It’s Envy, not Hatred

Men are men, but man is a woman. ~ G. K. Chesterton

It keeps being said that liberalism and/or feminism are hatred of authority. It is said because it is observed that liberals and feminists consciously rebel against all natural authorities. While that is true, it is also true that most of them consciously flock under the authority of others who are not their natural leaders. A lot of people joyfully gave it to Obama, for example.

Liberals and feminists don’t hate authority. They covet it for themselves.

If you’re going to think clearly about the problem of rebellion against natural authorities, then you need to understand that because sin nature isn’t about hate; it’s about being without, or outside. The hatred comes from the dissatisfaction of envy.

Discerning Righteousness from Unrighteousness I

On his blog, DeepStrength commented:

Abraham’s intent was to protect Sarah. It appears that God honored that rather than bring down Abraham for his sin there.

I saw this idea put forward in a thread at Dalrock’s too, but it is not supported by Scripture.

With Pharaoh:

10 Now there was a famine in the land. So Abram went down to Egypt to sojourn there, for the famine was severe in the land. 11 When he was about to enter Egypt, he said to Sarai his wife, “I know that you are a woman beautiful in appearance, 12 and when the Egyptians see you, they will say, ‘This is his wife.’ Then they will kill me, but they will let you live. 13 Say you are my sister, that it may go well with me because of you, and that my life may be spared for your sake.” 14 When Abram entered Egypt, the Egyptians saw that the woman was very beautiful. 15 And when the princes of Pharaoh saw her, they praised her to Pharaoh. And the woman was taken into Pharaoh’s house. 16 And for her sake he dealt well with Abram; and he had sheep, oxen, male donkeys, male servants, female servants, female donkeys, and camels.

And with Abimelech:

10 And Abimelech said to Abraham, “What did you see, that you did this thing?” 11 Abraham said, “I did it because I thought, ‘There is no fear of God at all in this place, and they will kill me because of my wife.’ 12 Besides, she is indeed my sister, the daughter of my father though not the daughter of my mother, and she became my wife. 13 And when God caused me to wander from my father’s house, I said to her, ‘This is the kindness you must do me: at every place to which we come, say of me, “He is my brother.”’”

Abraham’s thought was explicitly to protect himself. There is no mention or inference that he withheld the truth for Sarah’s sake. In fact, Abraham himself says it was a kind of trade: he gives Sarah kindness with marriage (provision, etc.) and she gives him the “kindness” of refusing to confess he is her husband. It’s probably too far to say that Abraham whored Sarah out, but he does go that direction.

Abraham, as a husband, is a kind of evil master who removes his protection from his prized servant when such protection is most needed! But because Sarah submitted to God by submitting to her husband, it is God who protects her in the houses of Pharaoh and Abimelech. It is not for the sake of Abraham’s righteousness, but because of Sarah’s, and Pharoah’s, and Abimelch’s, and because of God’s own righteousness. The only person who is presented as unrighteous is, in fact, Abraham; who (predictably) falsely projects his own unrighteousness (regarding Sarah) onto others. Understanding this is important when considering the elevation of Sarah in 1 Peter 3. It is a reiteration by example of Peter’s instruction that wives submit to unbelieving husbands just as Sarah submitting to her literally unfaithful husband and yet trusted in the Lord.

By withholding the truth, Abraham trangressed the (as yet ungiven) Ninth Commandment. He bore false witness against his neighbor–which threatened them with death!–upon whose land he was living and from whom Abraham profited.

Abraham is a rare scoundrel. The beginning of Chapter 12 God called Abram to Canaan and promising him to become a great nation. Abrams strikes out for Canaan, finds a famine, and so heads into Egypt. Five minutes after God’s promise, Abram is bearing false witness against Pharaoh, Pharaoh’s men, and Sarah. Years later in chapter 17 God again comes to Abram and again promises that he will father a nation. A year later Isaac is born. In between there, Abraham offers his wife to Abimelech. To further confound us moderns he did these things without telling a lie. He is a legalist of the first order, and an obvious ancestor of the Pharisees.

