The Church in Ephesus: Marriage as Combat

Author’s Note: I owe a great deal to Dalrock, and his commenters. Particularly noteworthy are GKChesterton and Desiderius. No doubt several others made many of the same points, but I did not connect with them. Of course there are many who argued against. I thank them too.

The man who now calls himself Elihu (h/t: Ulysses) thinks has had had an awakening, and issued a warning:

So heads up quiet, obedient, chinless Churchian men: The pick-up artists have caught the scent of your relatively unsullied women, and we are coming for them. Whether our conversions are genuine or not is irrelevant to you. Your faux-Christian weekly social club is soon to be beset by an influx of thirty-something Lotharios. Learn Game and deprogram yourself from the Cultural Marxism that you picked up from your pastor as much as any Gender Studies professor or episode of Glee, because you’ll eventually go toe to toe* for the souls of your women, against those of us who have.

If I am very generous, I can see this as how Elihu might speak to the Church in Thyatira. Probably too generous: Elihu was a righteous man who took God’s position; not the position of Job’s enemy. I address the Church in Ephesus–the enemies of the sons of the earth mother, the sons of the huntresslike this:

10 Finally, be strong in the Lord and in the strength of his might11 Put on the whole armor of God, that you may be able to stand against the schemes of the devil12 For we do not wrestle against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the cosmic powers over this present darkness, against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly places.13 Therefore take up the whole armor of God, that you may be able to withstand in the evil day, and having done all, to stand firm. 14 Stand therefore, having fastened on the belt of truth, and having put on the breastplate of righteousness15 and, as shoes for your feet, having put on the readiness given by the gospel of peace16 In all circumstances take up the shield of faith, with which you can extinguish all the flaming darts of the evil one17 and take the helmet of salvation, and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God18 praying at all times in the Spirit, with all prayer and supplication. To that end keep alert with all perseverance, making supplication for all the saints19 and also for me, that words may be given to me in opening my mouth boldly to proclaim the mystery of the gospel20 for which I am an ambassador in chains, that I may declare it boldly, as I ought to speak.

Notice that the Christian man must take up the shield of faith himself–not irrational confidence–to extinguish the enemy’s favored weapon of flaming darts (arrows, and javelins). He must pick up the sword of the Spirit–which is not Game–but the Word of God, to combat evil. For every suggestion the Player asserts, there is a superior choice in scripture.

There is a discipline that puts the sword in its rightful place, central to the life of the martial man, and that way is called chivalry.

I can hear you already (as I have foolishly said myself, to my shame): “Chivalry is failed!” To abscond with a Chesterton quote:

Chivalry has not been tried and found wanting; it has been found difficult and not tried.

It’s not that chivalry was not manly enough; but that the weight of its manliness was greater than men are inclined to wield. Indeed, chivalry’s weight is godliness.

This, then, is the beginning of a new era for me, if not others. I mean to lay out as much of the map as I can see, in this space, about what a new form of chivalry will look like. During this time, I’ll cover pragmatic topics such as behavior and dress; to abstract topics like the nature of authority, and Nicolaism. There will be a good deal more on Ephesus, Artemis, reproof of the Church, and calling men to recapture her.

I am aware there are much smarter men writing on these things; probably in what is called the Orthosphere. Maybe they are a better fit for you. I can’t say because I don’t read them. My attempts left me…bemused. I am earnest, but a novice.

In the meantime, this is an analogy of what Chivalry looks like when confronted with the problem of caring for women, children, and the old; in a world threatened by the kith and kin of Artemis.

* This is not a change. From stem-to-stern, Game is a martial discord meant to defeat other men, to gain their women. Christianity calls for marital discipline.

Advertisements

41 thoughts on “The Church in Ephesus: Marriage as Combat

  1. “This, then, is the beginning of a new era for me, if not others. I mean to lay out as much of the map as I can see, in this space, about what a new form of chivalry will look like. During this time, I’ll cover pragmatic topics such as behavior and dress; to abstract topics like the nature of authority, and Nicolaism. There will be a good deal more on Ephesus, Artemis, reproof of the Church, and calling men to recapture her.”

    Considering that you said you will do this in the beginning, we’re still waiting for you to contribute something of positive value, rather than just trying to negate what has already been said.

