What Are We Doing Here II: That Rock Has Moral Value

Leave it to Dalrock to ask the hard questions. I’ve twice deleted 1500-plus words on this subject because both drafts went in the wrong directions. I’ve chosen to just go the direct route; taking it for granted that everyone understands I’m arguing ideas, and that I have tremendous respect for Dalrock.

In the comments of my previous post Dalrock asks some questions that highlight a clear distinction between myself and most of the rest of the Manosphere, and the majority of the Western world. I had wrote:

Should we blame mental/spiritual sickness on intrinsic womanhood? No, but that’s what the idea of the Feminine Imperative does. It’s the equivalent of blaming war on manhood.

To which he replied:

I don’t think “blame” is an accurate word to describe Rollo’s view. This is actually an area where I disagree with him. Rollo is very careful to avoid value judgments, especially when he is describing the actions of women. Beyond this, your argument resembles the feminist denial of nature in the nature vs nurture debate. Are you arguing that there is nothing intrinsic to womanhood (in general). Or are you arguing that there is nothing intrinsic to womanhood which when unchecked can produce bad (or even catastrophic) results?

As the paragraph goes on, Dalrock does the same thing I do: He digs through my statements to unearth the principle lying below; the frame of the argument. Another way to say that is he is discerning the nature of my argument.

1) Blame is the right word. It’s called the “Feminine Imperative”. The title (to which I obviously disagree, but I’m trying to not lose anybody in the argument) lays the blame directly at the feet of women, womanly behavior, and those who work with with. Rollo may claim that this is not blame, but it can be no other way. At best, it’s confused to call something “feminine” and not “blame” it on women.

In that same vein: We should be judging and assessing value. Aside from the (hopefully) common sense perspective that good is better than bad, and that profitable is better than unprofitable–we are Christians. We are followers of the son of the One True God, Creator of all, and we are made in His image. What does He do? He makes things, and then He judges them. “This is good”. “Depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness.” Lawlessness…lacking judgment…lacking value assessment.

Christ goes further in the Sermon on the Mount. He says:

16 “And when you fast, do not look gloomy like the hypocrites, for they disfigure their faces that their fasting may be seen by others. Truly, I say to you, they have received their reward. 17 But when you fast, anoint your head and wash your face, 18 that your fasting may not be seen by others but by your Father who is in secret. And your Father who sees in secret will reward you.

19 “Do not lay up for yourselves treasures on earth, where moth and rust destroy and where thieves break in and steal, 20 but lay up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where neither moth nor rust destroys and where thieves do not break in and steal. 21 For where your treasure is, there your heart will be also.

22 “The eye is the lamp of the body. So, if your eye is healthy, your whole body will be full of light, 23 but if your eye is bad, your whole body will be full of darkness. If then the light in you is darkness, how great is the darkness!

24 “No one can serve two masters, for either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve God and money.

In my thoughts, I keep coming back to this passage in my refutations of the desirableness of Game (as based on Dark Triad traits, or the 16 Commandments of Poon; both of which dovetail smoothly with the precepts of the Feminine Imperative as most specifically laid out.), but for right now I just want to look at the bolded part. Whatever we do not give value to is worthless. Whatever value we blind ourselves to–in a misguided attempt to be impartial or inclusive–is filling ourselves with emptiness…nothing…darkness–because the light is empty, valueless, and know-nothing. We should be extraordinarily careful in rendering judgment, but to refuse to value is as bad as valuing improperly, i.e., to choose evil over good. How we should value things could be another very long post, or it can be summed up as: value as God values, and not as the world does. No man can server two masters.

2) Nature-vs.-nurture debates are usually nothing of the sort. They’re almost always nature-vs.-nature arguments, with each side choosing to emphasize or detract from various natural components.

For example: Egalitarians almost always consider themselves nurture-over-nature; that the “environment” (peer-group, parents, education, etc.) around a person can override or overcome a person’s “natural” tendencies, strengths and weaknesses. First, humans are inherently social creatures. Environments are completely natural phenomenon, and part of the person’s make-up. It’s not extra-personal. Lots to be said here, but I’ll move on.

More importantly: Egalitarians are trying to bring cognizant and demonstrable equality to things that are nature-ally very similar already. Both men and women are human. They can mate. They have extraordinarily similar sets of organs, motivations, and environments. In turn, apes aren’t far off. In fact you have to drill down a few levels into the secular scientists’ animal kingdom before you hit truly different classes of creatures. What egalitarians say to themselves is “This woman-thing has a head and a brain and a heart just as man-things do. They can both learn and speak and read and do all the same sorts of things. There are really only minor natural differences. Therefore: we ought to see them as equals.” It’s not an argument based on nurturing at all!

The Judeo-Christian paradigm is very nurture-over-nature.

Train up a child in the way he should go;
even when he is old he will not depart from it.”

Now therefore fear the Lord and serve him in sincerity and in faithfulness. Put away the gods that your fathers served beyond the River and in Egypt, and serve the Lord.And if it is evil in your eyes to serve the Lord, choose this day whom you will serve, whether the gods your fathers served in the region beyond the River, or the gods of the Amorites in whose land you dwell. But as for me and my house, we will serve the Lord.”

