And Bureaucracy for All

Over at Dalrock’s, in response to a post about the Roman Church’s broad and slick annulment practices, commenter CerrilanAufen wrote:

One thing that hasn’t been discussed here on this blog (that I’ve seen) is that Catholic priests are supposed to personally council couples considering marriage.

(For the sake of discussion I am assuming this is considered to be true. My Roman Catholic readers can correct us in the comments if it’s not.) Regardless, I know this same shirking of responsibility and misapplication of blame is at work in non-RCC churches and really everywhere in America.

For example, my Anglican churches assume every problem can be solved by convening a new committee which will then institute a new program to tackle it. Coincidentally, every problem is considered to be a New Problem even when it is actually an old problem. That way no one has to repent, hold anyone accountable, or have an uncomfortable conversation. No one has to hurt anyone’s feelings, or risk the perception of being Not Nice.

Here’s another example from outside of the ecclesial world. It is assumed by everyone but teachers that the problem with public schools is a failure of teachers to “reach” their pupils. If a student hits another student, it’s a teacher’s failure. Students who refuse to do their schoolwork are assumed to be under the sway of a poor teacher. And so on and so forth.

These are actually problems with parents and their children. We blame priests, pastors, teachers, etc. because we don’t want to accept responsibility. So we construct bureaucracies to allow us to perpetually shuffle the blame around instead of believing that God knew what He was doing when He gave those kids to those parents.

It’s a world ruled like a daycare.

Advertisements

A Primer of Practical Application

Regular posts will resume shortly. In the meantime, I wanted to recommend this essay by James Kalb at SydneyTrads, “Dissolving the Black Hole of Modernity“. It’s good.

I’m not sure of the author’s mind on this point, but I notice that the implicit audience for the essay is men, and not people. Something to ponder.

Sometimes the Customer is Wrong

As far as I can tell there is really only one acceptable way to punish women, and that is exclusion.  All mankind are social creatures and will suffer from exclusion, but because women are more sociable and more dependent they will more keenly suffer when left out. This makes exclusion more deterring, and thus more instructive, for women. In addition, most people (including myself) just aren’t going to stomach any more than the minimum violence necessary to stop a woman either from a dangerous or criminal activity, or move her away from the same.

This is our biggest problem as a democratic, atomized, consumerist, and faddish society. Nobody can exclude anybody when everybody is already alone, here in Babylon. And we really are. This is compounded by the fact that entry into–and affiliation with–another superficial social group is a trite and silly affair which can be accomplished by the purchase of a tee shirt. If a man kicks out his belligerent wife, she’ll just get a new shirt, a new church, and a new husband. No one cares. Everyone acts as if these acts were not superficial.

Immigration, minority criminality, and white male apathy really are serious troubles right now. They are problems which are too big to be ignored in the meantime, and we each need to do our best to combat them as we can. But none of them will be resolved–or even meaningfully combated–unless and until men band together into significant, genuine, geographical, and exclusive communities.

Why Everyone is Married to a Peppermint Patty

In a follow-up comment to my post “But Pants Aren’t in the Bible!” I asked a simple question: “Blue jeans, tee shirt, ball cap, sneakers. Whose outfit is this?”

Derek didn’t get it. Instead of answering the question he tried to be cute:

Wool socks, snow boots, heavy winter coat.

Who’s outfit is this?

But I pressed him back to the question and he explained why he can’t answer it:

@Cane Caldo – “It is a simple question. Why can’t you answer it?”

Because it’s a loaded question, just like mine is. If I change your question to this: “Blue jeans, t-shirt, pink bra, cap, sneakers, hair bow. Whose outfit is this?”, then the answer is immediately different.

It is obvious that what constitutes women’s or men’s garb is subjective to a society. It is also subjective to both the situation and intention. The latter two are more important than the former because they are more specific.

If both my wife and I wear jeans, t-shirt, baseball cap, and sneakers to a baseball game, there isn’t anyone who would ever mistake me for a woman or her for a man.

Ah…the old “But My Wife” trick; coupled to the old “But everyone’s doing it!” gag.