  2. Who is this “we”? No one is banging down the door, here. On every side, my posts–when they are addressed at all–are sniped at. The notable exception being the post I wrote about feral women smacking men with their nudity. Only when I commiserate, are the fellowships expressed positively. If I were writing to please readers, I’d write about the usefulness of Game. And what is there to commiserate? Only troubles that I’ve caused. Such pity parties are pathetic, and pathological.

    What you don’t see is that I have started and deleted multiple posts with more salacious details on how I experienced Game, and women. My pride directs me to write them to validate myself to the world. What’s more: it would drive many more hits and comments. This is because I’m sinful.

    My nature doesn’t want to return to chivalry. I’m not very good at it. This is also because I’m sinful.

    Regardless, I’ve been blogging for less than a month. Things that I did not–could not–intend to mesh, have. I am more than content.

  3. I’m tempted to dismiss Elihu, but given my history, I won’t. I speak from experience here when I say that Christian men need to stop listening to the pedestalizers and grow a pair. Most women will choose the new, unproven convert with some frame over the supplicating lifelong church member. Every time.

  4. Okay, I’ve been thinking about this a lot. I think you’d do well to get the men of God in the churches to prepare for war, as you said on Dalrock’s thread. I wondered if I read to much into my own marriage and the way it came to be.

    I don’t think my husband deliberately set out to find a girl steeped in church culture and relatively unscathed by the hook-up culture that was emerging when we came of age. I think he came to a point in his life where he was conflicted about life in general and recognized that the kind of women he was used to dealing with weren’t the kind of women he wanted to to deal with anymore. He was 20, so I hardly think it was calculated.

    However, as I thought about it some more I considered another man in my family, also unsaved but confident and handsome with something of a past, who married a church girl. Wifey turned out to be an adulteress and he has since taken up with a woman who wears her lack of religion on her sleeve. But when he considered marriage, he went for what he thought was the safer choice. I’ve seen it more than a few times, and from women far more devout than me.

    Now you could argue that I (along with these other women) was just a hypergamous slut who followed my tingles to relationship with an alpha over adherence to my faith, and you’d probably be right. But I can think of 5 more off the top of my head who made the same choice and all but the adulteress I mentioned seem extremely happy in their marriages. Most of the men converted or deepened in faith, and the 2 who haven’t appreciate what Christianity adds to their families and don’t do anything to undermine it’s role in their family life.

    My point? There has to be a concerted effort to teach young men the truth of Biblical manhood. Otherwise, the prospect of men “converting” when ready to find a wife after a life playing the field sounds quite plausible.

    I don’t want it to be that way, especially for my own daughters because it took some growing for my husband and I to have the marriage we have now after being unequally yoked. Still, I don’t know that any women, even Christian ones, have ever been drawn to men that don’t exhibit strength and confidence. We’re wired to want someone we feel sure can take care of us, and not just materially.

  5. “Most women will choose the new, unproven convert with some frame over the supplicating lifelong church member. Every time.”
    I can concur with this since nearly all of the girls I grew up with in church married former cads.
    It really makes me think that becoming one of them is the only way out.

  6. You don’t have to do that, AR. Like I said, I’ve been thinking about this, LOL. I’ve been asking my husband about it.

    It really comes down to something pretty simple: Don’t be a pushover. No matter how many sermons you hear saying that loving your wife means seeing to it that she feels loved, ignore that. It’s a bastardization of Ephesians 5 that is not based on truth.

    We are drawn to men we feel can not only provide, but protect. In a world where women can provide for themselves, the protection factor looms larger than ever. If my husband couldn’t even stand up to me, how do I know he is going to be able to stand up to someone far more threatening if the need arises.

    Former cads as you call them give off a vibe that says I’m not a wuss. It’s not their sinful life experience that causes them to appear that way. It’s just that they haven’t spent their whole lives been spoon fed a steady diet of ‘God says you have to make your woman feel loved or you’re a bad man.”

    Stop thinking it’s the sin that’s the draw. It’s not. It’s the masculinity.

  7. Their masculinity is based on experience. You only get experience one way.

    You have zero evidence to suggest otherwise. All you and Cane have been doing is telling. You haven’t shown a single thing.