And to Adam he said,

“Because you have listened to the voice of your wife
and have eaten of the tree
of which I commanded you,
‘You shall not eat of it,’
cursed is the ground because of you;
in pain you shall eat of it all the days of your life;”

There is therefore now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus.2 For the law of the Spirit of life has set you free in Christ Jesus from the law of sin and death. 3 For God has done what the law, weakened by the flesh, could not do. By sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and for sin, he condemned sin in the flesh, 4 in order that the righteous requirement of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not according to the flesh but according to the Spirit. 5 For those who live according to the flesh set their minds on the things of the flesh, but those who live according to the Spirit set their minds on the things of the Spirit. 6 For to set the mind on the flesh is death, but to set the mind on the Spirit is life and peace. 7 For the mind that is set on the flesh is hostile to God, for it does not submit to God’s law; indeed, it cannot. 8 Those who are in the flesh cannot please God.”

Nature is the flesh; which is death. Our way–Christ’s way–transcends death, and it does so by a nurturing process. In the beginning, the natural way was life in the Garden of Eden, but because we nurtured evil, that nurturing overcame the nature of life and wrought destruction on the whole planet.

See, when you’re talking about a nurturing thing that is not natural (else one cannot have a nurture-vs.-nature discussiono at all), what you’re really talking about is the spiritual-vs.-the natural, i.e, spirit-vs.-flesh. Egalitarians have NOTHING on Christianity when it comes to truly parsing out the powers of nature and the powers of the spirit.

“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.”

Paul is talking a nurtural war; not a natural one.

“Well, Cane, that’s not really what we mean when we say “nature” and “nurture”, and talk about their various influences.” I know. And I’m telling you that because of this you haven’t even really begun to consider the implications of nurturing and the spirit world because this whole way of thinking about nurture and nature without a spiritual context comes about because these things have been discussed for decades now without assigning value; without judgment…like secular scientists. The Christian ALWAYS has recourse to a definitive ruler on the value of things–all things–and it’s most readily available as scripture. If we’re not starting from the principle and presupposition that scripture is profoundly correct on the nature of man and his state, then we are living with darkened lamps. Everything is darkness to us. In such darkness, you might grope upon a trope like “Feminine Imperative”, and not have the light to see that an amoral genetic conspiracy theory is bunk. This becomes obvious once you realize that even the tree outside your window is NOT amoral, but has a moral value, and that value is probably good. It is intrinsically good–from the beginning it was good. We can know this because God said so. It’s in the Bible. Why we can trust the Bible is another post. For now, I’m assuming that if you can accept that a man who claimed to be the Son of God was raised from the dead and ascended into Heaven, then you can accept that God meant it when He invented trees and said “It is good.”

3) In this last bit, I’ll turn to the word intrinsic, and how I meant it. I mean “from the beginning”, or “by design”. The amoral view of the natural universe is inextricable from an amoral view of feminine nature, and vice versa: a moral assessment of the natural universe (And, again: “It is good.”) necessitates a moral assessment of the nature of women. Therefore, as a follower of Christ–Son of the Creator of the Universe–I must reject the amoral view of nature, and I must accept the goodness of the intrinsic (intended/designed) nature of women. By this light I can see clearly. And if, by this light, I see evil in women, then I must recognize that evil as something separate from their nature. It must be something that grows there, i.e., something nurtured by themselves or another, or both. Whether it is a psychiatric disease like narcissism, or “mundane” spiritual disease like lust, or something exotic like demonic possession–I can categorize them under the heading of “sinful nature”.

Don’t get me twisted: Females have a nature. Hypergamy is a real thing, and I wholly believe it’s scriptural. It’s also a decidedly good thing. Think about it: Her hypergamy drives her into your arms. She wants to “fight” with you, and she wants you to win. It’s a fixed fight! This sort of thing is illegal in real fights because the profits are simply too high! If you don’t like this, then the problem is you. Yes, things can go wrong and she can abuse it out of all proportion, but it is an intrinsically good thing.

This, finally, brings us back to the comments of Dalrock’s post that inspired my previous post, upon which Dalrock’s comment and this post grew. In an attempt to describe what a Masculine Imperative would looke like, commenter Bluedog wrote:

A human MI society would be a society where the MI has totally dominated over the FI, so again I’d look to lions as a template for this. You would expect to see high concentrations of women around highly dominant “alpha” males, and you would expect to see men “in between” prides – either because they haven’t established a pride yet or because they got kicked out of one.

The human nuance in this is that I think you would see both men who freely choose to not have prides, who “go their own way” as it were, as well as men who are between prides but wish strongly to have them. All in all, I would imagine this to be a fairly violent and dystopic society.

The assessments of most other commenters lined up with this greatly…which is hilarious because this is what the Feminine Imperative is purported to be! Especially the highlighted portion. That’s right: What we’re here complaining and trying to understand is as much about the society as men have ordered it as how women have…just not most men. Surely not you or I.

