gladly die for her
And even in this modern age, it works
Even in this modern age, it works…
1996 was only 23 years ago, and its tempting to look at it nostalgically.
And it clearly could not be written today, especially if you are following or listening to country music now. There are only a few categories of the genre, and they are:
Back in the day things use to be slower and simpler
Out here in the sticks we are different, we like trucks and fishing and iced tea and if you don’t like it, go f%$& yourself and return to the dirty city from which you came
(Man singing to new girlfriend): I have been waiting my whole life for a woman like you and God finally sent you
(Woman singing to man): You turned out to be a snake but I am going to destroy your life, your job and your vehicle and find the man in the previous song
(Man singing about a woman) She had a dirtbag of a man and left him. I hope she finds someone like me to replace him because I would love her better
America is awesome. And Americas soldiers and wars are awesomer. Don’t touch my flag
(Woman singing to new boyfriend) You are way better than the previous man, but if you don’t behave I will do all the life ruining stuff to you the girl in the other song did
(Woman after recent breakup) I don’t need a man because I have a good job and I am strong so I am going to go out drinking with my friends and maybe try to find a new man
—–
But imagine a song that starts out extolling the virtues of a relationship where the grumpy old man rattles his glass at his wife who quickly pours him some tea. Not only is not possible, its a stupid caricature that I’ve only seen in “All in the family.”
@ Scott
That song is awesome. I don’t remember hearing it back then.
@AR
I based those beliefs on the words of my father, great and foolish philosophers, and psychological projection: men far greater in my esteem than a faceless body text.
Do not pretend that you or anyone else has not fallen into that particular trap in the past.
Expat Philo
I was once quite liberal, in the real sense of the word, believing that every man could just as easily self-govern and assume responsibility as the next.
Expat Philo
I based those beliefs on the words of my father, great and foolish philosophers, and psychological projection: men far greater in my esteem than a faceless body text.
Thanks for the clarification. What do you mean by “faceless body (of?) text”? For example, is the Republic by Plato or The Politics by Aristotle a faceless body of text, or the work of a great philosopher?
Also, what factors caused or led you to become less liberal? Was it people, or books, or life experiences, or other things?
@Expat Philo
I ask because it is unusual for someone to reconsider a fundamental premise such as “every man could just as easily self-govern … as the next”, and I wish to know what the process looked like. Not just for theoretical purposes.
@white
It’s not technically correct because the AHG post is predicated on a quote of Ephesians which has been taken out of context to make a false claim that will appeal to this rebellious generation:
There is no “girl power” there, and the power that is described is the power the Holy Spirit gives is for faith, love, and understanding of Christ. It is not generic power which can used for hiking trails or writing polemics or whatever it is that these lost women do. The fast-one they try to pull here isn’t just the result of the feminist sewage we all swim in, but also the mechanical worldview that underlies it. They think gears are gears and power is power and bits of flesh alone are sex. This is the predominant view of how life works in the whole Western World; including the Men’s Sphere.
To go back to the scripture, here’s the context which AHG ignored in their quest to “find” Biblical girl power:
14 For this reason I bow my knees before the Father, 15 from whom every family in heaven and on earth is named, 16 that according to the riches of his glory he may grant you to be strengthened with power through his Spirit in your inner being, 17 so that Christ may dwell in your hearts through faith—that you, being rooted and grounded in love, 18 may have strength to comprehend with all the saints what is the breadth and length and height and depth, 19 and to know the love of Christ that surpasses knowledge, that you may be filled with all the fullness of God.
20 Now to him who is able to do far more abundantly than all that we ask or think, according to the power at work within us, 21 to him be glory in the church and in Christ Jesus throughout all generations, forever and ever. Amen.
It’s a prayer, and St. Paul’s words “this reason” is a pointer to the previous text in which he relates that God chose him (Paul) to bear the Gospel to the Gentiles. The Gospel is the power spoken of, and its power is to grant understanding of Christ’s love. AHG abuse St. Paul’s words so that camping becomes the source of power to do literally anything a girl wants to do: shoot a bow, hike a trail, or be a CEO of a Fortune 500 company. What AHG wrote is a lie perverted from the truth.
That is bad enough, but on top of that they excised the passage from the bolded part (14 For this reason I bow my knees before the Father, 15 from whom every family in heaven and on earth is named,) because it is downright patriarchal. Of course God isn’t called “Family”, but “Father”. The idea here is that family literally flows from fatherhood and this is true all the way to the very top in God the Father. Our union in Christ is “rooted and grounded” in the Fatherhood of God, and we were given fatherhood in humans relations as the primary way to understand our relationship to God. It says that you know who you are from submission to and knowledge of your father, and therefore the Holy Spirit give the power to understand Christ’s love so that we may then be filled with the fullness of God. That is: It is the power to fully esteem God in the Trinity.
AHG rejects this. Instead they teach that a girl’s power is rooted and grounded in a curriculum of self esteem; that if she gains self esteem she will be Christ-like. That is completely foreign to the Bible.
Second try with formatting fixed
@white
While the quote above stinks of feminist empowerment/girlpower, the quote itself is… technically correct. I’m finding it hard to pinpoint how exactly this quote is different from what the Bible teaches.
It’s not technically correct because the AHG post is predicated on a quote of Ephesians which has been taken out of context to make a false claim that will appeal to this rebellious generation:
There is no “girl power” there, and the power that is described is the power the Holy Spirit gives for faith, love, and understanding of Christ. It is not generic power which can used for hiking trails or writing polemics or whatever it is that these lost women do. The fast-one they try to pull here isn’t just the result of the feminist sewage we all swim in, but also the mechanical worldview that underlies it. They think gears are gears and power is power and bits of flesh alone are sex. This is the predominant view of how life works in the whole Western World; including the Men’s Sphere. Need happier girls? Why, just redirect some “power” to the self esteem thrusters!
To go back to the scripture, here’s the context which AHG ignored in their quest to “find” Biblical girl power:
14 For this reason I bow my knees before the Father, 15 from whom every family in heaven and on earth is named, 16 that according to the riches of his glory he may grant you to be strengthened with power through his Spirit in your inner being, 17 so that Christ may dwell in your hearts through faith—that you, being rooted and grounded in love, 18 may have strength to comprehend with all the saints what is the breadth and length and height and depth, 19 and to know the love of Christ that surpasses knowledge, that you may be filled with all the fullness of God.
