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.

Advertisements

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.

She Got Games You Ain’t Even Thought of Playing

I’m going to continue on with the rest of a girl’s comment from Dalrock’s…

After reading the comments here (that a wife should submit to her husband even unto housework) I am going to ask [her prospective husband] how he feels about housework because I can’t see myself married to someone who has issues with it. I don’t want to be the only person who scrubs the toilet for the rest of my life.

which will, rightly, set off alarms for any man who is not a confessed feminist. It’s easy to see that before she’s even married she’s already rebelling against being a wife…not because she doesn’t want to clean toilets (no one does), but because she is both setting arbitrary rules against an imagined offense (which makes her the de facto ruler, and therefore against submitting to her husband) and because she is manipulative and deceptive. Though, feminist or not, most men would only feel the manipulation and deception. Many men couldn’t pinpoint it, but I’m here to help.

Check out the framing of her statement. “I’m going to ask him…” It’s a test, plain and simple. It’s a test that she knows she cannot possibly grade him fairly upon because she has already stated that he doesn’t know what he expects from a wife; particularly about submission. She’s counting on him being rattled by the question, and just backing off from the whole concept. She, however, does know the answer to the submission question test: It means she cleans a toilet if he says “Clean the toilet.”

“…[H]ow he feels about housework…” is so untrue it’s not even wrong. Feel has nothing to do with it. By moving the rational decision from the questions of

  • What should a wife do?
  • What does submission mean?
  • Who’s going to clean the toilets?

This way, if they argue, it happens in the arena of feelings and “he-said/she-said” instead of “Let’s look at the Bible.” This is necessary for her because she doesn’t want to admit that–way deep-down in her gut–that she hates what God has said. By he-sad/she-said she can’t really lose, because if she loses that means he’s a big meanie picking on a girl. Therefore he isn’t worthy anyway. When she really thinks about it, the way he doesn’t let her have her way is emotional abuse. So she will tell herself.

And let us not overlook the fact that this isn’t about housework. It’s about submission overall. She knows that, but he may not. She knows that if she gets her way about housework, she has precedent to get her way about everything. Sometime later, she’ll give-in to something that she feels is just his want (not her duty), and pat herself on the back for her maturity and willingness to compromise. If he ever brings up that it was her duty then she’ll regret it, and think of the whole incident as the time that he took advantage of her mature generosity. It’s like clockwork.

“I can’t see myself married to someone” has the subtext of “I’m considering others.” If it was a PUA’s statement some would call it Dread Game. She’s communicating that she is ready to replace him if he doesn’t let her have her way. Again, this will set a precedent for all future disagreements.

“I don’t want to be the only person who scrubs the toilet for the rest of my life.”

Classic ugly feminism for her to focus in on what she hates instead of what she loves.

You Must Be Because You Are

A female commenter over at Dalrock’s writes:

He brought up submission recently and I am concerned that he is overly focused on it. But when I asked him what submission would look like to him and his answer was vague each time. So it is something that is important to him but he can’t or won’t really describe or explain how it would work in our day to day lives.

This was me even after ten years of marriage. I recall one particular argument between my wife and I about her responsibilities; back in probably 2005. She, exasperated and angry at my hemming and hawing around (Yesterday I might have criticized her for leaving work early, and today I might have been angry that the house was a wreck.) cried out, “What do you want me to do? Do you want me to cook and clean all day, or do you want me to work, or what?”

Right then, for the first time, I fully realized that–because I was too chickenshit to appear sexist or hypocritical about work[1],–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. Husbands don’t just need to be the leaders. Husbands are the leaders, and therefore must act accordingly. That’s not a guarantee that she will follow, but if she stays, she will follow. A wife cannot divorce staying a wife from following her husband anymore than a son can stay in his father’s home while refusing to mimic the father’s behavior, or reject his genetics. The consequences are unavoidable.

[1] Outside of the house work (earning “my own” money) was something of an idol that was given to me by my parents, and thoroughly enforced by American society as a whole. 

Off-Topic for Me: What is Neoreaction?

Mostly via Free Northerner’s (who has graciously linked my posts on many occasions) Lightning Rounds, I sometimes come into contact with the writings of folks who call themselves NeoReactionaries; shortened as “NRx”. At times, and in other places, I have disparaged the movement’s authors and works; particularly after the “Gnon” crap surfaced. You’ll have to look elsewhere for the (poor) explanations of it.

Over the last several months I have seen an increase in posts attempting to describe and unscribe what NRx is. In truth I have read more than once that there is not (or should not be) a NRX movement. Whether it is a movement, philosophy, posture, or whathaveyou: You know what I mean, and if you don’t then you can talk to me about it in the comments. While only the core NRx guys (NBS, FN, SP, Bryce, etc.) can tell you what NRx is supposed to be, I can only tell you what I see.