Which is what I’ve been saying all along. There is a conspiracy, but it’s not so much run by women as it is run by very rich and powerful (in a worldly sense) men, and perpetrated on average women (which is almost all of them) who don’t even rise to the level of co-conspirator. They’re simply not that smart, important , or powerful enough to be anything but CONSUMERS of the conspiracy. Actually elite women are some of the most hurt by this paradigm. Don’t believe me: Ask John Legend’s model fiance Chrissy Tiegen about Farrah Abraham. Her rage isn’t because somebody banged Farrah, but because all you have to do to make national news is get knocked up as a teen and then make a sextape. I’d never heard of Tiegen before this, but she’s apparently kind of a big deal–and here she is outshined by a common (6 looks; considering physique) whore at the whim of the owners of Viacom and Vivid–companies run by elite men. Warren Buffett is calling for more women in business? Why? Because he knows (whether he has the vocabulary or not) that hypergamy dictates that he’ll get his way and their money. He’s not about empowering women. He’s about enriching himself. To do this: he jumps to the middle of the herd bleating, “Bah-ah-ah! Women are great! Bah-ah-ah!”

Part of the Feminine Imperative stipulates that women gather around each other when enemies attack. Let’s be clear: Tiegen is in the majority in calling Abraham a whore. So trusting to the amoral knowledge of the FI we should expect that Chrissy Tiegen would support and herd-gather around Farrah Abraham. Society doesn’t approve of Abraham–so they’re not gathering around her either…until Tiegen tweets her as a whore in unison with society. Then all Twitter-Hell breaks loose. Why? The Feminine Imperative is at an amoral loss to explain it; unable to tell the sheep from the wolf, and so calling all both. But widespread narcissism–a fundamentally spiritual disorder of falsely assumed self-godhood–explains it. Tiegens critics: 1) assume she is talking to them. 2) assume she is talking about them 3) afraid that someone like Tiegen might reveal their inner-sextaping-teenmom tendencies. So they rage. Tiegen, too, is a narcissist–surprised to discover that her Twitter followers are real people and not just props–so she rages back at them. All the while, each sheep in this milieu (Tiegen, Abraham, and the Twitter followers are trying to jump closer and closer to the center of the herd; to sacrifice enough others to calm whatever and whoever the enemy is. They don’t really care because narcissists can’t be bothered to actually figure that out.

Ok, Cane. Why is this important? What does it matter whether we call this–whatever it is–the Feminine Imperative, or Sin Nature? One, because the truth is important. It just is. If you don’t believe that then stop reading this and everything else I ever have to say.

Two, because those elite men know what I’m talking about. We can’t even fight them for our kids if we don’t know what game they’re playing. This is spiritual warfare, and they know even if it’s too “religulous” for them to say. Maybe you think that too. You might think I’m talking about angels and demons and “invisible bogeymen”…and I am. I’m also talking about how one five year girl with 30 minutes and a bad attitude can transform a whole team of five year olds from content and happy to maladjusted assholes. That’s not the Feminine Imperative–that’s Sin Nature.

One day I’ll go back to posts under 2,000 words.

Advertisements

35 thoughts on “What Are We Doing Here II: That Rock Has Moral Value

  1. Interesting post.

    Hypergamy is a real thing, and I wholly believe it’s scriptural. It’s also a decidedly good thing.

    Hypergamy isn’t good. Assortive mating is.

    Hyper gamy (in the mental and spiritual realm) has some twisted resemble to the despicable mating between fallen angels and human women, which happened in Genesis 6:4, and created the Nephilim, whom (according to certain legends) feasted upon human flesh, in the form of infanticide (child sacrifice for false gods and idols) or abortion (pre-birth). They were cursed.

    Actually elite women are some of the most hurt by this paradigm.

    If Hypergamy was good and natural, then the high women wouldn’t be hurt by it. But they are. Average men lose out too and become invisible to average women. Ditto about low men and low women.

    High, rich, powerful men have great blame in this, but average women shouldn’t be excused. Both are perpetuating great sorrow for other entities around them.

  2. @Alcestis

    Hypergamy is what assorts the mating.

    I am a mythical Christian; not a legendary one. Scripture and history do not speak of cannibal nephlilim. It calls them “the men of old; the men of renown”. “Renown” generally has at least a slightly positive implication.

    If Hypergamy was good and natural, then the high women wouldn’t be hurt by it. But they are. Average men lose out too and become invisible to average women. Ditto about low men and low women.

    High, rich, powerful men have great blame in this, but average women shouldn’t be excused. Both are perpetuating great sorrow for other entities around them.

    My position is that you are conflating hypergamy with the affects of narcissism. A woman who is a 4 could be perfectly satisfied by a man who is a 4. After all: they’ll be similar except that the man will likely be taller, smarter, and more productive in gathering resources. Furthermore: If she nurtures her own feminine nature to be more feminine and encourages her mate to be more masculine, then they’ll both be pleased.

    I’m not excusing average women at all. Being a cultural consumer is a completely avoidable and totally ruinous path. This makes sense if we DO emphasize the importance of nurturing over the importance of the natural course of things. We were built by God to tend gardens, and create landscapes. The business of those things is to make nature more natural by nurturing it. When God brought the Israelites out of Egypt, He re-ordered their whole society from clothes and food to government and religion SPECIFICALLY to cause them to shed the culture they had blindly consumed in Egypt. Whenever God chooses a leader for his people He never picks the best and brightest, but the lowliest, and delights to nurture them over their initially-humble nature.