20 Now to him who is able to do far more abundantly than all that we ask or think, according to the power at work within us, 21 to him be glory in the church and in Christ Jesus throughout all generations, forever and ever. Amen.
It’s a prayer, and St. Paul’s words “this reason” is a pointer to the previous text in which he relates that God chose him (Paul) to bear the Gospel to the Gentiles. The Gospel is the power spoken of, and its power is to grant understanding of Christ’s love. AHG abuse St. Paul’s words so that camping becomes the source of power to do literally anything a girl wants to do: shoot a bow, hike a trail, or be a CEO of a Fortune 500 company. What AHG wrote is a lie perverted from the truth.
That is bad enough, but on top of that they excised the passage from the bolded part (14 For this reason I bow my knees before the Father, 15 from whom every family in heaven and on earth is named,) because it is downright patriarchal. Of course God isn’t called “Family”, but “Father”. The idea here is that family literally flows from fatherhood and this is true all the way to the very top in God the Father. Our union in Christ is “rooted and grounded” in the Fatherhood of God, and we were given fatherhood in humans relations as the primary way to understand our relationship to God. It says that you know who you are from submission to and knowledge of your father, and therefore the Holy Spirit give the power to understand Christ’s love so that we may then be filled with the fullness of God. That is: It is the power to fully esteem God in the Trinity.
AHG rejects this. Instead they teach that a girl’s power is rooted and grounded in a curriculum of self esteem; that if she gains self esteem she will be Christ-like. That is completely foreign to the Bible.
Not only is not possible, its a stupid caricature that I’ve only seen in “All in the family.”
I’d say it’s more hyperbolic than caricaturish to make a point. It is, after all, a country song. The idea of a woman quickly pouring a glass of tea for a man who’d willingly die for hardly sounds like a sacrifice of dignity on her part, does it? (and I believe there are some men who love their wives that much)
But yeah, the rattling the glass part does paint a certain picture, though the songwriter doesn’t seem to see it through the same lens as most people do.
Here is a movie coming out in October. The book is out now but I have not yet read it.
Perhaps it will be better than the Kendricks work.
Do women think they need to bring anything to the table except their holy selves? It seems not.
Robert What?: Do women think they need to bring anything to the table except their holy selves? It seems not.
Well, when you’re already A Pearl of Great Price and A Prize to be Won and A Daughter of the King, what more need you bring to the table?
Sorry for crushing your post Dalrock, but pls if you could just take a glimpse to this clickbait:
https://nypost.com/2019/09/06/broke-men-are-hurting-american-womens-marriage-prospects
Not sure if they are even trying any more.
Well, when you’re already A Pearl of Great Price and A Prize to be Won and A Daughter of the King, what more need you bring to the table?
If they are all these things, can they bring me a hunting lodge and a trust fund that will allow me to retire at 35?
Only if they took it from an former husband goFigure….
O/T
I was reading my Mother’s Diary for 1989. My parents were on holiday on the south coast of France. This is what she wrote for October 5th and to which I think comment should be superfluous: “Shopped in morning. Swam after lunch. La Monica restaurant for dinner. Many noisy chatty Americans.”
OT
Don’t you love it when you are trying to let your family sleep a few minutes longer so you try to be stealthy special forces ninja cat-like dad and you end up tripping on the rug, and knocking over the end table, and the glass of ice water that’s on it and…
Men broke, women most affected
https://nypost.com/2019/09/06/broke-men-are-hurting-american-womens-marriage-prospects/?fbclid=IwAR3d8Tyjgt7EN4YQy4W5-ejdESeTv6qLSljQE_Zyvfjgc-oTmo4PGIdAbXw
Pingback: Manufacture of Consent in Microcosm – v5k2c2.com
“Some ladies are even starting to date down in order to score a forever partner.”
Until they decide “forever” is done of course.
Attorney wife marries electrician. She explains the advantages of “marrying down”: https://nypost.com/2016/06/01/the-solution-to-nycs-man-drought-date-down/
“Here’s the thing: I have student-loan debt, which my husband doesn’t have. He’s doing really well, financewise. I think there’s a common misconception that ‘lack of a degree’ means ‘lack of income,’ which isn’t the case,” says Andrea.
Even so, she thinks she “married down” because her status is higher than his. But she’s big enough to overlook that. What a catch!
Single mom throws “wedding themed” birthday party — insists friends show up as bridesmaids: https://nypost.com/2019/08/27/single-mom-hosts-wedding-themed-birthday-so-she-can-celebrate-without-settling-down/
A single mom rang in her 36th birthday in an unusual fashion — by wearing a wedding dress and tiara and celebrating making it “all this way without marrying anyone.”
Michele Plum of Horsham, West Sussex, England, sent out Facebook invitations to her friends and family announcing her plans for a wedding-themed birthday party after getting fed up seeing everyone around her getting married and having “babies everywhere.”
“I’m 36 years old on 16th August this year and have made it all this way without marrying anyone! Well done me!” the invitation begins, according to a screengrab of the Facebook page. …
The woman went on to demand her guests put the date on their calendars, threatening to go “full Bridezilla” if they didn’t show up and requested that everyone wear their best “bridesmaids dresses, your own wedding dress, cheesy suit, or as Elvis.” …
“I became a single mom in my early twenties. I’ve done all the hard parenting stuff and now I’m free. My life’s brilliant. I have no intention of settling down,” she added.
Though the mom-of-one does not plan to get married, she still wanted to celebrate with the gown and the reception.
“When I go a wedding now, I just love the dress and the fact they get a big party,” she told Metro. “That’s the bit about marriage I like — not the having to live with somebody for the rest of my life bit.”
AR,
You have asked some complicated questions.
As to the faceless body of text, it is entirely possible that every commenter here is Liz using pseudonyms, even our host. We assume that this is not the case for a variety of reasons, but we cannot know the fact. Call it healthy or excessive skepticism of any post. An example for why this is prudent can be found in the works of Plato: Socrates is both liberal and illiberal depending on which book one cares to open. Plato claims that both versions are accurate reportings of the teachings of the same man, but the simpler explanation is that Plato is making appeals to authority as the need arises. If one were to trust anything bearing the name “Socrates”, then a large heaping of cognitive dissonance would necessarily result. This is not to suggest that anonymity is useless or without value, but to highlight that trust must be earned. Something which is difficult to do through text exclusively, and takes years of consistent and careful commentary.