There is no call for anyone to do unrighteousness because those near us are unrighteous or unworthy. God chose and used Abraham despite his unrighteousness, and Sarah demonstrated righteousness by her own hand despite Abraham’s unrighteousness; which means without rebelling. Do not be fooled into thinking that only those who appear righteous are in the Lord’s hands as His tools.

Which brings us to the supposed conundrum of whether lying to Nazis to save Jews or lying to pedophiles to protect children is good. The answer is not “Yes” or “No”, but “Grace” and “Forgiveness”. The man who lies to (but does not bear false witness against) murderers and perverts protects both the victims and the perpetrators. Lying is to be avoided just as kings must avoid having too many wives or horses, but lying is not the same as bearing false witness against your neighbor; which is being anything less than truthful with the intent to bring them down. So lying to your Nazi countrymen with the intent to lead them into a deathtrap is unrighteous all around. Falsely swearing there are no Jews in your attic is more righteous —by virtue of love–than surrendering them, and anyone who loves the truth, you, Jews, or Nazis (as Christ did) will be quick to see and forgive.

Excessively Useless Friendships

Donal Graeme, in his latest post asks some questions in response to another blogger’s post on friendship with women.

In this modern day age of empowered, strong, independent women, what does a modern women provide as a friend that a man cannot? What valuable skills does she bring to the table? What unique talents is she offering as a friend?

This is an important consideration. Theoretically, a female friend ought to be more useful than they are. Several reasons for this, but mostly it is not so much sex-biased, but environmental.

Saying someone is a friend should be more than a statement of approval. Our postmodern society dissolves every substance in emotion until it loses all form and function because formlessness is what postmodernism/deconstruction do, and emotion is a powerful and freely available solvent; one to which at least half of people simply like to use. After all: It often feels good, and what remains of emotionally-dissolved substances requires no commitment.

The sex-biased part is that because few people hold females to any standard they don’t learn anything useful. I believe men are less useful than they used to be, too, but there is still a residue of expectations. How many pre-marriage women can be counted on to prepare a menu of food? How about a cup of coffee that makes one say, “Mm-hmm!”? Can they even introduce a single man to other available women? What good are they to those around them?

Women want to be useful, and they even believe that they should be. Yet is a painful predicament from which to be extracted because the process of molding and holding a person to standards is destructive to comfort, niceness, and the perception of happiness. It’s fun and comfortable to exist without the imposition of expectations; especially for women. Not only are they driven by desire, but the zeitgeist encourages us to prefer the punishment of the smallest infraction of impolite imposition over even the direst need for discipline.

Find the Lady in Weighting: The Church Woman’s Con Game

Oscar asked:

I have an off-topic question for you regarding 1 Cor 14.

34 Women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the law says. 35 If they want to inquire about something, they should ask their own husbands at home; for it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in the church.

I understand the entire chapter’s subject is maintaining constructive order in collective worship, but I don’t understand why it’s inherently “disgraceful” or detrimental to constructive order for a woman “speak in the church”.

Or, am I missing something about what Paul is referencing when he mentions women speaking in church?

SirHamster replied:

In two different mixed-sex Bible studies I’ve led, I have had women drone on and on off-topic, caught up in their feelings on the subject.

“God is love, so God is feelings! Feelings are important!” That Bible Study had previously emphasized that Biblical love is an act of will, not feelings – and I’m ashamed now that I let that go on with no answer for 5 minutes. Need to learn to cut off unfruitful tangents in a discussion.

What I am learning from those experiences and various Manosphere/Game blogs is that women are not men with boobs, they have a womanly nature that processes the world differently. And they can and will go on a chain of “logic” that is not.

Bobbye added:

Women asking questions in the assembly show a fundamental disrespect for her husband and /or father if he is also a member of the assembly. Did she ask at home and not get an answer? Are the men in her home without knowledge? Or is it that she doesn’t respect their answers? She wants an answer from a ‘real’ authority. If headship serves no real purpose, why pretend that the husband is the head? If the woman’s husband/father is not a christian, then for decorum’s sake she should ask her questions privately, so as to not lead others astray.I once attended a church where an elder did not know who Jeremiah was. If churches actually practiced this observance, then men would be obligated to be more knowledgeable and wise in the Scriptures and the ways of God.