  8. You think you need to sleep around in order to not be a pushover? I don’t follow that logic.

    How is Cane supposed to show you how to be strong and confident? I shared before what my husband said is the biggest mental shift you have to make and you ignored it. I’ll try again: “Don’t so anything that you don’t want to do based solely on the strength of someone else’s feelings about it. This includes your woman.”

    In our marriage it plays out like this: I express something I think SAM needs to do differently. He listens. He decides there is no reason why he needs to do that. It’s not a sin, it isn’t hurting anyone, it isn’t interfering with anything needs to do, it isn’t a problem for anyone but me and it isn’t hurting me. It’s just how I feel. So he says “No. You don’t decide for me what I can or cannot do.”

    What is cad-like or sinful about that? Why do you need to engage in sin to be able to do that? I’m not following.

    Cane, where ARE you? This is your blog, not mine.

  9. I think you massively underestimate how difficult it is to break free from the controls that have been established.
    In fact, I think the very fact that the cads demonstrated that they had no controls is the very thing that makes them so attractive.

    The lack of controls they demonstrated by their caddishness is EXACTLY what attracts these women as a sign that they will not be controlled easily. It shows that they defied nearly every force of behavior control that can possibly established in their realm. It shows individual mastery.

  10. Wish Cane’d open commenting to those who dislike ‘social media’. I signed up for wordpress just for this. ‘unger’ was taken, so I’ll settle for the sword of someone most famous for saying ‘see? I told you so!’ to an alpha male par excellence whose irrational self-confidence got himself and a lot of other men killed for nothing.

    Elspeth, I’ve been itching to ask you something for a while now, since you’ve made similar remarks several times before. Just what kind of threat has you so worried? I can’t think of a single possibility for which a man’s ability to neutralize it would correlate with his penchant for ignoring a woman’s opinions. Bugs? Ill-tempered animals? Thugs? Infantry? Armor? Air? Space aliens? What are we talking about here, because none of the usual sorts of ‘someone far more threatening’ appear to qualify.

    I also just …don’t get why agreeableness is a turn-off. If something needs doing, and someone I don’t dislike would like it done some particular way, and it costs me nothing to do it so, why should it be a bad thing to have a care for others? And why should doing so be thought incongruous with having, say, the ability to fill a threat – a real one – with lead?

  11. Agreeableness is not a turn-off. Risk-aversion is a turn-off.

    This is going to reveal more about myself that I generally care to but I think it is relevant here.

    About 2 months ago my sister lost her husband in a car accident. He was in his mid 20’s. I know we have a tendency to canonize the dead and I am going to make every intention not to do that but this man was truly an amazing man, and the best match for my sister any of her family could hope for. My sister has an “alpha” personality. She made more money than him. She made most the day-to-day decisions. He did not shy away from housework and saw no problem with being a SAHD one day. He was very agreeable. He had only a few strong opinions and everything else he was just “why not?”.

    But he wasn’t a chump. He had principles and when he needed to say no he stuck by that “no” with every ounce of his being. He could not be bullied or manipulated. His easy going nature was not weakness. He was just easy-going..but when you needed him he was there. And when my sister needed someone to stand up for her (and it did happen, a few times through no fault of her own) he stood up for her..he was willing to take a punch (or worst) for his beloved bride.

    I actually had this conversation with my sister very bluntly before she married. I said “do you think you can walk all over him because you seem to have the stronger personality”. She said that under no uncertain terms can she make him do a damn thing he doesn’t want to do. Most of the time he is mild, but when he isn’t she knows he will stand his ground no matter what. She said despite the fact that by all appearances she “wore the pants” she thought of him as a protector and provider.

    You can be agreeable and an alpha. You just cannot be a wimp and an alpha. Be agreeable, but be agreeable because you really honestly don’t give a damn about 90% of everything. Don’t be agreeable out of cowardice.

    I told myself I wasn’t going to cry but talking about my dear brother-in-law has me weeping all over my laptop. Remembering him forces me to remember how fleeting life is. Everybody loved my BIL. His funeral was so packed that people had to stand outside and listen to the speakers. I can’t think of a person alive who didn’t both like AND respect him. He was a man’s man, an amazing husband, and a truly good person.