As for the more important topic of changing such a fundamental premise, well, it wasn’t fundamental. The fundamental premises are: 1, reality is objective; 2, individuals are different. It was assumed through unexamined bombardment of tabula rasa that these differences were purely cosmetic, but differences necessary for 2 make that proposition untenable with respect to 1. I as a 6’0″ man will never be an NBA all star, just as an IQ south of 100 precludes brilliant surgeon. On realization that behaviors fall on a spectrum dictated in part by physical structures in the brain, like height or IQ, equal competence is an obvious fiction. The role of the Amygdala in political outlook is a fair example.
If that is insufficient, I will happily clarify.
“it is my belief that almost everyone believes gay marriage is wrong – they know it in their stomach – but they lack the vocabulary to describe it.”
Legal vocabulary works.
Gay marriage is invalid as a contract because it does not possess any consideration. That consideration is reproductive consideration. There can be no reproductive (gamete) exchange in a gay marriage which is what the marriage contract is all about.
chris: Gay marriage is invalid as a contract because it does not possess any consideration. That consideration is reproductive consideration. There can be no reproductive (gamete) exchange in a gay marriage which is what the marriage contract is all about.
People have made the argument. The response is, “Well then, infertile people, including older women past menopause, or people who don’t want kids, also cannot get married.”
Logic is not applicable to the homosexual marriage argument. Neither is it applicable today to the divorce argument either.
It should be, but people are too driven by emotions now, so logic is only a cute sideshow.
Is a wedding themed party (Bridezilla?) merely a change from a Vicars and Tarts Party (does America have those? I guess not seeing you don’t have any proper uniforms for your Pastors). Horsham (pronounced whoresham) which is in the County of Sussex – a corruption of South Saxony (the same county which gives us the regency dandy and feminist chairs – though that is the eastern part thereof) is a very nice place to live indeed I once attended a wedding there and I am happy to say that the bride and groom remain married – the oppression. Wiki informs us that Horsham has two official homeless people so you can see how bad things might be. Horsham has also satirically been described as follow: “A no fun zone run by New Conservatives for Old Conservatives” and is in the top 15% of the country for low crime. Everyone wants to live in Sussex: Priscilla Presley was there for a while I seem to recall and the Swedish Billionaire who recently died had been there since since 1985. Happily The Duchess of Sussex has yet to visit. Far too many millionaire refugees from ‘shitholes’ like California and Sweden in the county I would say and far too expensive for me. They have to go back.
Despite what the unwed mother Miss Plum says, a wedding themed party sounds to me like a massive hint as to what she really really wants.
People have made the argument. The response is, “Well then, infertile people, including older women past menopause, or people who don’t want kids, also cannot get married.”
If I am not mistaken, this is kind of stuff is the basis of how canonical form works.
A marriage is only said to be present if all the elements of canonical form are there on the day of the wedding. Those elements were developed and canonized over time, one of which is a an “openness” to life (RC term) the syllogism of which leads you to presume that this is a male/female couple who are willing to at least to try to conceive in the natural way. A person who is secretly desiring to have no kids is violating this principle, but the other half of that couple has not.
Now, if you have two virgins getting married, it is not known if they are infertile until this is attempted. And if God chose to not give them children while they tried their hearts out, then they still have a canonical marriage.
Maybe you could argue that in the case of post menopausal women or a people who have been previously married and it is known that one or both are infertile, this might get a little shaky.
But women in their mid-forties have on occasion become pregnant. I am married to one. No fertility meds or treatment, just having babies the old fashioned way.
It seems to me the spirit of the thing is intent. Are you going to come together regularly, no birth control and take whatever happens? If yes, then you meet that requirement.
To clarify a little further.
If the couple comes to a priest and expressly states “we do not intend to have children” then, you are correct. There is a lack of proper canonical form and the priest should refuse.
Now, I guess what usually happens is they discuss is privately with each other, or they decide to wait until the “right time” (which implies they will use BC) but they are not likely to go straight up telling that to their OC or RC priest.
Now, I guess what usually happens is they discuss is privately with each other, or they decide to wait until the “right time” (which implies they will use BC) but they are not likely to go straight up telling that to their OC or RC priest.
Indeed this is exactly what happens.
When people are getting married, they want to get through the process. They will tell the priest what they think that the priest needs to hear in order to proceed with the process. Whether it’s true or not — people are mostly concerned about getting through the process. When I was married I was still RC (this is almost 30 years ago now), and we had to go through something called “pre-cana”, which was a series of informal “classes” with other couples who were also engaged and a priest. All the standard stuff was discussed, but it was clear to the couples that pretty much none of them had any intention of following what was being discussed (almost all Catholic couples use artificial contraception, for example). I will give the priest who was preparing us some kudos, though, for showing up unannounced at my place around 9pm one evening — “was just in the area and so I thought I would drop by to see how things are going…” –> that was his way of verifying whether my fiancee and I were shacked up or not, and we were not so I “passed the test”, so to speak.
But there really is no way to solve the canonical problem around marriages, at least as it works in the Catholic world, because people will say anything when they want to get married, if they think it’s what they need to say to move the process along. It’s virtually impossible for the priest to detect accurately whether both parties have the requisite intent that the RC version of the sacrament requires, again, because people will say anything in that situation.
People have made the argument. The response is, “Well then, infertile people, including older women past menopause, or people who don’t want kids, also cannot get married.”
The intent to not have children is no guarantee none will be conceived and born. The lack of laws requiring the demonstration of the absolute certainty of fertility (which would be quite draconian…and expensive) and/or absolute assurance no children will ever be born from the union (crystal balls are not so reliable yet) does not indicate that children (and the corresponding familial connections) aren’t the primary reason for state sanction of the marriage contract. Children are the only reason the state has a vested interest in incentivizing marriage. What possible vested interest would the state have in incentivizing sodomy?
I was required to obtain a rubella shot to qualify for a marriage license in Hawaii. This wasn’t for my own health. Ironically, the Loving case is cited as a foundational precedent for state-sanctioned homosexual marriage, which is an irony since they married after she became pregnant.