    The implication of average women–indeed of all women–is that they are terrible leaders. Truly terrible; in a world-ending, society-collapsing, death-follows-in-their shadow way. And it’s been that way from the beginning. Eve bah-bah’ed her way into the middle of the herd between Adam and the serpent (choosing not to value the words of her master over the words of the serpent) and Adam chose to value her over God even while knowing God to be better than Eve. See the difference there? And the fall-out was that death entered the world.

    Adam, by the way, was the Alpha and Beta, in Game terms. He’s the original failure of great men, and the original ill-fated follower who was oppressed through women by the new Alpha of the serpent. If Eve had done her job of choosing (nurturing) Adam as her leader–no matter what–then this would have turned out very different.

    The one great thing about Game is that it openly professes the value of nurture over nature; that a man can be more man than he is if he will just apply himself. It goes off the rails pretty quickly after that, but it at least has that over modernism’s pedestalization of the natural (feminism, environmentalism, PETA-scientism’s anthropomorphism, socialism [everyone is naturally poor and therefore should be equally poor], Randian laissez-faire capitalism [only whoever is naturally better at producing should enjoy the profits of that]). Basically you could say that scientism is the problem. Scientism rejects all notion of value judgments in the foolish pursuit of wanting to know all things; to be godlike.

    Just like in every area, the bad guys have twisted the language. They’ve co-opted the terms that they actually represent the opposite of: nurture, liberal, even the color blue when red became associated with communists. It’s all misdirection. This is why the truth is important.

    I’m late for church now.

  3. I am a mythical Christian; not a legendary one. Scripture and history do not speak of cannibal nephlilim. It calls them “the men of old; the men of renown”. “Renown” generally has at least a slightly positive implication.

    Great apologies Cane Caldo. I have been going through various mythical legends right now concerning infanticide, abortion and male gods/female mortals stuff (more like false gods) and trying to connect the dots. Sometimes my interpretations aren’t the best.

    The false gods thing is really making my head dizzy right now.

  4. Environments are completely natural phenomenon, and part of the person’s make-up. It’s not extra-personal. Lots to be said here, but I’ll move on.

    Money.

    I’m not convinced that the preponderance of sphere opinion says that hypergamy is bad. It describes bad manifestations of it, and that is unequivocal, but only the subset of malcontents seems to insist that it IS bad.

    Solid principles in the post.

  5. @Empath

    I’m not convinced that the preponderance of sphere opinion says that hypergamy is bad.

    It’s certainly true that many of the bloggers aren’t in the hypergamy-is-bad camp. The commenters, though; especially many of the regulars? I think many of them are at least confused, and often give themselves away as hypergamy haters. Pinned down, they can think of good reasons for hypergamy. But generally their conversations are about how hypergamy is to blame for women’s choices.

    Sure, if your eye causes you to sin, then pluck it out. Of course, Jesus wasn’t talking about eyes. It’s the sin nature we have to get rid of. The eye is just fine. So is hypergamy.

    My purpose was to state solidly that hypergamy is intrinsically (Again with that word! Just trying to be consistent.) a good thing so that others who might read this understand what they’re trying to be artful about engaging.

  6. Maybe a better word is Patriarchy. Hyper gamy is applied in a general sense, whereas Patriarchy concerns not only assortive mating, but is about the nature of the relationship (the man rules, leads and influences the household), a Husband-Wife (or Father-Mother) type of relationship.

    The confusion is that Hyper gamy now means 5s women trying to get it on with 9s men. Which is undoubtedly correct. Hyper gamy, right now at least, isn’t about how the man in the relationship (if it’s another 5 man) should have certain qualities to become a Father, a Husband, or a Leader of Men, or a Best Friend, or a Great Man. Now it just means that a woman that is average, maybe even low, should gun for a high man and have him as her own.

  7. This is response to Alcestis’ comment.

    The whole numbers thing leaves me cold, frankly. Maybe it’s because I (despite my husbands protestations) have always known that he is more physically attractive than me, and yet he pursued me pretty relentlessly for a whole lot of reasons, my attractiveness being one of those factors .

    So, when you say things like “women who are 4’s going after men who are 8’s” I have to wonder whether intangibles are factored into the equation when the issue of hypergamy is raised.

    Insomuch as we’re discussing women indiscriminately or even not indiscriminately sleeping with men out of their league for the purposes of attempting to secure commitment and/or resources.

    @ Cane Caldo:

    This is a good post and as always I thoroughly appreciate your desire to seek after Truth rather than just accepting premises based on catchy sounding rhetoric.

    Well done.

  8. My comment was riddled with typos and I dropped a sentence without completing it. Should have read:

    Insomuch as we’re discussing women indiscriminately or even not indiscriminately sleeping with men out of their league for the purposes of attempting to secure commitment, status, and/or resources, then I agree with you completely.

  9. Pinned down, they can think of good reasons for hypergamy. But generally their conversations are about how hypergamy is to blame for women’s choices.

    That is a playable shot. Here again, one can say that a woman’s choices are due to hypergamy while still not passing a value judgement. I am not intentionally being obtuse on this; I am sticking with my original point which I may not have made thoroughly.