  12. How often is agreeableness used as a proxy for ‘risk-aversion’?

    I’m also struggling to see how anyone could look at the American economy without immediately asking why risk-aversion is such a bad thing, and without immediately noticing that a great many of the apparent successes of the risk-tolerant are not talent, but luck, and thus, increasingly, case studies in mean reversion. Why the admiration for people who waste courage? Is there the slightest evidence that those who do also tend towards courage when courage matters? Or, how many people ever become popular by demonstrating their willingness to be unpopular on matters of principle?

    My favorite scene in all of literature is in The Song of Roland, when, in the middle of losing a battle, Oliver stops and tells Roland that if by some miracle they make it out alive, Roland had better stay away from his hot sister. Roland, in grand alpha-dunce style, says ‘y u mad bro?’, and Oliver explains, in painful detail, the difference between courage and peacocking idiocy, and how they and about twenty thousand other knights are going to be hacked to pieces by Muslims, all because Roland had to be a meathead show-off. And Oliver’s really fired up when he says all this, since earlier, when he warned Roland about the danger, he got called a pansy for his trouble: the ‘I told you so!’ is so epic that an archbishop has to tell him to pipe down. Oliver, of course, he has the good grace to do so: even though he’s justifiedly furious, he knows it isn’t worth fighting over, and goes off to die in a fight worth fighting.

    Naturally, just as Oliver predicted, everyone dies, and Roland gets a hero’s send-off and a chanson de geste named after him, while Oliver’s chopped liver. But for a few lines, you see the beta as he really is, not as the ladies, and even his studly friend, like to think he is.

    Are people in general good judges of character? A fortiori, are women? Or do their criteria turn out, on further dissection, to be more rationalization than reason?

  13. There are plenty of times a person would avoid risk on principle. Such as the principle of just war.

    The only thing we should fear is God. The Bible even says that. For what it is worth- I hold men to no greater standard than I hold myself. I believe I ought to be willing to die for principle.

    You might decide not to play the lottery because you believe throwing your money away is stupid.

    I don’t understand what is so confusing about this. A man should be wise, and principled, and courageous when necessary.

    Nobody said we were perfect judges but you have to discern somehow…however imperfectly.

  14. @Elspeth
    I stepped away for awhile to refocus on what it is I am supposed to say. The argument at Dalrock’s was sidetracking me into defending what I believed based on my own experience. There’s a problem with that: truth isn’t relative.

    @hauteclere/unger
    I didn’t know I could open up the comments to non-Wordpress accounts. I’ve never even looked at it.

    On risk-aversion: Either you’ve misdiagnosed the problem, or I’ve misunderstood you. Risk-aversion has largely caused our problems. Do we agree or disagree?

    @Gabby
    This life is fleeting. The next will be enduring.

    @ar10308

    Their masculinity is based on experience. You only get experience one way.

    You have zero evidence to suggest otherwise. All you and Cane have been doing is telling. You haven’t shown a single thing.

    Late last night, as a warning to you, I typed up a massive response listing some of the biggest consequences I’ve suffered for my actions. When I was done, I hesitated to post it; asking myself: Was I boasting? Looking for sympathy? Could I be identified by this? Is it superflous? I copied the text into a document, and decided to sleep on it first. After dreaming all night about a very strange conflation of fishing and psychologizing attraction and scripture (Very strange dreams. I did not sleep well.), this morning I woke up with the answer:

    Luke 11:29 29 When the crowds were increasing, he began to say, “This generation is an evil generation. It seeks for a sign, but no sign will be given to it except the sign of Jonah. 30 For as Jonah became a sign to the people of Nineveh, so will the Son of Man be to this generation. 31 The queen of the South will rise up at the judgment with the men of this generation and condemn them, for she came from the ends of the earth to hear the wisdom of Solomon, and behold, something greater than Solomon is here. 32 The men of Nineveh will rise up at the judgment with this generation and condemn it, for they repented at the preaching of Jonah, and behold, something greater than Jonah is here.

    You’re asking the wrong people, because you know what the Right Person says: Flee sexual immorality. You’re treading very close (as we all do, at times) to rejecting the Holy Spirit. We must trust God to be laying out the path that is best for us, even when it is painful.

    Do not psychologize scripture, or seek to find its worth in the lives of others. It is the Word of God. It is Jesus, the Logos, written down for our education; but the learning comes with the practice. The paradox is that orthopraxy proves the goodness of orthodoxy. In other words: We must live by, and are justified by, faith. He’s not just the Reason for the season of Christmas, but the Reason that causes all seasons, (even seasons of shadow), forever.