Just to add,
Another argument gay “rights” advocates make is the claim legalization of homosexuality is equivalent to state sanction. To which I say, there is (or should be) an obvious distinction between making something “legal” and sanctioning the activity and incentivizing it as a public good.
One cannot reasonably argue that publicly sanctioning and incentivizing an activity (via tax advantages, et al) is in the interest of “private” liberty. This should be particularly obvious when we’re speaking of fundamentally altering a traditional institution that has been in place, and considered an integral part of society and community, for millennia.
I’m always curious if these folks have considered the sociological implications of giving equal weight to every belief system. Probably not, that Ivory Tower is pretty high up.
To the extent marriage ever was a contract, it is no longer. Marriage might meet the technical formal requirements for formation, but lacks the contractual remedies for breach, the terms are not definite and certain, and performance simply is not required at all.
Contracts require offer, acceptance and consideration. He “proposes” (offers), she accepts (says yes), and there are exchanges of items/things of value made in apparent good faith (an engagement ring, her not dating/having sex with anyone else, at least apparently). So far, so good. It’s what the parties to the contract do, or are required to do, after the contract is formed that causes all the problems.
In a real contract, the parties are expected to perform according to the contract’s terms. Performance must fairly meet the terms, and need only be “adequate” on an objective basis. But in marriage, there are no real terms – only a description of how they are formed and dissolved. There is nothing you can refer to that tells you, and the other party, how to perform under the marriage “contract”. “Adequate” performance is purely, 100% subjective. The other party determines whether your performance is “adequate” based on how s/he feels that day and whatever else is going on in his/her life.
Moreover, you’re not even really required to “perform”. Or, rather, the wife does not have to perform. She does not have to do anything – have sex with you, take care of your house, bear you children, support you, live with you, or even be nice to you. She now has a legal claim on half of everything you will ever produce for the rest of your life. And she need not do anything to secure that claim other than go through a ceremony in front of you wherein she goes through the “I Do” and “I will” motions. Once she does the Kabuki theater and says the magic words, she has rendered all the “performance” required of her.
And you cannot make her do anything. You cannot compel performance. You cannot pressure her to perform. You cannot threaten her. You cannot tell her “if you do not do X as part of your duties, I will do Y or I will not do Z”.
In a real contract, nonperformance or inadequate performance is called “breach”, and the remedy is damages. That’s usually a monetary payment. In a marriage, the only “remedy” for nonperformance is divorce. (In contract law, “divorce” roughly corresponds to “rescission” in which the contract is at an end and is “unwound” so as to put the parties back into roughly the same positions they were in pre-contract. But rescission is equitable, not legal, and it isn’t possible to put a man and woman back into the same positions they were in pre-marriage.) Moreover, this sole “remedy” can be invoked by either party at any time, for any reason, whether or not performance has been rendered. The consequences of invoking the remedy are wildly divergent. Whoever earns the bulk of the financial resources must pay the other, regardless of who invokes it. 85% of the time, that’s the man. The man must also give his children to his wife (85% of the time, primary residential custody goes to the mother, regardless of situation, employment, or who invokes it).
The consequences of divorce change according to the state of the law, not according to any terms the man and woman agree on, except for very, very well stated prenuptial agreements, and even then, prenups can be tossed out if they would cause unconscionable results at the time of the divorce and based on the parties’ positions at the time of divorce.
So, on a lot of levels, a marriage isn’t really a contract.
it is entirely possible that every commenter here is Liz using pseudonyms, even our host.
I’d have to be our host, in said case. That’s the only way scores of aliases would be tolerated when originating at a single ip address.
I.Am.Dalrock!
Bwhahahaaa!
(insert evil clown emoji, or space alien emojis, or silently screaming eggplants and whatnot)
Am I unmarriable because I am infertile?
Homosexual “marriage” does not exist for one simple reason. It fails to fit the specifications of the one who designed marriage.
Matthew 19:4 And He [Jesus] answered and said to them, “Have you not read that He who made them at the beginning ‘made them male and female,’ 5 and said, ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’? 6 So then, they are no longer two but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let not man separate.”
God – not man – designed marriage. God – not man – wrote the specifications for marriage. Homosexual “marriage” fails the specifications. Therefore, it is not marriage. It’s a counterfeit. The counterfeit Rolexes you see at the markets over here may look like a real Rolex, but they fail Rolex’s specifications. Therefore, they are counterfeit. The same principle applies to homosexual “marriage”.
It is true that couples will lie to the Priest or Deacon who interviews and prepares them for marriage. Some will do that so they can have the formal church wedding. On the other hand, many lukewarm couples bypass the Church wedding because of restrictions on the ceremony. A big show stopper for many is that is has to be held in a church. So no beach, forest, themed, “destination” or other trendy weddings. Also, no deviation from the liturgy is allowed. I recall a Deacon telling me about how couples would pout when told that a “unity candle lighting” could not be incorporated into the ceremony.
Anyway. since getting married in a church is so strict and uncool, I could see couples skipping it altogether and instead have their beach wedding, with their dogs present or whatever floats their boat.
It depends on the denomination. Obviously RC, Orthodox and Episcopalian clergy have a “uniform”. Beyond that it’s hit and miss. It used to be that the “uniform” for most protestant American clergy was a business suit. In the present many, especially those of the non-denom flavor, wear “business casual”: some chinos and a polo shirt.. Though I have seen some Lutheran, Presbyterian and Methodist clergy wearing the Roman Collar.
1 Timothy chapter 5 implies that any widow under the age of 60 should be considered eligible for marriage. Which is interesting, but that’s what the Bible says. The verses obviously aren’t referring to divorcees, but they clearly put to death that idea that fertility qua fertility is a prerequisite for valid Christian marriage.
@Frank K
You cannot have a Vicar and Tarts party without a dog-collar. Once, one Sunday morning on Brighton’s seafront I was assailed by a middle-aged couple who enquired if I were ‘of the cloth’? Puzzled, I was but it transpired that they had mistaken the top of my white T-shirt for a dog collar. A friend of mine acquired a Reverendship (cost $35.00 and he also had to answer one question – the name of Jesus mother) from one of your less reputable Diploma Mills and as a result his Insurance Premiums for his Motor Car are less then they might otherwise be such is the reputation of the clergy. In Court members of the clergy are exempted from taking the oath.