    I can rant and rave about a set of horrible behaviors that are motivated by a man’s sex drive and not be judging the innate God given drive as an evil thing that necessarily produces rotten fruit. I agree that many comments use hypergamy as simply a tee from which to hit another “women do this shit” ball. I get that. But I could do that over and again and still not be pigeon holed as being in the hypergamy-is-evil camp. Clearly Ive no reason to rush in to defend any specific members or comment makers, that is not my motive. There are indeed those shallow reactionary thinkers who can find nothing good about just about everything. Some of them even lie….imagine that.

    But for the most part, and I mean most, I sense that thoughtful men are treating hypergamy the way I treat empathy. Though very different in nature, functionally the comparison works as does that of the male sex drive. And in a nod to actually defending men who are reactionary, is it any wonder that, after decades of having our innate drive painted as pure evil that we’d latch on to something vaguely similar in women that we can dish out in return?

  10. @Dalrock,

    First things first:
    One day I’ll go back to posts under 2,000 words.

    Do that. You’ll be happier and it will force you to edit.

    The amoral view of the natural universe is inextricable from an amoral view of feminine nature, and vice versa: a moral assessment of the natural universe (And, again: “It is good.”) necessitates a moral assessment of the nature of women. Therefore, as a follower of Christ–Son of the Creator of the Universe–I must reject the amoral view of nature, and I must accept the goodness of the intrinsic (intended/designed) nature of women. By this light I can see clearly. And if, by this light, I see evil in women, then I must recognize that evil as something separate from their nature. It must be something that grows there, i.e., something nurtured by themselves or another, or both. Whether it is a psychiatric disease like narcissism, or “mundane” spiritual disease like lust, or something exotic like demonic possession–I can categorize them under the heading of “sinful nature”.

    Ha! Going Orthodox/Catholic on us. But yes, this here is the best part by far. it is the crux of the problem. Assigning evil to their nature, as I’ve said for near on a year, is part of their problem. To see it on the Christian side of the ‘sphere is extremely problematic.

    Hypergamy is a real thing, and I wholly believe it’s scriptural. It’s also a decidedly good thing. Think about it: Her hypergamy drives her into your arms.

    This. The problem is like all drives it can be perverted. Men love sex because it brings children. It makes us happier to follow our nature and have sons and daughters that we lead. However, corrupted, it becomes a reason for having sons and daughters with no grounding in responsibility.

    as it is run by very rich and powerful (in a worldly sense) men, and perpetrated on average women (which is almost all of them) who don’t even rise to the level of co-conspirator. They’re simply not that smart, important , or powerful enough to be anything but CONSUMERS of the conspiracy.

    This also. However it runs counter to the man(!) keeping me down meme found in much of the ‘sphere. If we are the masters though who the blazes can take that from us? The only logical possibility is God. Given that he doesn’t seem opposed to our position we have only ourselves to blame.

    NOTE: This does not mean women get a free pass. They are by nature co-operators. They can co-operate with Evil or Good. Their call. Just like we can further up the natural order.

    As to the hyper-gamy haters its very clear that the commentors are generally much more anti-hypergamy than the bloggers.

  11. @Empath

    I got what you’re saying the first and second time. We fundamentally disagree, and this is the crux of that disagreement:

    “Here again, one can say that a woman’s choices are due to hypergamy while still not passing a value judgement.”

    No, you cannot. Rather: No, you should not, and when we don’t then we are siding with the side of ignorance, evil, and death.

    For most people–even those I agree with, respect, and even listen to and learn from–what I’ve said in the last two posts represent a total shift in the way we think about everything.

    “I can rant and rave about a set of horrible behaviors that are motivated by a man’s sex drive and not be judging the innate God given drive as an evil thing that necessarily produces rotten fruit.”

    It depends how I parse your words, but even giving you the benefit of the doubt: I disagree with it as it is actually practiced, and do not concern myself with the theoretical way you’re presenting it. “The mouth speaks out of the abundance of the heart.” Yes, theoretically, one can rant and rave about the way a thing is used, and not judge the thing evil. I will believe such a person if some combination of two things are true:

    1) That person spends an equitable amount of time praising the thing that they spend time ranting and raving about.

    2) That person has the sense to call what God has made unequivocally Good. This includes male and female natures; as separate from sin nature.

    In such a way a man reveals the spirit he has. Again: “The mouth speaks out of the abundance of the heart.” All I have to do is measure which is more abundant, and then I can know what is in the speaker’s heart; what spirit a man has. There is no “deep down”; there is no “but on the inside…”, or “You don’t know me.” If we’ve been listening, then yes we do. You’ve told us.

    In summary: I take statements of exception like “I’m not judging…” as a canard, or plain ignorance. “Whoever is not with me is against me, and whoever does not gather with me scatters.”, He said. God says it is good. To not join him in that is to be against Him.

    In addition–and this is very important–accepting another’s non-judgmental stance is how sin corrupts from one to another because it is presented as reasonable, (“Hey, who am I to judge?”), but the reality is that it’s fundamentally rebellious if we already know how God has judged it. Who are we to judge? Unworthy servants of the Most High God, carrying forth His words of judgment; that’s who. To not do so is to lay claim to a God-like worth that we do not have, and to separate ourselves from His grace and glory. It’s The Fall all over again.