  15. @hauteclere:

    Agreeableness is fine in its place. However, I was not built to be able to feel attraction to a man I can lead around on the strength of my whims and emotions. My husband is not a tyrant. I have freedom of conscience and speech and believe it or not, I even make decisions.

    Still, I can admit that I need to be lead, and with resolute strength. Maybe some women don’t need that. I believe most women do, which is why there is such a lament in these parts about women rejecting nice guys.

  16. Oh, and one more thing. I am not worried about any particular threat. I live in the middle class burbs, LOL.

    My point is that women are instinctively drawn to men they believe can protect them. We’re wired that way.

  17. @gabriella: I’m confused for two reasons, about two classes of things women say they select for. The first class of things, I can’t fathom why a sane person would select for them. The second class of things, I can’t fathom how the means women use to select for them are the means sane people would use.

    @Cane: settings -> discussion -> check ‘comment author must fill out name and email’, uncheck ‘users must be registered and logged in to comment’, and WP will track semi-anon commenters by their emails.

    (CC: Done.)

    Otherwise: risk-aversion, or cowardice?

    (CC: I understand now. Got it.)

  18. Last comment Cane on this thread I promise. Deti said this on another blog and I thought it the perfect answer to hauteclere:

    When the SHTF for real, the safest place for any woman is behind a man willing [and able] to protect her. Many women will unfortunately find themselves with no man willing or able to protect them.

    So I’m not the only one who feels this way

  19. @Elspeth

    The female desire for protection is one level too shallow. They want protection from ultimate responsibility. It’s not that they’re wired to want protection, it’s that they’re not wired for responsibility. Now: that doesn’t mean they aren’t or can’t be responsible, but that they ultimately want DO NOT WANT the reins.

    The bad boy presents a perverse incentive because she can blame it on him for being bad, and she just couldn’t control her attraction. Later in life, the pushover husband presents a perverse incentive because she can tell herself it’s not her fault he’s such a wimp: she married him, after all. What more does she have to do to encourage him to be the best man ever–as she feels she deserves. She decides he needs to man-up. If he can’t do that by satisfying her every passing desire, then she’ll have the courts wrangle his responsible portion of funding her life, and she can still have her freedom without having to suffer his presence.

  20. @gabriella: I’m confused for two reasons, about two classes of things women say they select for. The first class of things, I can’t fathom why a sane person would select for them. The second class of things, I can’t fathom how the means women use to select for them are the means sane people would use.

    You have to be more specific.

    I selected for 1. courage, 2. strong desire for me aka oneitis 3. compatibility (his flaws were none of my deal-breakers) 4. an appearance I found attractive 5. mannerisms I found attractive 6. a willingness to raise kids in the RCC.

  21. @Elspeth

    On the SHTF scenario: That is a half-truth meant to disguise the truth about who we Christians are really supposed to protect. The women who will find themselves without a man are the ones who are old, and ugly, and with kids. The young and bed-able will prosper; slut or not.

  22. Okay, I’m back. LOL.

    The problem with your comment Cane is that my husband wasn’t a bad boy. Yes, he had experience and no, he wasn’t a saint. But he wasn’t bad boy. Not a player. Not a criminal. Simply strong, confident, and unapologetically masculine. He wasn’t overly concerned with being nice.

    I’m not and never have been looking to absolved of responsibility. I just never wanted to have to pretend to be a man. I like being a woman and all that comes with it, including the leadership and protection of a man.

    That’s not looking for a scapegoat. I’ll have no proxy to stand in for me on judgement day.

  23. “The women who will find themselves without a man are the ones who are old, and ugly, and with kids. The young and bed-able will prosper; slut or not.”

    I agree. And the women who are rejected by men will ban together for protection and provision. They will form their own mini matriarchies.

  24. @Elspeth

    I’m not and never have been looking to absolved of responsibility. I just never wanted to have to pretend to be a man. I like being a woman and all that comes with it, including the leadership and protection of a man.

    Are you repeating what I said, or is the case that what I said, you are now repeating?

    I’m not sure you understand the nature of authority and responsibility. I have a post brewing on this; how men and women see these differently because of their roles.