The last time I was in church the Vicar was wearing a short-sleeved shirt – getting down with the youth. God save us from trendy Vicars – but at least that one was male.
In England everyone is default CofE. Those who are Roman Catholic are never likely to be English. All other Christian denominations are seen as a failure to launch as enthusiasm which is what it takes to not be CofE is regarded with suspicion – the same of course goes for those espousing Atheism. Buddhists (largely English nut-jobs), Hindus and Islamists (both of whom can always play the race card) are thus quite beyond the pale but their numbers are fairly small.
Hey Opus:
Is there something in the water over there?
https://www.inquisitr.com/5616596/candace-owens-marries-british-lord/
I actually like Candace Owen a lot, but I couldn’t help but laugh and wonder if there’s a trend. English aristocrat marries American black woman slightly older than himself. Not quite a royalty of course, but…
Frank K
Yep. In Orthodoxy those restrictions are hard and fast. There is zero deviation from the liturgy.
It’s why the wedding ceremony scene in “my big fat Greek wedding” is so dumb. They added the “bridal chorus” to make it more appealing/relatable to American audiences but it would never be allowed in an Orthodox Church wedding.
It’s why the wedding ceremony scene in “my big fat Greek wedding” is so dumb. They added the “bridal chorus” to make it more appealing/relatable to American audiences but it would never be allowed in an Orthodox Church wedding.
With some of the stuff I’ve seen in “greekorthodox” churches in the US, you never know.
In the US not even that is necessary. You can start your own church and call yourself a “Reverend” (though the term “Pastor” is more common) without any credentials of any kind. That said I an unaware of special insurance discounts in the US for clergy or being exempted from having to take an oath in court.
@ Frank K
The only Apostle who attended a seminary was Paul, and he counted his credentials as dung.
@Elspeth
It may be, following the wedding of the seventh in line to the throne to Ms Markel a case of virtue signalling from the Honourable Mr Farmer. It is however the case that England having no descendants of slaves and where most Black people in England (Jamaicans and the like) see themselves as always having been British (by reason of Empire) that the antipathy towards Negroes (and vice versa) is not as great in England (where their numbers are in any case comparatively small) as in America. I, certainly, when younger dated a number of black girls (four in total). I was colour-blind (except with regard to Asian birds who I could never find any attraction in) and my dating them was not something any one would have thought either odd or worth remarking on.
I might then add that Prince Harry’s recent suggestion that British people have unconscious bias against black people has really outraged just about everyone over here. His stupidity is only matched by his offensiveness – and his poor sartorial sense.
Not that I think that Race mixing is a good idea as it tends to produce very odd looking offspring who are never to be fully accepted by either their Mother’s or their Father’s community. It is unfair to the offspring and thus best avoided. I say that with a certain pain being myself of mixed English and Scottish ancestry and have (strange as you may learn) been at times throughout my life a victim of racial abuse by reason of that mixture (from both the Scots and the English)!
@Elspeth
My very first (hawt hawt hawt ) girlfriend was an Elspeth (Scottish version of Elizabeth) and I am thus well disposed toward anyone of that name.
The woman on Proverbs 31 is, was, and will always be the exception to the rule!!! That is why she is mentioned in Proverbs! She is unique, precious, and irreplaceable.
The vast majority of women do not even come close to the Proverbs 31 wife. I would know it from experience, I married such a woman.
There is a sense of entitlement and self-aggrandizing in women today that is truly frightening. Not only they barely put any effort into themselves, they are completely deluded by growing up in a society that is so gynocentric that she does not even realize how terribly flawed she is.
Case in point: Miley Cyrus married way, and I mean way above her worth in every way, shape and form. She married a rich, good-looking famous “nice guy” Liam Hemsworth (a/k/a/ Thor’s younger brother).
Miley, a cheating Marxist entitled h0ebag was “shocked” that Liam Hemsworth had the good sense to file for divorce after she publicly cuckolded him in front of the world media by making out with a woman, publicly, for the cameras after mocking him the week before.
Poor ‘lil Miley was sooooooo sad and shocked. How could Liam do that to her? She is so perfect after all, she can do no wrong. LOL You gotta laugh.
Let me further furnish evidence about my point in the matter of the sense of entitlement being a core of the feminist mindset and ideology (and one of today’s women’s worst attributes). Given that Eve tried to blame Adam and the snake for her screw-up and so did Sarah blaming Abraham for impregnating her handmaiden at her request, blame-shifting and lack of personal responsibility by women have gotten to an unbearable point today.
So now the wh0res who willingly went out of their parents’ nice middle class and upper-middle class homes to do p0rn in other cities are now suing the movie companies. -_-
The women’s rationale? They were “deceived” about what “doing p0rn” on camera was really all about. They now have trouble getting jobs! OMG…. who would have thought?!
So non-disabled, sober, 18+ year old ADULT women get paid cash, sign a contract, provide ID showing they are over 18, and agree to the terms of doing a dirty movie that will be sold worldwide and they ‘did not know’ what the deal was?
https://www.dailydot.com/irl/hot-girls-wanted-porn-agent/
(Notice that “sex trafficking” is now being used for women who willingly get paid and sign a contract to do a p0rn flick and then leave. That is their new codeword for wh0res that sell themselves willingly now).
https://www.news.com.au/finance/business/media/porn-star-lenna-lux-accuses-hot-girls-wanted-agent-riley-reynolds-of-exploiting-women/news-story/3109094d234dfea37768422e9b705e36
(now when women volunteer to get paid for p0rn and wh0ring, they are now “being exploited”).
Do we need any more proof of women in this country never being held responsible for their own actions and always shifting blame unto others for their own decisions. It is asinine.
And worst part is, they will likely settle the case and wh0res will get some cash out of this. They shouldn’t but they know women easily manipulate the legal system in this country.
It may be, following the wedding of the seventh in line to the throne to Ms Markel a case of virtue signalling from the Honourable Mr Farmer.
Eh. From what I have gathered, Mr. Farmer is pretty right-wing, so I’m not sure if virtue signaling is as easy an answer. And (thankfully) Candace Owens is no Meghan Markle. Not as old, not a divorcee, and not even remotely liberal.
At first glance however, which is all most people see, there are similarities between the unions relating to ethnicity and nationality. Which was pointed out to me by my initial source of the news of the former Miss Owens nuptials.