    There are some instances where we should recuse ourselves from pronouncing judgment, but those situations are usually themselves the result of our own sinful behavior. That’s a whole other post…at least.

    Parsing the interaction of spirit, flesh, the law, and how Jesus’ death and resurrection brings reconciliation to those things takes up an extraordinary amount of space in the Book of Romans. It’s the most careful explanation of the gospel in scripture.

  12. @GKChesterton

    Ha! You called me Dalrock. That is a fate he does not deserve.

    Speaking of fates: It seems to be mine to only be little-c and little-o catholic and orthodox, but I’m not complaining. I am content to remain in the outer courtyards of the temple. I’m in good company: Moses was kept from Canaan, and King David was not allowed to build the temple.

    “If we are the masters though who the blazes can take that from us? The only logical possibility is God. Given that he doesn’t seem opposed to our position we have only ourselves to blame.”

    I’m not entirely sure what you’re saying here. “If we are…” “We” who? And to blame for what? We may be in agreement, but I’m just not understanding the inferences.

    “As to the hyper-gamy haters its very clear that the commentors are generally much more anti-hypergamy than the bloggers.”

    I agree. That being said: There’s something about what those bloggers are saying or not saying, that is attracting or promoting the views expressed by their commentors.

    (Commentors? Commenters? I go back and forth on that.)

  13. The whole numbers thing leaves me cold, frankly. Maybe it’s because I (despite my husbands protestations) have always known that he is more physically attractive than me, and yet he pursued me pretty relentlessly for a whole lot of reasons, my attractiveness being one of those factors .

    Elspeth, by your own words, you are a woman who snagged a man who is a bit higher than her. Hence, part of the regime in both the sexual market and the marital market. Hence, blinded by her own situation.

    The numbers thing may leave you cold, but attacking higher women and ignoring or even sabotaging average men is even colder.

    I’ll admit I may be blinded by my own situation, and this isn’t arrogance or being a special snowflake, but often the men I try to pursue are surrounded by average women all over them. It isn’t the best scenario.

    So, when you say things like “women who are 4′s going after men who are 8′s” I have to wonder whether intangibles are factored into the equation when the issue of hypergamy is raised.

    The problem with the immaterial stuff is that sooner or later, thanks to the slippery slope and the frog slowly boiled in the pot strategy, it becomes the only defining feature. It goes from “what matters is on the inside” to “what solely matters is on the inside”.

  14. There should be a Hyper gamy vs. Patriarchy discussion. The current modern regime is a mixture between serial monogamy, soft polygamy and hyper gamy. There’s winners, neutrals and losers in this larger set of schemes.

    It may be in your best interest (and your husband’s) to protect the current regime Elspeth, but isn’t in mine, nor in other men’s interests.

  15. The problem with the immaterial stuff is that sooner or later, thanks to the slippery slope and the frog slowly boiled in the pot strategy, it becomes the only defining feature. It goes from “what matters is on the inside” to “what solely matters is on the inside”.

    I see your point, but I disagree. I feel strange arguing this position because I am attractive enough. It’s not as if I’m hideous -far from it as you well know- nor was I punching above my weight, as he pursued me. But the reality is that when you live with a person day in and day out, it is what’s on the inside that matters most.

    In my case, there was a very sad bit of special snowflake dynamic at play because I was the first woman my husband had dated whose father was present and accounted for. The difference he said, was striking.

    We have no interest protecting any regime, Alcestis. My husband agrees with the general premise feminism is evil and is a strong believer in patriarchy. However, he sees this as spiritual, not political. This is not his cup of tea, all this talk about regimes and feminine imperatives. People need Jesus is his diagnosis.

    I’m not at all sure what you’re talking about when you say that, “protecting the current regime”. I simply desire to live an honorable, God-honoring life and see my children do the same. I’m not interested in the larger gender war because frankly, I don’t think God is.

  16. Elspeth, I understand your comment. But the problem is that it isn’t just spiritual. It’s the biological/the natural, the social/the cultural and the spiritual/the transcendent. It’s all of them.

    Being too much of something, either way or whichever way, is never good. I pray and love God, but to ignore how the political realm has become corrupted beyond hope (and even redemption in some cases) is a bit folly.

    If it was just spiritual, this sphere wouldn’t exist.

  17. I pray and love God, but to ignore how the political realm has become corrupted beyond hope (and even redemption in some cases) is a bit folly.

    If it was just spiritual, this sphere wouldn’t exist.

    If it is beyond all hope, and I fear that it may be, then that is all the more reason to be careful not to minimize the spiritual.

    One of the reasons why Cane is one of my favorite manosphere bloggers is because he gets it. He recognizes that the natural, the biological, the political, it all stems from the spirit realm. Whether that be the Spirit of God who created us all, or the spirit of man, who has the power to choose good or evil, or the spirit of Satan, which corrupts.

    Trying to separate these things out is the big error, which he is trying to correct and I support him in that even though the mostly carnally minded manosphere doesn’t get it.