It’s these, altogether. This blog is not a church, but it suffered the same problems. No feminists trouble me. The impetus for my ban on female commenters was the comments of wives who confessed to believe the Bible and the husband’s headship.

Inevitably, disagreement happens and when it does then many of those supposedly Bible-believing, husband-following wives switch to a conversational form of Find the Lady. When what she had said is challenged, that gets shuffled to the position of “what her husband said”; to the cheers and jeers of the shills around the challenger; who becomes their mark. The shills may be male or female, but usually consider themselves conservative, or traditional.

Some of those wives become more emboldened in argument and more immodest in spirit. Like a wild donkey in heat, they will often start feeling around to take a grab at another man’s balls: “If you were a real man…”; “My husband would kick your ass…”; etc. Such a woman’s hands–one on her husband and one on his adversaries–are filled with two weights; which Moses called dishonest and an abomination.

11 “When men fight with one another and the wife of the one draws near to rescue her husband from the hand of him who is beating him and puts out her hand and seizes him by the private parts, 12 then you shall cut off her hand. Your eye shall have no pity.

13 “You shall not have in your bag two kinds of weights, a large and a small. 14 You shall not have in your house two kinds of measures, a large and a small. 15 A full and fair weight you shall have, a full and fair measure you shall have, that your days may be long in the land that the Lord your God is giving you. 16 For all who do such things, all who act dishonestly, are an abomination to the Lord your God.

She needs to be content with the full and fair weight and measure she has been given in her husband, and not go around fondling other men’s weights to see which is heavier. To do so is dishonest and an abomination. It is this which Paul called disgraceful, and it is; to her, to her husband, and to the church.

The only way to beat the con is to never play. The best way to protect gullible men from becoming marks is to never let disgraceful women setup the con. And the best way to keep disgraceful women from setting the con is to not let any women speak in church…or on this blog.

True Story of the Times

Video is crude, and probably NSFW, but it’s all here.

Great song and a keenly insightful video. This is a good jump-off point for discussion with others. The perps, the victims, the methods…it’s a true story. Tell me what you see in the comments.

A Very Brief Note on How to Vet a Potential Wife

This post is sorely delinquent, and I apologize to the emailer; whom I long ago told I would respond. He writes:

I got together with my girlfriend less than a month ago[1]. I’m ashamed to say that at 39 years old, I’ve never had a girlfriend. She’s my first. I am inclined to steer our relationship slowly towards marriage — a Christian marriage — and I realised the importance of having fun with her. Having said that, I hope you can share with me some advice on how I should “vet” a girl on whether or not she can be a good (Christian) wife. In fact, I’ve been reading Dalrock’s post about how much a husband should share with his wife and I picked up your comments, which to some, is a dismissal of “Game”. However, I believe your perspective is — as men we should be astute in choosing our wives, so much so that any form of “Game” or “manipulation” will never be necessary in the marriage.
So, I will be grateful if you can share some thoughts about vetting for a potential mate.

The first thing to vet is your attraction. Do you find her attractive? Do you want to touch her, etc.? That part is easy.

The second thing to discover is whether or not she is a Daddy’s Girl. Does she listen to her father? Does she express love for him? Does she speak of him respectfully? Does she live at home? When she discusses a past moment of disrespect or disobedience of him, does she express regret?

No woman is perfect and all of them have been given bad advice (even by their fathers), but you must get a sense of this, and you must see it in action. You need to see them together. Is she affectionate towards him? A woman’s love of her father is the best indicator of whether she has

  • self-control
  • dedication
  • love of family
  • mental sobriety
  • piety
  •  (importantly!) whether she will submit your children to your headship.

You may respond that it’s hard to see her and her father’s relationship in action because she lives in a different city. Well, that’s an answer. It may be that her father encouraged her to move away. Take the fullness of that into consideration. While it demonstrates regard for her father, it also demonstrates that her father didn’t train her up to be a wife; that he encouraged independence and ultimately rebellion. Be wary!