Neoreaction is Reformation. There’s more science, and more ritual (natural, as there is a lot of Roman Catholic NRx-ers), and a little too much Otaku, but it sure looks like Reformation to me. Of the historical figures who could recognize NRx as a thing after suffering a space-time vortex displacement, I would put Thomas Cranmer at the top of the list.

Donkey Talk

King Solomon, ~300 B.C.

25 I turned my heart to know and to search out and to seek wisdom and the scheme of things, and to know the wickedness of folly and the foolishness that is madness. 26 And I find something more bitter than death: the woman whose heart is snares and nets, and whose hands are fetters. He who pleases God escapes her, but the sinner is taken by her.27 Behold, this is what I found, says the Preacher, while adding one thing to another to find the scheme of things— 28 which my soul has sought repeatedly, but I have not found. One man among a thousand I found, but a woman among all these I have not found. 29 See, this alone I found, that God made man upright, but they have sought out many schemes.

Mom, ~last month

You know, Cane: Women lie a lot; especially when they’re young. All the time. I really hate to say that, but… If they think it will get them something, or get them out of trouble, or, make them look better, yeah, just get their way…women will just lie to everyone and even themselves. Haha! Yeah…especially themselves…

This truth about women (mothers, wives, sisters, daughters…all of them) is the one thing that men dealing with women need to know. The temptation for them to lie is very powerful; in no small way because their nature is to desire more than it is to discern. I suspect this has always been true, but I also think it must be even more difficult to resist in our current culture than in some previous ones. The permeation of relativism in our culture means that their grasp of the truth (when spoken, written, heard, etc.) is more tenuous

Along with that: I cannot imagine that there have ever been more systems for a person to skip between; each more beguiling than the last in its explanation of how to cure what ails a woman. Buy this. Move here. Grow that. Eat this. Pray this. Do these… Men are susceptible to such systematic ruses also, but as women will (and do!) follow, men falling to such sorceries only adds to women’s burden.

Nor can we forget that the laws, traditions, and sentiments of our era force men into the service of women without a reciprocal service, or even gratitude.

So, if this is true, can a man trust a woman? He can, but that trust must be based on watching what she does. A submissive wife, or daughter (or son for that matter) is known by her obedience; not by her lip-service. Let me put St. Peter’s admonition to wives’ obedience under a different light: Her words, even grumblings, are meaningless if she is respectful and has pure conduct; which is submission. Therefore, husbands with obedient wives must not let their own sentimentality get in the way of work. There is plowing to be done. Enjoy (as in: “bring joy into”) it, for there is no plowing in the grave.

An Example of the Difference Between Deception and Capitulation

For Donal Graeme, Moose Norseman, and Deep Strength; who are thinking through how men and women differently go astray.

Helen wakes and gets ready to see Tom; whom she desires. She does as she has been taught women do to get a man’s attention; what every woman she knows does. She shaves her legs. To her face she applies concealer, powder, lipstick, rouge, mascara, and eyeshadow. She films her dyed and highlighted hair with potions, and blow-dries it into a shape that defies its natural tendencies. Hose tightens and disguises her cellulite, while heels sculpt her legs and buttocks to appear longer and more pert. She puts on a bra that bulks her breasts before lifting and separating them. She tops it all with a frock which gives the appearance of bigger breasts, a smaller waist, and longer legs, and a spritzes herself with perfume to make herself smell different. She is pleased with herself, and thinks this is good for her and Tom; especially if it makes him love her.

Tom sees Helen. He is Texan and crass, and so he says to himself, “I believe I’d drink her dirty bath water.” Of course he believes nothing of the kind. It’s a funny thing to say (in a crass way, of course) because Tom knows drinking dirty bath water is foul, and wrong; just like fornicating with Helen. It’s an admittance that he’d give up his wisdom and respect for a chance to indulge himself in her deception, and her in her arrogance. He is not deceived about the nature of the event. He’s making a choice in full knowledge of what is right and wrong.

Did Helen deceive Tom with her appearance? Somewhat. He is aware it’s a show, and that it’s a show of an available woman. But keep in mind: In order to deceive Tom into believing she is more beautiful than she is, Helen has invested more than two hours in a campaign against her natural state. It is an elaborate and precarious setup which could not survive a washing. If Tom is fooled, then it is because the preparation was so intense.

To Helen he says, “What a lovely-looking lady”; whom he is not loving, and who is not a lady.

She falls immediately for his two-second line.