    The fact that this sphere exists is no proof of the fact that it is more than “just spiritual”. On the contrary, it’s simply proof that as usual, most people can’t see beyond the temporal, even those who claim to be Christians.

    Now, don’t get me wrong Alcestis. I get where you’re coming from. I don’t even disagree with you in total. I do believe we should actively oppose evil within our spheres of influence. However, for those of us who are Christians, unless we start from the right premise, there is no way for us to reach our desired destination.

    Furthermore, according to Scripture (1 john 5:19-21, emphasis mine):

    We know that we are of God, and the whole world lies under the sway of the wicked one.

    20 And we know that the Son of God has come and has given us an understanding, that we may know Him who is true; and we are in Him who is true, in His Son Jesus Christ. This is the true God and eternal life.

    21 Little children, keep yourselves from idols. Amen.

    If as Scripture says, the world lies under the sway of the wicked one, and if Scriptural prophesies are true, is it not fruitless to dress for and fight in the wrong battle? From where I sit, fighting to insure that feminists, sluts and players get what they deserve is completely the wrong battle. Especially since we have already been assured that this will take care of itself.

    Now, rooting out evil in the church? A worthwhile battle. Defending God’s prescription for healthy marriage in the church? That, too. But the larger cultural gender mess? Not so much. Jesus has called us to save souls, not culture, because we can’t. The floodgates of decadence and degeneracy opened because the piety of the past was outward, not of the heart.

  18. The floodgates of decadence and degeneracy opened because the piety of the past was outward, not of the heart.

    *sighs*

  19. Pingback: Obvious spade is obvious | Traditional Christianity

  20. @Cane,
    We = Men
    Blame = Seeming Inversion of Natural Order

    @Elsbeth,
    I agree Elsbeth on the passage about “…in the power”. One of the other things the Christian side of the ‘sphere forgets is this is a veeerrrrrrryyyyyy old game. While things went “extra” bad in this one area around the 1920’s women rebelling and men being push overs didn’t start there. It is a problem with our archetypes post-Fall.

  21. unless we start from the right premise

    I have only a few minutes before I have to go to sleep, having escaped the storms of north Texas and arrived in Houston safely, but late…
    I think this changes the frame. I agree we must have the right premise, but Im not sure that alcest is coming from the wrong premise. His point begins at a place temporally or flow-wise already past the premise, meaning he may have the right premise…thats just not clear. I liken this to when my brother in law, no matter what issue you present him with, lectures me on spiritual truths I know very well, but the thing I mention while yes, rooted in those truths, Im trying to have a simple conversation about the flesh side of what physical actions I will take. Maybe Im misunderstanding, but it can be very frustrating when people do this.

    But the larger cultural gender mess? Not so much. Jesus has called us to save souls, not culture, because we can’t.

    Here again, we needn’t say we are spiritually called to fix culture. We know that story and we are not going to fix it….period. Rather we are going to keep observing it swirling around the drain and leaking, then gushing to the septic system. This is a difference not of what root we subscribe to, but of simple conversational frame. Both are correct. And its fine to address culture if the focus is on the individual who may benefit, who may actually find a Lord and savior, so long as we are not about the minutia in the silly trench warfare the church seems so fixated on that they miss forest for potted plants.

    If I read too quickly write it off to me reading too quickly…hows that

  22. Hey empath.

    Alcestis is a lovely 20-year-old woman, by the way. She and I have had lots of convos about this in and out of the sphere so it’s entirely possible that I didn’t express myself well as this is an ongoing debate. I’ll try again.

    This is a difference not of what root we subscribe to, but of simple conversational frame. Both are correct. And its fine to address culture if the focus is on the individual who may benefit, who may actually find a Lord and savior, so long as we are not about the minutia in the silly trench warfare the church seems so fixated on that they miss forest for potted plants.

    My response to Alcestis is largely motivated by her insistence that choosing to focus on the things of the spirit means that one is succumbing to the “current regime”. I fully believe in having a larger conversation about culture so long as conversation isn’t the beginning and end of one’s activism (I know you’re doing more than talking about it sir, as I read your blog).

    If I didn’t believe in the greater conversation I wouldn’t be here and I’m certainly not above getting bogged down in the minutiae. I just refuse to get stuck there because it hinders me from seeing souls.

    My issue is with the prevailing sentiment, one that ignores the larger spiritual implication while focusing wholesale on the bad behavior of those behaving badly. This tunnel vision and refusal to pan out is exactly why those on the other side gain so much ground so quickly.

    They know that they are fighting for the soul of the culture, while we are focusing on punishing the sluts and making sure that everyone stays in his or her place. We can’t win on those grounds, folks. Not even within the church will that work.

    Because of that, I think it is imperative that Christians be careful not to get swept up into the wrong battle. That is all.

  23. My issue is with the prevailing sentiment, one that ignores the larger spiritual implication while focusing wholesale on the bad behavior of those behaving badly.

    Amen

  24. That’s right: What we’re here complaining and trying to understand is as much about the society as men have ordered it as how women have…just not most men. Surely not you or I.[…]There is a conspiracy, but it’s not so much run by women as it is run by very rich and powerful (in a worldly sense) men, and perpetrated on average women (which is almost all of them) who don’t even rise to the level of co-conspirator. They’re simply not that smart, important , or powerful enough to be anything but CONSUMERS of the conspiracy.