Searching out a woman for Daddy’s Girl qualities is much easier than finding out her IQ, or her time orientation (if such a thing be real), or her theology, or any of that other stuff. In the end, these qualities are beside the point; nor do they address women’s imaginations and frailties. Every day smart, forward-thinking women with in-depth theologies decide they are too good to listen to their husbands. A future-time oriented wife who doesn’t put her husband first is a woman who won’t get on the stick when her husband needs present-time faithfulness. And when a woman decides to leave her husband with half his paycheck: She is thinking longterm.

Also: Be doubly wary of the father who married another man’s divorcee. If he is not repentant of that, he will shelter and foment a daugther’s rebellion.

[1] Email was sent to me on 3/9.

The Future is Now

I’m short on the time required for a thoughtful post, so a glimpse-ful one will have to suffice.

Drudge Report links to a Washington CBS article and video about a mother physically separating her son from rioters in Baltimore, and beating him. Here are some quick quotes from the article.

One Baltimore mother was caught on video dragging out her son who was taking part in the Baltimore riots.

The unnamed mother was shown on television smacking her son — who was dressed all in black — for taking part in the riots against police and businesses Monday afternoon and dragging him away.

[…]

Baltimore Mayor Stephanie Rawlings-Blake was asked why she waited hours to ask the governor to declare a state of emergency, while the governor himself hinted she should have come to him earlier.

[…]

U.S. Attorney General Loretta Lynch, in her first day on the job, said she would send Justice Department officials to the city in coming days.

[…]

Maj. Gen. Linda Singh, adjutant general of the Maryland National Guard, said up to 5,000 troops would be available for Baltimore’s streets.

[…]

I think the question has been answered.

What? Sorry; yes, I quite understand. The question was: Can we promote enough women to leadership roles so that fathers become superfluous, or so that women can finally wield the requisite power to bring order our “free” society? And the answer was: No.

Some additional thoughts.

Baltimore mayor Stephanie Rawlings-Blake initially presumed that the right response was to ignore the children running wild. Now she’s put them on a time-out curfew.

I described the mother as beating her son; which is true. Please note that I don’t have a problem with parents beating children who riot. In contrast: The media and civil authorities would be outraged if there were video of the young man’s father whooping his son’s ass up and down the street; punching him in the face, jerking him around by the hoodie, and pushing him back home. I imagine that cops would take time out fighting for their lives to arrest such a father.

Future Time Orientated or Daddy’s Girl?

The marriage/divorce stats show a (morally) positive correlation between a woman’s achievement of a bachelor’s degree, and a continuance of marriage. Because of this, the idea has been put forward that this correlation centers on a (supposed) “future-time orientation”; i.e. the ability to delay gratification. Do we know how soon after graduation the women (who do not divorce) marry? I’m wondering how future oriented they are. Isn’t is possible that the ones who follow this pattern have made a decision to marry as soon as social pressures allow?

It seems to me that a college degree is the feminist merit badge among them all. It certainly is the prevailing notion for modernists, generally. Isn’t there the possibility that the women who are the most maritally stable are those women who both submit to the narrative of their leaders and media, and who also are really focused on (that is: strongly desire) marriage so to love a man? Is it possible that, given another set of priorities–or even just the removal of the bachelors degree notion–that those same women might do just as well marrying younger than 22 simply because that’s the demographic that wants to be married, and is also willing to listen to their authorities; that they wanted to marry earlier, and they only put it off as long as they needed to be respectful members of society as they were instructed?[1]

Maybe it doesn’t have to do so much with future time orientation as it does their respect for authority. Maybe daddy’s girls are a good thing, but not all daddies have the proper priorities. Of course, I don’t mean to say that all girls love and respect their fathers (or even that among those, they always do), but today we are talking about those girls that do.

EDIT: Let me ask it a different way: If there is a correlation between Daddy’s Girls and the continuance of marriage, and if there is a correlation between future-time orientation (impulse control, responsibility, etc.) and the continuance of marriage; then is it more likely that love for dad would arise from FTO, or is it more likely that FTO arises from love for dad?

[1] Not to say that such women do not also have desire to better themselves, or not to say that they aren’t also tempted to pride.