Well, we wouldn’t dare to impede upon a woman’s desire to dress like a man while at a baseball game. After all: watching baseball is strenuous! Every woman in a stadium needs to look like a baseball player, wear brush resistant pants, and strip down to her undershirt to avoid sweat-stains on her blouse.

That’s what baseball caps were for: Men and boys who played baseball, and who identified with their favorite ball players. Blue jeans were invented as hard-wearing pants for men contending with the rugged terrain of the American West. Tee shirts are men’s undergarments. I’ll grant that there have always been athletic shoes for men and women, but even there I bet the trend went: Boys wore them casually first, then girls invaded. Sneakers aside: Ball caps, jeans, and tee shirts are all men’s clothing, and were intended to be so from the beginning.

Unlike those items: Wool socks were invented for both sexes. Snow boots were invented for both sexes. Heavy winter coats were invented for both sexes. Derek thought he was comparing apples to apples. He wasn’t. A ball cap, jeans, tee shirts, and sneakers used to be the casual uniform of the American Working Class Man until the Boomers ruined it with the Sexual Revolution. Now no one knows what women should not wear, and if they do, they won’t say it.

Not to Mention Practice for Divorce

Dating is a form of courtship. Courtship is the courter’s act of seeking the intent to marry from the courted. Therefore any dating which is not directed towards marriage is fraud, at best. Therefore any dating before an appropriate age to marry (whatever age that is) is fraud, at best.

So, what I want to know is: How many of those who say women should graduate college before they marry, or say women should reach the perfect mean age of marriage before they marry, forbid dating before that moment?

But Pants Aren’t in the Bible!

Repurposed from my comment under Dalrock’s post “Cross Dressing Snuck Up in Our Blind Spot”.

The fundamental issue of restricting men’s clothes from women is about whether or not it is acceptable for men (the heads of society) to exclude women. And the answer from everyone (but most egregiously from Christians) is: “No.”

These comments about women’s pants in Asia, or Roman men’s robes, are totally wrongheaded. Whether legs are wrapped versus draped, and which for whom, is a subjective decision of a society. However, subjective does not mean irrelevant, or unimportant. It means we should use our freedom to orient towards the good, the true, and the beautiful. That orientation is more important than whether or not we can suss out the Natural Law of Pants and Robes.[1] The search for the science of pants is a silly distraction used by the perverse and libertine to discredit and mock sound cultural standards and further the destruction of good order. They are like so-called environmentalists who uproot gardens so that weeds may flourish “naturally”.

The importance of holding subjective standards and symbols which (while themselves not objective truths) do point to objective truths and reality needs to be considered much more thoroughly than it is; even by men who think themselves as “seeing”, “woke” or “Red-Pilled”…including myself.

[1] Probably the natural law of human clothing is, “Be sinless and naked”.

When Women Will Loom Large

Yesterday I went to watch Blade Runner 2049.

There will be no spoilers in this post, but I can’t guarantee the same for the comments.

I liked it a lot, and if you liked the original then I will guess you’ll like the new one too. It is a beautiful and legitimate science fiction film. It is not message fiction dressed up in sci-fi garb, but a long (164 minutes) visual question of, “What does it mean to be human?”

One of the themes of the film is that women are big players in this vision of the future (both figuratively and literally), but they are not at the very top. At the top is Niander Wallace, a handsome and white man of science who saves the world from starvation. But the lives of everyone under the very top are ruled, tempted, and overwhelmingly influenced by females, or their form.

I thought it quite probable.

Salesmen and Sissy-Slappers

Repurposed from a comment here:


There is, in our effeminate consumerist society, this overarching belief that a good man is a successful man, and the successful man is the man who can sell (things, ideas, even truth), and that the way to do this is to be flattering, and even to be pleasing to the things that come out of the hearts of men, and “empathize”. 1 Cor. 9:19-23 is often mischaracterized in just that way…

19 For though I am free from all, I have made myself a servant to all, that I might win more of them. 20 To the Jews I became as a Jew, in order to win Jews. To those under the law I became as one under the law (though not being myself under the law) that I might win those under the law. 21 To those outside the law I became as one outside the law (not being outside the law of God but under the law of Christ) that I might win those outside the law. 22 To the weak I became weak, that I might win the weak. I have become all things to all people, that by all means I might save some. 23 I do it all for the sake of the gospel, that I may share with them in its blessings.