At least the Apostles were disciples, so one could argue that they were trained by The Very Best, though most of them seemed to have a very hard time, at least at first, of understanding what was being taught.
Red Pill Christianity says:
September 10, 2019 at 9:07 am
[…]
So non-disabled, sober, 18+ year old ADULT women get paid cash, sign a contract, provide ID showing they are over 18, and agree to the terms of doing a dirty movie that will be sold worldwide and they ‘did not know’ what the deal was?
https://www.dailydot.com/irl/hot-girls-wanted-porn-agent/
(Notice that “sex trafficking” is now being used for women who willingly get paid and sign a contract to do a p0rn flick and then leave. That is their new codeword for wh0res that sell themselves willingly now).
[…]
Do we need any more proof of women in this country never being held responsible for their own actions and always shifting blame unto others for their own decisions. It is asinine.
I recently saw a Mia Khalifa interview, Meetoing her way out of her whore ways: “I was fragile!”
I think the bottom line here is: most women never ever take responsibility for what they do, their decisions, and are often not even held accountable for them. They will often lie and when caught, they blame the person they have wronged.
Case in point: NFL player signs a multi-million Dollar contract and all of a sudden, his old female personal trainer sues him in civil court, by claiming that he sexually assaulted her 3 different times over a 2-year period. When asked why she kept working with a man who supposedly sexually assaulted and raped her on multiple occasions, she said “he apologized and said he would never do it again”. So to clarify, a man supposedly sexually assaults a female trainer 2 separate times over a year and she STILL comes back to work with him for another year??? RIIIIIIIGHT
How many assaults does it take for a female personal trainer to call the cops or say “I am not going back to this guy”?! Yeah…. I believe her…. lol *roll eyes*
(Story: pittsburgh.cbslocal.com/2019/09/10/antonio-brown-sexual-assault-lawsuit/
And yes, he is a fool for hiring a female personal trainer, but that does not give her the right to fabricate stories to get money from him, filing this lawsuit soon after his multi-million Dollar NFL contract details leak to the press).
Women almost never take responsibility for anything. Just yesterday, the gossipy lady at my office told me in the break room more details about the MsMudshark trying to trap her unknowingly Mexican fiancé. She not only lied to him, she tried to turn it on HIM that he “went digging up dirt on her” (which he did not, he was given the info anonymously. She willingly mudsharks for years as an adult, hides the photographic and social media evidence, then she gets caught anyway, and blames the man for confronting her about it. Glad this dude is done with her.
This is an age-old game women have been running for millennia; it used to be tolerable on a local/individual level, but now it has become unbearable due to being amplified by a feminist and gynocentric culture of The Western world. It is everywhere now and in a scale that has become mentally exhausting for men to contend with. Women thrive in victimhood and in America, victim status = power and prestige. It is a sickening cultural trend.
This lack of accountability and responsibility for women’s own decisions, actions and behavior are manifested most notably in criminal and family courts, as well as at the workplace, in relationships, and in life. It is getting really old.
It makes it hard to even want to LTR women these days. Maybe the Millennials have figured out a sensible way around this, through the creation of the h00kup culture? Maybe we have been too hasty to condemn that?Maybe this culture is the only sensible male response to feminism?
I think the bottom line here is: most women never ever take responsibility for what they do, their decisions, and are often not even held accountable for them. They will often lie and when caught, they blame the person they have wronged.
This was common knowledge/common sense for most of human history: that women by divine design are the weaker vessels who are simply not capably of fully exercising moral agency on their own. This is why their behavior and freedoms have historically been severely restricted by men – for their own welfare and protection. It’s only in the modern “enlightened” [sic] era that we’ve thrown away millennia of accumulated human wisdom. The results are destroying western civilization.
God should have just said they were “weaker vessels” in His Written Word if that was the case feeriker!
Oh yea, He did!
Semi-Off topic (but relevant to the discussion of women having zero accountability in America today):
If anyone still doubts female/feminist absolute and absurd privilege in this country when it comes to the justice system, meet the 18-year old ADULT woman who murdered and buried her newborn in her backyard.
https://www.foxnews.com/us/young-ohio-mom-20-acquitted-of-killing-newborn-baby-she-buried-in-backyard
(The comments in the article are interesting. Very few women are actually aghast at this not guilty.)
(Look at the confused and scared face she this ADMITTED baby killer made during trial. Oh yeah she got bond, something no male defendant would get in a murder case of this size!)
Does ANYONE thinks if an 18-year old man who was “scared and confused” and killed a newborn and buried it in his backyard would get off with likely probation? He would have gotten LIFE in prison without parole at age 18!
But she is a woman, so of course, she is a holy being incapable of doing any wrong.
As if we did not have enough examples of female privilege and criminal prosecution immunity. A short list of recent cases comes to mind: Casey Anthony, Mary Carol Winkler (TN), Loretta Bobbitt (the husband penis cutter), Sec of State Hillary Clinton, IRS official Louis Lerner, Andrea Yates, Debra LaFave, almost every female school teacher that bangs young boys, and virtually every woman who commits a serious crime gets off without any punishment or a slap on the wrist. And let’s not forget Wanda Barzee, the woman who helped that psychopath keep Elizabeth Smart of Utah enslaved in a camp, even though Wanda had ample opportunities to help Elizabeth and leave the camp and yet she is out of prison already, as she is a woman and got 1/9th of her co-defendant’s sentence.
Our legal justice system is so messed up, I do not care who she is, I will NEVER ever help a woman in “distress” in my life or even call the cops to help such a woman, as long as I live, unless she is a very close friend, relative, or a member of my church. I mean it. This whole thing disgusts me to no end. No way am I ever putting a man in criminal jeopardy given how disgustingly misandrist and gynocentric this country has become. He can never get a fair trial.
Looking at article comments… some people think she will “shrivel up with guilt and regret over the years”. LOL
She probably has rationalized the murder. Maybe they consider it a post-birth DIY abortion. Maybe she blames it on the baby daddy not in the picture. Maybe she blames the patriarchy or her family. It is anyone’s fault but her own.
Clearly, clueless Blue Pillers commenting on Fox understand literally nothing about the female psyche. The War Bride Syndrome. The Hamster. This woman feels zero guilt, if she is a typical Western female.
