I’m a sucker for a good synth-pop song.
Originally, cheerleaders were men.
That’s Jimmy Stewart and his cheer squad, third from the right. Notice the terms: “leader”, and, “team”, and “squad”. These are manly terms. Notice the dress: pants, shirts, sweaters, ties. Manly dress.
In 1923, at the University of Minnesota, women were admitted into cheerleading. I’m sure they asked themselves, “What could be the harm? Technically, women can cheer… I’m sure it will be fine.”
By 1960, cheerleading was seen as predominantly a girl thing, and for effeminate men. At the same time, the uniforms began to become less formal…and to shrink. Today, the “far-right moral position” on cheerleading is that it should be reserved for girls (who only pretend to be sluts) as nature intended. In the future, conservative won’t even notice this.
In response to my very short post about a female kicker here in Texas, stickdude90 yawned:
Let me know when one starts playing linebacker.
That’s because stickdude90 is a man, and so like the great majority of us he believes in the reality of things; even the reality of sports. What’s more is that he is correct: Football is real, and football is dangerous for women to play.
But what will happen is that the rules of football will be changed. No one will be allowed to play football anymore. In its place will be a new sport with rules that make it safe for women. We’ll call that new sport football and pretend that reality is whatever suits our whims, but some day the game will be different in important ways.
Whoops. Too late.
Over on the Fabius Maximus website, editor Larry Kummer has the tagline “Reigniting the spirit of a nation grown cold.” It has a nice ring to it, but it’s just wrongheaded. The spirit of the nation was embodied in an electorate of men, but our electorate is embodied by the hermaphroditic, and woofully cuckoo.
 Worth reading on occasion.
In English, the only word for “marriage sorting and arranging ritual” we have is courtship; even though the act is as old as people. That’s because the cuckoo’s egg of Courtly Love has hatched, and the nest of Christianity is overtaken with its progeny; the assumption of women’s moral superiority, Feminism, egalitarianism, and complementarianism.
The lives of Jacob and Leah and Rachel are fascinating because we are blinded by Courtly Love when we read their story.
Leah is not pretty, but she is a virtuous wife. She uses everything her power to get Jacob’s attention, and to serve him. She produced the line of priests in Levi and the line of kings in Judah, through which came the Christ. She is jealous of Jacob and his affections even though she wis hated by Jacob. There is no mention of Leah causing Jacob any grief, or reproaching him for anything. Leah just wants to be pleasing to Jacob and the Lord.
Rachel is beautiful. That is her one virtue. Otherwise: Rachel is a complainer and will harass Jacob. She steals her father’s false idols and then hides them under her vagina while feigning menstruation. She’s fickle and lets her father marry Leah to her betrothed (under subterfuge) without complaint, and is fine for Leah to sleep with Jacob right up until Leah is honored above her because of Leah’s children. Rachel wants children not so that Jacob will love her, but because she is jealous of her sister (that was probably the first time in her life for that experience) AND she blames Jacob for her barrenness.
The difference in character is stark when you compare what Leah and Rachel uttered when they named their children. Leah is joyful, and she praises Jacob and the Lord. Rachel complains and loves herself. The exception to Rachel’s pattern of selfishness is Joseph, who goes on to save the people of Israel.
The Sons of Leah (including through the servant Zilpah)
The Sons of Rachel (including through the servant Bilhah)
If you read about Jacob Rachel and Leah and see an aspirational love story: I pity you.
Repurposed from a comment at Dalrock’s.
 Jacob changes it to Benjamin: “son of the right hand”.
One of the slogans that, until recently, would trip me up and sprawl me back down into false liberal modes thought was “equality before the law”. This is because it had been explained to me by well-meaning people who loved me that the Bible teaches us “God is no respecter of persons” , and that as Christians–imitators of Christ–we ought to do the same, and therefore such verses were support for the ideal of equality before the law. I’ve wrongly repeated the same myself.
These also are sayings of the wise.
Partiality in judging is not good.
Whoever says to the wicked, “You are in the right,”
will be cursed by peoples, abhorred by nations,
but those who rebuke the wicked will have delight,
and a good blessing will come upon them.
Whoever gives an honest answer
kisses the lips.
What is not true is that words “You shall not show partiality” mean the same thing as “equality before the law”. The former is a command to a judge (including each of us, as circumstances demand) on how to judge. The latter is a statement about those under judgment. “Equality before the law” is literally a prejudiced statement. It’s also false because at least one of the people before a judge has been wronged! In truth it is the job of a good and proper judge to discover as best he can the inequalities of those under his judgment–especially as they concern the law–and then judge them impartially; as if he had no part–no gain or loss–in the matter.
There is a significant slave population in the United States today. We call them prisoners. The difference of a (pre-modern) slave from a (modern) prisoner, is that prisoners are not much good to anyone at all; including themselves. Some readers might be inclined to equivocate and draw lines between prisoners and slaves to separate them. The reality is that a prisoners are a subset of slaves. All the descriptors of slavery apply to prisoners.
Because I’m not insane, I’m in favor of prisons and jails. Making slaves of criminals (for a time)–i.e., to put them under the legal authority of another more competent, temperate, and law-abiding person to control them–is a superior choice over the alternatives to either execute all criminals or allow them to wander around. It would be superior still to control them to good purposes.
There are also other kinds of slaves, in other institutions, and with varying degrees of personal freedom and worth: juvenile delinquents, the elderly in nursing homes and hospices, those under power of attorney, military personnel, and the mentally ill.
Just as with my contemplation on what fatherhood is (especially from the Biblical perspective): Once I recognized with horror that I was actually in favor of slavery …all grounds for liberalism within my mind were harrowed. An add-on effect is that I understood slavery in the Bible better. It was no longer an unconsidered evil tolerated by benighted desert nomads.
 Under certain circumstances and for certain people and only for certain periods of time.