    I’ve been basically thinking the same thing for awhile and dancing around saying it. The reason why that is important is because it changes what must be done to solve the problem. It’s critical to note that most women are not smart enough to avoid getting sucked in; it’s also true that we weren’t really created to keep ourselves from getting sucked in. Fathers (or other male relatives) were mostly supposed to manage that for us. Feminists said, “Don’t manage that for us, we can do it by our own selves!” Excepting it turns out we can’t. And now we’re sort of stuck, and it seems rather hopeless.

  25. @SSM

    “I’ve been basically thinking the same thing for awhile and dancing around saying it. The reason why that is important is because it changes what must be done to solve the problem.”

    Yes.

    “It’s critical to note that most women are not smart enough to avoid getting sucked in; it’s also true that we weren’t really created to keep ourselves from getting sucked in. Fathers (or other male relatives) were mostly supposed to manage that for us. Feminists said, “Don’t manage that for us, we can do it by our own selves!” Excepting it turns out we can’t. And now we’re sort of stuck, and it seems rather hopeless.”

    It’s not hopeless. First of all: Three gifts we Christians are all given are faith, hope, and love. The greatest of these is love because if we love Christ and what He has done for us then we will not lose faith in the hope that all evils will be overcome. We must take this as foundational.

    Second: None of us are smart enough to figure out what I just wrote above. We had to be told. All that is required is to obey. That goes for women, too. We don’t have to figure out the schemes and campaigns of the world to avoid them. When your husband says that show is crap (and he may not even know why): Turn it off, and be happy about it.

    Third: Understand that the feminism/worldliness is in us. Most of our unhappiness isn’t from an outside source. What we cherish and nurture within ourselves is rebellion and self-love. We hate to die to self, but that is what Christians are called to do. Yet we know viscerally that it’s the right thing to do because when someone else won’t die to self we get wildly self-righteous about it. So, the problem isn’t that women are so easy to trick, but that women don’t want to obey.

    This rebellion is from top to bottom. I once made Elspeth bristle when I said that you can’t teach girls. They certainly learn, but it’s on their terms. That’s that internal rebellion in doll form.

    @Alcestis and Empath

    I can sometimes give solid physical answers to solid physical problems people ask me. I can only hope they are helpful.

    But in general, the task before me is to show someone (maybe not you) that when you speak of problems between man and wife, or even human and human we are talking about fundamentally spiritual matters.

    Clothes and jokes and negs (teasing) can cover over some marital bad spots for a short while, but in the meantime if you’re not addressing the underlying problem it will never work. The slut crutches of negs, dread, etc. are fine methods for picking up, spinning plates, etc., but a lousy way to run a marriage.

    Let me rephrase that last paragraph in a way that doesn’t sound so harsh to the pro-Game crowd: Game tactics are spices, but pepper does not a meal make. Nor are folks starving to death (divorcing) over its lack. The problem is–and I think Keoni should agree–is that we have gorged on simulated sweets. Now some folks are claiming more pepper with the sweets will make those phony meals nutritious because we have heard that some healthy folks put pepper on wholesome food.

  26. I once made Elspeth bristle when I said that you can’t teach girls.

    Did I bristle, really? Maybe I did a little, LOL.

    Game tactics are spices, but pepper does not a meal make. Nor are folks starving to death (divorcing) over its lack. The problem is–and I think Keoni should agree–is that we have gorged on simulated sweets. Now some folks are claiming more pepper with the sweets will make those phony meals nutritious because we have heard that some healthy folks put pepper on wholesome food.

    I like that analogy. I would have gone more cliche, which is why you are a better writer than I.

  27. The problem is–and I think Keoni should agree–is that we have gorged on simulated sweets.

    Amen, halleilujah, hosanna!

    Both figuratively and literally. lol

    Clothes and jokes and negs (teasing) can cover over some marital bad spots for a short while, but in the meantime if you’re not addressing the underlying problem it will never work. The slut crutches of negs, dread, etc. are fine methods for picking up, spinning plates, etc., but a lousy way to run a marriage.

    Yes. That underlying problem is under-developed, suppressed and/or crippled masculinity. What it is, (negs and other game tactics when done correctly,) is just an expression of a strong, dominant, Masculine (with a capital M!) frame. The neg is not a parlor trick to be learned to fool your conquest into dropping her panties…but rather the expression of a mindset of a strong, unapologetic male putting a women into her proper place in the God-ordained hierarchy of Patriarchal marriage…beneath him.

    Game tactics are spices, but pepper does not a meal make. Nor are folks starving to death (divorcing) over its lack.

    I like the analogy, but I’ll respectfully disagree on the “starving to death” aka divorcing analogy.

    The lack of spices in cooking leads to a monotony of bland dishes. While bland dishes can be nourishing, when access to spice is available, the temptations of the spicy meal can be much more compelling when you’ve endured years of nothing but bland, unseasoned fare.

    “Variety is the spice of life”

  28. Pingback: Stronger Together (for now), or: Make Weddings Great Again | Things that We have Heard and Known

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