This Ohio “mom” is gonna go out and party with Casey Anthony, who murdered her little 2 year old beautiful little girl. Think about this: Casey Anthony had 2 years to bond with Caylee and yet she killed her in cold blood, tossed her body in a field to rot in Orlando.
The next night after she murdered her little 2 year old, a little gilr that could talk and walk on her own, Casey was in a club partying!
Anyone who thinks this Ohio newborn-killing monster will feel any guilt is delusional or deep-into the Blue Pill. She, like Casey Anthony, feels and will never feel any guilt whatsoever. This is female psychology 101, a basic, well-understood fact and concept.
Both of these probably consider themselves “Proverbs 31 Princesses” indeed! -_- Truly strong, empowered women.
This kind of murder is almost legal in at least a couple of states now, so why would anyone be shocked that it happened?
We numb people to murder and are then shocked at it when it happens. No one things most abortion is to a “mass of tissues” anymore. That front has long since been disproven, but most don’t care, even ones who claim to value life.
@BillyS says: This kind of murder is almost legal in at least a couple of states now, so why would anyone be shocked that it happened? We numb people to murder and are then shocked at it when it happens.
Billy, it is one thing to abort a child you cannot see, cannot hold in your hands, and you get lied to that it is a “bunch of cells”. It is another to murder a newborn baby whom you have held, can hear, touch, smell, and see moving, alive, complete with arms, legs, feet, hair, etc.
How about Casey Anthony murdering a little girl, Caylee, who was already over 2 years old? Clump of cells? Come on.
The shock is not so much with the culture of death. Heck, an entire political party is dedicated as a death cult now. Democrats openly campaign on day-before birth abortions and post-birth “abortions” and infanticide now, to thunderous applause by their crowds. That is their party’s platform now. Got it, they have in-womb murder normalized.
But to see A JURY of unrelated people allowing women to walk free after murdering their very much alive, out-of-the-womb children… it is a whole new level. Women feel no guilt murdering their own kids because they can Hamster-rationalize infanticide.
If this society is so desensitized to death now that when women kill a newborn baby or worse, a 2-year-old girl who can walk and talk on her own, and not be punished….. brother, we are doomed for sure then. Not even in Soviet Cuba did we see this level of barbarism.
@ RPC
What are the odds that some genius will reward Brooke Skylar Richardson (the Ohio baby-murderess) with marriage?
RedOscar, I would say her odds of landing a hardworking beta cuck to wife her up (even knowing what she did) is close to 100%. I have seen husbands of school teachers caught banging HS-age male students say on TV they are “standing by their wife” and that “she made a small error of judgment” and that kinda thing. Male self-cuckoldry is a sport in America today.
And now that Skyler has been found not guilty of it all and has been given 3yrs probation for the “desecration of a body” misdemeanor charge (instead of a year in county jail), she is guaranteed to have escaped completely unpunished. If she screws up royally and VOPs (violates probation), I have seen judges re-instate women’s probation up to 5 times before, so her chance of ever seeing the inside of a jail cell, as she should, is close to zero. She will be the victim again next time too, so this cycle of injustice never ends.
The message to young women is: you can just kill off your newborn baby if she wants and go Skylar Richardson and get away with less than a slap on the writ by saying she was “scared and confused” OR she can go Casey Anthony and “test drive” the child for a couple years and then kill it by suffocating it, dump the body in a field hoping gators will eat the body and then go hop right back on clubbing and the c0ck carrousel the day after the murder and beat all charges and get away completely. Or she can just go Andrea Yates and murder 5 kids and say she is mentally ill and get “counseling”.
Anyone thinks a man could have done the same and claimed to be “scared and confused” and get away with it? lol
Either way, we further incontrovertible evidence here that American women face zero consequences for their actions, decisions, and behaviors. Anyone who skirts this undeniable reality is delusional or psychiatrically insane.
Oh yeah… and the punishment these women have is to be offered to do a p0rn movie for tons of money. I bet a recruiter is working the phones now to get Skylar in for some “punishment” (cash). You get away with murder and get paid to be in a movie. What a country.
It is hard not to become cynical. But then we see Felicity Huffman, a 56 year old rich and privileged woman with no history of mental illness that she was “confused and scared” and had her “motherly instincts” when she bribed college coaches with tens of thousands of Dollars in cash to get her useless kids into top schools, denying talented poorer kids form getting in.
Maybe I am not cynical about our “justice” system anymore. I am just realistic.
On a lighter and very funny note:
As they say… If they do not slice it up at all, it will only be one whole pie (slice) and she will not be ‘filled up’ at all. Lol 😀
“No matter how good the sex is, it is the other 23 hours of the day.” LOL Priceless!
Murder is only acceptable when I woman is doing it, either to her innocent unborn, born or “abusive” husband.
The feminism has literally legislated murdering females as acceptable.
Men – hell you can’t even meet with a woman in a room now without the strong possibility of your life being destroyed 30 years down the line as you didnt have every interaction with her absolutely perfect, and so she has felt threatened\broken ever since and that you must be punished to atone for this sin.
Our civilisation really is in collapse. That’s what happens when a society abandons God.
I had a disturbing exchange via messenger with a woman here in my area on a chat app just yesterday.
In 5 mins time on chat she claimed to have been… wait for it… “Sexually trafficked”. Checking out her social media (which she made available right away) shows pics with her parents in this fancy living room and all I highly doubt these are poor “migrants” or residents of a impoverished nation in SE Asia or EE that would do such a thing.
I confronted her on chat about “who sold you” and just basic questions and it became clear she made whole thing up, of course. She strikes me as (at least) upper middle class American if not richer. No way her folks would sell her and given she is priviledged she would have made national news in such a case… not a young kid that would be an easy target. I never heard of trafficking a white woman in her mid-20s.
“Being sexually trafficked” is now the new “rape victim” (in college) or “being sexually harassassed” (at work) trend for women in America now. It is the new badge of honor, the new gold standard in being a victim. It is probably gonna be the new big hysteria that seems to be growing in our victimization culture.
Men, watch out for women like this. This is the type of woman who will falsely accuse you and send you to prison for 3 dimes without hesitation just for kicks, for street cred in social media. These are the Casey Anthonys and Skylar Richardsons of Hamster-rationalization. All for a fake sense of worth.