    For example: When men go into the military, they assume the responsibility to meet the requirements, and to be expelled as a failure if they don’t meet them. Conversely, women are constantly pushing for exemptions and privileges. They say, “Hey, I signed up to be a soldier, too. Who are you to say I’m not responsible because I want to breastfeed my baby at my leisure?”

    It’s such a staggering display of disregard for responsibility and authority because women have a very hard time understanding the nature of it. It’s primal; in a law written on our hearts kind of way. I don’t think men and women have the same laws written there; though those laws are never conflicting.

  25. That passage from Luke reminds me of this bit from the graphic novel/movie The Watchmen.

    Rorschach’s Journal. October 12th, 1985: Dog carcass in alley this morning, tire tread on burst stomach. This city is afraid of me. I have seen its true face. The streets are extended gutters and the gutters are full of blood and when the drains finally scab over, all the vermin will drown. The accumulated filth of all their sex and murder will foam up about their waists and all the whores and politicians will look up and shout “Save us!”… and I’ll whisper “no.”

    I guess I’ll just keep building guns.

  26. “I agree. And the women who are rejected by men will ban together for protection and provision. They will form their own mini matriarchies.”

    These will be called “Brothels”. And they will be overrun by a complete asshole of a man.

    Women are incapable of protecting themselves against men willing to violently subjegate them. I can count on one hand the number of women I know who are armed in any way to defend themselves against that. However, they have plenty of purses and shoes that cost as much as a new Glock when they bought them, however a Glock retains its resale value. The same cannot be said for a purse or pair of heels.

  27. Yes, I’ve got a really hard time believing women shit-test because they’re all secretly preppers, and have a rationally defensible belief that men who don’t see the point in fighting them over most of their goofy-but-not-harmful requests are men who will let them starve or fall prey to cannibalistic mutant raiders (or whatever) when the world goes Fallout 3.

  28. @Elspeth

    Forgot to address this earlier:

    The problem with your comment Cane is that my husband wasn’t a bad boy. Yes, he had experience and no, he wasn’t a saint. But he wasn’t bad boy. Not a player. Not a criminal. Simply strong, confident, and unapologetically masculine. He wasn’t overly concerned with being nice.

    I wasn’t saying that all men who get a woman present a perverse incentive. Your husband probably presented a legitimate incentive, and you recognized it. The comment was directed at what induces some women to make bad choices. It was not meant to be all-encompassing.

    @unger and ar10308

    Yes. The evo-psych explanations are truly stupid. It seemed we were so close to being rid of Freud.

    I’ve often wondered how much overlap there is between preppers and the Manosphere.

  29. I’m not into biological determinism for the record. It’s one of the things I like least about the manosphere: the heavy reliance on evo-psych. It seeks to override Christian Truth and take away a woman’s moral agency at the same time as seeking to hold women responsible for their lack or morality.

    BUT…neither do I pretend that we don’t choose mates with certain gender specific biological imperatives.

    Your husband probably presented a legitimate incentive, and you recognized it.

    I concede this. It is possible that because I truly know what it is to be prey, I subconsciously chose a man who I knew was strong enough and felt passionately enough about me to try to ensure that I was never preyed upon again.

    Nevertheless, it’s not as if we don’t have thousands of years of history to support the notion that in times of unrest, upheaval, and war that women, who are already vulnerable, become even more so.

  30. On Shit-tests:

    In my experience shit-tests are really just methods of getting attention when feeling ignored and has very little to do with a “right” or “wrong” answer. The only wrong answer is to escalate it.

    Women like attention the way men like sex. To deprive them of it tends to make them go a little looney.

    Just yesterday my husband was obsessing over something for 3 days, hardly noticing my existence. I got tired of the well-behaved-invisible-wife thing so I started poking at him. He knew what I was doing and instead of escalating to a fight we took the problem to the bedroom and all was resolved.

    If we had just ended up fighting I probably would have apologized half-way through and admitted to just attention seeking. I’m human and sometimes I act in less mature ways to get needs met. My husband does it too though when he is feeling neglected so I never considered it a particularly feminine ailment. Only his shit-tests are usually saying something he knows I disagree with (Recently: We all know Aliens built the pyramids) and then waiting to see me rant at him. Which I usually do. And then he laughs “Got you again”. And then I respond “You’re welcome for the attention, now can I please go back to reading this blog and calmly explaining to these people why and how they are wrong?”
    lol

    As an aside- I was once in the military and I would not have dreamed of asking to breastfeed. I considered it my obligation to make my femaleness as little of a nuisance as possible.