Three Peaces of Command

Yesterday I wrote:

[B]ecause I was too chickenshit to appear sexist or hypocritical about work,–I had been passively hoping that she would pick “stay home, cook, and clean”, and therefore angry that–in the absence (and complete abdication) of my direction–she had chosen neither and both…just as I had demonstrated.

The question, then, is why was I chickenshit? What was it of which I was afraid? Well, one can chase that squirrel for a long time, but it always comes back to the fact that I chose to believe my modern instructors

  • parents
  • teachers
  • pastors
  • peers
  • TV shows
  • pop music
  • movies
  • newspapers
  • magazines
  • billboards

were right, and that the clear text of the Bible was wrong; that Paul and Peter’s instruction–and Mary and Sarah’s examples–were wrong. I believed that what God had called righteous, I should call foolish. Even though the anger and confusion–within me!–witnessed that I was convicted this crap ain’t right, I still felt like I had to make up my own mind about it. Even though I wanted to have a wife follow me I still didn’t want to lead her and instruct her. Rather, I thought it better to let her wander after me[1] because… because why?

Because I got a paycheck? Because I’m smarter?  Because I was taller? Those things are fleeting, like beauty, and so even if they are momentary gifts from God, it is foolish to make them requisites for headship. The need for a husband’s headship will very often outlast these conditions.

That truth of the withering nature of material worthiness hounded me in my heart. I knew I could not keep it up forever, but my hope was in human frailty and inertia; that if I was just patient then she would realize what sweet and worthy guy I was.

At the same time I knew that wasn’t true because the longer we were together, the more we fought. If a wife’s drive-by spats are fitness tests of me, they should have subsided upon proof of fitness because I gave better than I got. They didn’t. They just got more frequent, pettier is scope, and grander is exercise. Bitterness crept into everything. No peace. Because I hated what God had to say–and because I did not speak out against hate –there was no peace in my house. No peace with my wife. No peace within me.

Really, I have those three peaces listed backwards. The argument that I described yesterday (“What do you want me to do?”) took place after I had moved back in from a nine month separation. My agreement to reconcile was based on several demands I made of her: You will always do this; you will never do this; etc. They were very specific to my main frustrations. But before I even made those demands, I had already decided the most important thing that I would ever do for my marriage.

I confessed, angrily, to God that I did not like His way; hat I had not tried it because it seemed crude to me; that I had tried to do my own thing that looked like His way, but which was more sensible for our progressed times and people. Now, no matter what, I would try His way, and by this I would prove whether He was right, or whether He was wrong. Either I would live or die and my marriage would survive or not, but I would do so by His Word, and everyone would know. If I had not made that decision, I would not have had the answer to my wife’s question of what I wanted from her.

At the point of the question I walked away and went to smoke a cigarette. There I reflected on what I had said to God I would do. I went back into the bedroom and said, “I want you to clean, and cook, and take care of my children and my house like a wife is supposed to.” To which she spat, “Great.” and we continued our fight…but this time I did so with peace; with the knowledge that I could not lose because it’s not Cane Caldo’s word or headship at stake.

Ten plus years of poor leadership, bad habits, and entrenched rebellion is not undone in one fight, but from there things got better. For one, our fights had a real basis of disagreement instead of just festering feelings and bitterness. I felt free to say to her, “Didn’t I tell you to do this? Why isn’t it done?” And she could be mad at me all she wants, but the truth is that I don’t ask her to do insane things, and the reason she doesn’t want to do them is because she’s got an ugly, rebellious spirit, and that she’d better check herself because the Lord loves a quiet, respectful spirit.

She could have left, but she didn’t. She still gets mad at me, but she does what I say. She quit her job (against her wishes). We homeschool now; which was my idea, not hers. The house is clean(er) now, but I am satisfied that she does her best. I put the kibosh on a lot of volunteer activities that she claimed to enjoy, but actually drained her energy and spirits. The further I went along with this idea of being a husband according to God’s Word, the more I realized I wasn’t doing, and started trying to implement. And the more I implemented, the more I realized that my wife hadn’t really been disciplined about anything. She had no idea what it was like to live under real expectations; not the pain of failure, and not the joy of success.

Wash, wash, wash…

[1] Who could only be described charitably as misguided. It is more honest to say that I was deliberately going the wrong way.