…so that we are falsely taught that we are to be nice, and that a man who isn’t able to sell the truth to this or that person must have done it wrong. But what Paul said was he became like the person. He did not “empathize”. He lived like those people, and spoke to them in terms they would understand. Well, Wilson is a Christian blogger and his tagline is “Theology that bites back”. What should being like Wilson look like?

We have two problems here. The first is the argument between Wilson and Dalrock. But the second problem is more pressing–if you can believe it–and it is that the great majority of men–especially Christian men–are effeminate consumerists ready to sissy-slap any man who isn’t a nice and empathetic salesman. (Such men don’t sissy-slap women because women are the arbiters of niceness and empathy, and you can’t hit the ref.) Truly it is effeminate and it comes from men. This second problem disgusts me, and I bet I’m not the only one. In fact, I bet that in other circumstances it disgusts some of the very men who are here doing the sissy-slapping.

Over the years I have endured a good amount of criticism and even ridicule, and sometimes from some fairly big fish in our little pond: Novaseeker, Vox Day, Zippy Catholic, Slumlord/Social Pathologist, to name a few. I count those as blessings, and those are all writers I still read because I can learn, and have learned, from them. It would be a gross error to ignore their sometimes rude criticisms of me merely because I felt they were mean to me, or not empathic enough. And the error would be mine; not theirs.

And if I can be foolish a little more: My own criticisms–which have sometimes been rude and bombastic–have cleared the mental landscape for other men to follow behind me, and has allowed them to be more patriarchal with more emotional and mental comfort. You’re welcome.

Can You Imagine?

I think it was when I was eight. My family went to see Grandma and Grandpa. We often did that since we’d moved to their town; from southern California back to my parents’ hometown in Kansas. We’d go visit with them for the day and maybe we’d get some ice cream and then go back to the house my mother had grown-up in to watch Hee Haw. Sometimes we went over there early and drove out to the lake for a picnic and Grandpa would “Aw, Hell!” at me for fishing wrong. He’d taught me, so I was reflecting on him. This was one of those days.

Every time we went somewhere Grandpa always drove and always in his car. Those were the rules. It was in the 1980s, so some cars still had bench seats in front. That day Grandpa said, “Well, c’mon, get in. We ain’t got all day.”

I went towards the open back door to sit next to Grandma before my sister got that prized seat and Grandma said, “Go get up front.”The front seat was for Grandpa and Dad.

“Nuh-uh!” I could not believe my luck.

“Yes, Cane. You sit up front with the men now.” That’s the way it was until the bench was too small for all three of us, Grandpa, Dad, and I.

A Caned Response to the Nashville Statements

Such is the case with the Nashville Statement, and the Nashville Statement Fortified. Read them and then come back.

The first says, basically, that:

  • men are men
  • women are women
  • marriage is only between one man and one woman
  • sex is only to be in marriage
  • homosexuality and transgenderism are not valid expressions of sexuality

I agree.

The second say basically the same things, but with addition declarations against effeminacy. I agree with that also. It is good to be against effeminacy, but a fortified version of a statement on marital and sexual relations is incomplete if it does not speak on how half of only two sexes are to behave! I have searched the NSF and it does say this under Article 3:

Explanation of changes: The original statement affirms the ontological equality of man and woman without also confessing man’s headship. The order in which God created man and woman has ongoing application for the relationship between the sexes, as taught in 1 Corinthians 11:1–9. In an egalitarian age it is not faithful to confess the equality of Adam and Eve without also confessing Adam’s headship.

But where is the directive that wives must choose to obey their heads? Where is the article in which they deny that wives should be irreverent, rebellious, or usurpers? Where do they affirm that wives are to be sexually available to their husbands except for agreement of a limited time? What is more important to marriage than that the wife be submissive to her husband? These are serious and timely issues of marriage worthy of writing in these statements; more so than sodomy and transgenderism.  All the more so because they make us uncomfortable.

Until I see some evidence to the contrary, I am convinced that this current generation of church leaders will always refuse to allow women to be held to account in any way real. And as far as I can tell, this leadership believes that women can only really be guilty of bad feelings and regret.