  31. @gabriella:…and shit-tests for the devoted? (Which was the context in Susan Walsh’s now-infamous essay on them…)

    @Cane: CSL wrote something that speaks to Elihu’s remark:

    Now what you want to get clear is that Pride is essentially competitive – is competitive by its very nature – while the other vices are competitive only, so to speak, by accident. Pride gets no pleasure out of having something, only out of having more of it than the next man. We say that people are proud of being rich, or clever, or good-looking, but they are not. They are proud of being richer, or cleverer, or better-looking than others. If everyone else became equally rich, or clever, or good-looking there would be nothing to be proud about. It is the comparison that makes you proud: the pleasure of being above the rest. Once the element of competition has gone, pride has gone. That is why I say that Pride is essentially competitive in a way the other vices are not. The sexual impulse may drive two men into competition if they both want the same girl. But that is only by accident; they might just as likely have wanted two different girls. But a proud man will take your girl from you, not because he wants her, but just to prove to himself that he is a better man than you. Greed may drive men into competition if there is not enough to go around; but the proud man, even when he has got more than he can possibly want, will try to get still more just to assert his power. Nearly all those evils in the world which people put down to greed or selfishness are really far more the result of Pride.

  32. @Gabby

    As an aside- I was once in the military and I would not have dreamed of asking to breastfeed. I considered it my obligation to make my femaleness as little of a nuisance as possible.

    That dichotomy is precisely why I chose that example, though I don’t think I knew you were in the military.

    Women have real, legitimate, authority and responsibility. One of those is bearing and raising children; especially when they are babies. It’s not wrong that those women want to breastfeed. It’s very good!

    But it is wrong that they are not satisfied with such authority and responsibility as they have been given, and covet the authority given to men. Even when they get it, they can’t appreciate it because they don’t understand what they’ve been given until the two forms of responsibility conflict: breastfeeding and warfare. They recognize the internal responsibility to care for their children, but will not give up their desire to be manly. They can neither recognize nor reconcile that they cannot be both good mothers and good soldiers.

    It’s a spiritual form of lesbianism.

  33. I did shit-test a devoted man in my teens. I suspected he was a liar willing to say anything at all to get in my pants. So when he said “I’d do anything for you” I put him through the ringer to see if he meant “anything”.

    That is the problem with behavior that seems supplicating. It looks like a manipulation. Like a salesman who is just saying yes yes yes with no thought but selling the car. “Can I get this model in neon black with platinum plated rims and suede seats?” You ask. And he answers, “Yes, Yes, of Course You Can..just sign here”.

    However immature it is, there is almost a compulsion to find the limits of “ill do anything for you” because we all know its a lie…there is a limit. If you admit to the limit right away it is easier to respect you because you seem less manipulative. So say “I’d do anything for you, except perhaps murder my mother, shave my eyebrows, or sell my soul on ebay.” And then we think “Yay, a man with principles…”

  34. I can’t read the whole thread, but I think you are wise to try to re-articulate chivalry. The manosphere’s disdain for an ancient and male institution is bad. Very, very, very bad. I’d like to see the “White Knight” meme die a grisly and timely death. True White Knights don’t pedalistize. They defend the culture that they are born from.

  35. We need a new chivalry, though; as The Lone Ranger was a new kind of knight, and would have been nearly unrecognizable to Galahad.

    The culture that I sprang from is very dead.

    Have you seen 13th Warrior? No one commented on that. It’s a very chivalrous tale. Christian in the way Beowulf is.

  36. I’ve read the book I didn’t watch your clip. I have no idea how the two line up. I’ll also disagree that Galahad and the Lone Ranger wouldn’t know each other. Both were duty bound servants of the king/State. Both rescued the fair maiden when she needed it and scolded the ones who didn’t. The Dream of the West also hasn’t _quite_ kicked the bucket and I see some signs of hope, but I think there will be a bit of a time of troubles.

  37. I meant they wouldn’t recognize each other physically. (“Where is thy sword and armor?) Once they got past the language barrier, yes, they would have seen their common lineage. That’s what I was getting at.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s