Be careful. As MineSweeper says our civilization is on the road to collapse and nutcase women like these are leading the way.
Ps. Can I post screenshots of chat here with redacted names and images? It is surreal how easily female story crumbles under basic questioning and yet, the cops with arrest you and charge you using her words as “evidence” nonetheless.
@RPC, oh please do ! (screenshots) yeah stay away from that one !
RPC,
Yes, we are headed a very dangerous way. We are very prosperous in many ways, just like ancient Israel (the northern kingdom), but the Assyrians are coming with more brutality than we realize.
They sacrificed infants then directly, we do so today and it is less and less hidden.
Minesweeper,
You don’t even have to be in a room with her. Look at what happened to Kavanaugh.
As I read the post I am struck by the the idea that the “pearls of great price” have been busy throwing themselves before swine. Do you know what happens when swine get those “pearls of great price”? They get crunched and mixed in the pig manure. Enough thoughts on that.
Trust me, I am staying away from that one and this chat with full details (including her contact # and all) have been placed into my “database” of psychos and video recordings of in-person meetings.
Kevanaugh is just the poster-child for the new Soviet-style of anti-male persecution in America. The fact women can (and do) make anonymous, un-provable accusations from decades before without any consequence to them is absolutely insane. And this is a against a well-connected powerful man, with numerous resources to defend himself. Imagine if such accusation is made against one of us peasants? -_-
We are heading to a point where all interactions with women will have to be recorded and video will have to be preserved for life. Polygraphs may need to become mandatory for all women making accusations that are more than say 6 months old. We also need to expand slander and defamation laws so men can sue and literally bankrupt women who do this.
Now everyone is a target. Anyone can accuse anyone else of something that happened 20 or 30 years ago. How can you defend yourself from such accusations? How can you have an alibi or mount a defense? It is literally impossible. That is why SOLs (State of Limitations) were put in place to prevent this exact thing from happening.
Now, with so many States removing SOLs from everything (to allow trial lawyers to sue easier) in things like PI (personal Injury cases) and even criminal cases, like incest, rape, and other ‘sexual crimes’, it is open season on all men.
Do not deceive yourself. The accusations are from Maryland. Kevanaugh can literally be arrested by the Maryland State police, booked, and charged with a decades-old case with zero evidence, except the woman’s words. And if he goes to trial in MD, conviction is almost certain, since it is a far left State.
And RP yourself about our actual criminal system. You are presumed guilty by jurors. When they see you sitting there with a lawyer, they think you probably did something. That is the upside down system we now have. Most Americans today,e specially those under 30, have zero understanding of the Constitution or civics. They assume the worst. And if a woman is crying accusing you, what chance do you think you have?
Got a dispute or old beef to settle with someone? Just have some woman accuse the man of some sexual crime 30 years ago. It is guaranteed prison for him. I know a man in his 70s who had a court battle with his brother over inheritance and his niece later accused him of molestation back in 1974 and he was arrested and ended up in prison over it. The evidence? Her words. He could not furnish an alibi because we are talking 40 years ago and since there was no SOL on such accusations here, he went to prison. He was sentenced according to 1974 guidelines, but at his age, dying in prison is likely. His only hope is to be released and he is eligible for parole since this was 1974 guidelines.
We are literally moving into a Soviet style of criminal justice. Preferred groups by the elites get a pass for any and all crimes (i.e. women, illegal immigrants, govt workers, media, rich people, celebs, etc) and others get severely punished with zero evidence against them (i.e. men, white males, legal Americans).
The goal of the Left is clear: create a sense of instability, distrust, and fear. Anyone is a potential enemy and anyone can falsely accuse you to settle a score against you. This will further polarize people in America to a point you will distrust and even hate anyone and everyone around you. No one can be trusted, except the all-powerful govt who will have to keep this whole “country” together by mass surveillance and force.
Makes me think of how Jezebel paid “scoundrels” to make false accusations against the owner of vineyard she wanted to steal. He is sentenced to death and she gets the land, which God at least cursed, to nothing but thrown grew there.
Except now Jezebel is any woman who “feels uncomfortable” by anything you do or say or any political opinion she does not like or decides she wants you fired from your job or has an “old score to settle” with you. Or your soon-to-be ex-wife. Literally, any woman today is a potential enemy. That is why I literally record all my interactions with women these days, no matter how small. Even a friendly chat with the female cashier needs to be recorded until I leave the store and no problems occur. Then of course such chats are deleted and recorded over if nothing bad happens from it.
But any dates, phone chats, e-mails, ride sin same car… all recorded, dated, and stored for life.
Anyone who thinks this policy of total fear and total instability will not end up badly for everyone is not living in the same world we Red Pillers are.
@safespaceplaypen Your analogy of the two peach trees is good, but you could save 1000 words by noting this:
A man/woman tree produces peaches (babies)
A man/man or a woman/woman tree produces no peaches, so they steal some by adoption and pretend they did.
Our civilization isn’t on the road to collapse. We are already post-collapse according to birthrates.
@Red Pill Christianity The life cycle of the whore is consistent. They ride the carousel for peanuts in their teens and twenties. Then they hit the wall, and try to wring a bit more cash out of any alphas they banged when they were younger, and/or divorce rape any betas stupid enough to marry them. This is what the porn whores are doing.
@dalrock See this weeks story of the pig farm murder in Iowa. She had multiple affairs and was telling friends and family she would cash out $2 million from the farm trust by divorcing him. He cashed out first with a pitch fork. Media portrayal she is 100% innocent victim.
Compare to Lorena Bobbett.
Murder is only acceptable when I woman is doing it, either to her innocent unborn, born or “abusive” husband.
The feminism has literally legislated murdering females as acceptable.
So at the rate at which things are degenerating, how soon until “woman/vagina = murderer” becomes a widespread stereotype?
Other stereotypes have evolved with a lot less grounding in reality than this.
@ feeriker
That’s awfully transphobic of you. Don’t you know that some women have penises, and some men have vaginas? What kind of heteronormative neanderthal are you?
Pingback: Turning Point: the Iowa Hog Farm Murder | Gunner Q
I doubt women will ever get labeled with that, however accurate it is. They are currently getting away with murder just fine (it seems) and those who raise issues are the ones chastised.
Pingback: The Overton Shake | Σ Frame