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.

Advertisements

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.

Her Buck Stops Here

Modified slightly from a comment I made at Scott’s American Dad Web.


I am convinced that if a man wants his sons to enjoy exclusively male spaces and times, then he must set them now in a way which will seem arbitrary and even unfair to his modern and permissive self who just wants to be loved by his little girl.

And he needs to learn to be fine with his decisions as just and good; despite his feelings, or the feelings of others. He needs to accept that sometimes he must just say, “Nope, sorry honey, but that is a man’s business. It’s not because you might get hurt, or because you’re incapable, or because you’ll be frightened. It’s simply that you aren’t a man.” This will need to be done at relatively mundane times and events if he is to teach his children to respect and honor each sex, without rancor, according to their different natures.

We have tried the other way, and now females are on submarines, on the front lines, in football locker rooms, in the hunting party, and everywhere. These pressures are still out there in the world, and will sometimes effect our children, and we’ll have to respond to them. If your son grows up and complains that his hunting buddy wants to bring his girlfriend, what can you say? If your son asks to bring his own wife on your hunting trip, what will you say?

Will he reply, “Well, you took my sister hunting. What’s the big deal? It’s no different.”

Real Men Don’t Impede Her Desires

Men will set expectations for other men. They will say things like, “You’re not a real man if you don’t know how to change your own oil.”, or,  “A real man knows how to harvest game from the field.”, or, “Real men help women first.” They will hold such expectations on a regular basis, and they will invent new ones as needed to make a point about the importance of this thing or the other.

Men will also set limitations for other men. They might say, “A real men would never wear a dress.”, or, “Real men don’t play video games for hours.”, or, “A real man never hits a woman.” I trust you understand the dynamic of expectations and limitations to which I refer. They know that a man is a man. What they mean by real is good; good men will do these things and won’t do those things.

Now, once in a great while a man will set a very general expectation on women. If he is a bold Christian he might say, “The Bible says wives should submit to their husbands.” It’s hard to imagine a safer statement than that. The man himself hasn’t actually placed any expectation on women.  Yet even then he will surround it with quibbles and bromides and caveats and exceptions so that the plain and unoffensive statement has no practical meaning whatsoever; lest some man out there start to actually believe what the Bible says. But at least he made some vague attempt at something that might look like an expectation if it is seen at some distance in a dark alley on a moonless night.

What he will never, ever, do is say, “Women shouldn’t  _________.” You can fill in the blank as you like. It doesn’t matter because whatever it is that you think women shouldn’t do won’t actually be said. You can think of the manliest activity, and ultimately a modern man will reason that a woman must not be forbid to do it because she wants to, and because he refuses to stand in her way. Only jerks do that, they say; only a jerks makes a women forgo something she wants to do. He will marshal all forces of technology or rule available to ensure that she gets to try whatever she wants. Worse: He can’t explain why.

He can explain that he doesn’t allow his son to wear skirts even just once a year because it is unseemly for a man to wear women’s clothes. But he cannot explain why he lets his daughter wear a ballcap, jeans, and sneakers as routine. If his son is given a doll he will throw it out, but if his daughter is given a football then the municipal Pee-Wee league needs to give her a shot on the field. If his son picks up knitting needles his father will sneer and deride, but if his daughter picks up a gun then she will be able to defend herself. If his son puts on shorts he will be corrected to dress respectfully. If his daughter dresses like a slut she is merely expressing herself, and what man would dare to make a concrete pronouncement on modesty anyway? Who does he think he is?

They can’t draw a line anywhere around women; what women are, what women aren’t;  what women are to do, what women are not to do.Any man who can find a reason to let her have her way (any reason will do) is an enlightened hero. But any man who forgets himself and tries to put real material expectations and limitations on a woman is scorned as a misogynist and belittled as a wimp who can’t handle women. He will be told it’s not his place to say what his wife or daughter–or wives and daughters in general–are to do or not do.

This is one of the themes which I have come back to over and over. I talked about it with modest dress in sports, cowgirl crossdressing, pioneer women, women roaming malls and churches in various states of disrobe… Modern Christian men simply will not stomach the idea of actual, real, discriminating expectations and limitations on women; of telling them, “No.”

 

Eloi, Eloi

Several years ago–I think at least five–I left a comment on one of Vox Day’s posts[1] to the effect that contemporary whites are weak. He commented back that my estimate was ridiculous and that whites had been the most lethal force on Earth. Well, so what? That was then, this is now.

My observations are based upon my school experiences in minority-majority schools, and, later, a 14-year period living in a neighborhood (and later whole city) as it transitioned from a white-majority suburb to one of a minority-majority. Younger but larger white students in a minority-majority school have the benefit of a better perspective on how blacks see whites. As a tall sixth grader, I had to fight a lot of black seventh and eighth graders (some of whom should have been aged into high school), much less as a tall seventh grader, and none as a eighth grader.

A typical fight starts when three to six blacks surround a white kid, and then begin to taunt him. There was no provocation to the harassment but the perception of weakness. Then the harassment turns to nudges, and nudges to pushes, and then from push to an actual punch from one of them; usually from someone on the side.

The white kid had two options:

  1. Run, and hope you don’t get tripped because black kids thought white kids on the ground were meant for kicking.
  2. Fight, and hope you don’t get knocked down because black kids thought white kids on the ground were meant for kicking.

If you chose option two, then the key to survival (aside from avoiding the ground) was to figure out which one of the black kids was the most likely to punch you (not always an easy task), and punch him first, and don’t stop punching him until a teacher comes to break it up. In my case, the middle school teachers would go get a school cop because that’s the kind of thing you have at minority-majority middle schools; so there’s an extra 30 seconds of punches that need to be thrown for the bureaucratic delay.

When the teacher or cop showed up, it was in-school suspension for the main combatants. They did not care who started it, or who defended himself. More disgustingly, they never let on to have grasped the pattern of multiple blacks jumping one white kid even though the same event occurred to some white boy at least once a week. We were all merely “troublemakers”. Justice played no role whatsoever. Street justice was absent too. White kids never stood up for one another. The white defense was that of the deer: Keep an eye out, move away when you see the predators approach, and tough luck for the stragglers.

I was lucky to be tall and by temperament happy to hurt my opponents. More: I had been blessed to have a father who taught me by discipline that–among other things–pain is fleeting, and that sometimes the act is worth the whipping (belts don’t spank). But even before my childhood that form of pedagogy had been foresworn by the vast majority of white Americans by either permissiveness, or divorce, or both. Today whites tell each other that spanking children is evil because it makes them violent and antisocial, and that divorce is really better for the children.

The bullying I described from my student days is what we’re seeing today.  Except that instead of a location in a Fort Worth middle school in the bad part of town, it has grown with the children to places like Missouri University and Evergreen State. Everybody knows whites are weak and cowardly, and everybody believes it is acceptable to beat on them because of those facts; even other whites and even the authorities.

Last night I listened to a Joe Rogan podcast with Jordan Peterson and Bret Weinstein. For three hours they talked about the dangers of racism and identity politics. Every bit of it was about the danger of past white racists, and white identity politics. They did not make even one half-feinted nod towards the rampant and current racism of blacks towards whites. And why should they? You might get in a fight if you make the black kids angry, but white supremacists are pussies.


[1] I have tried several times to find my comment and that post, but I cannot. 

Choose the Battlefield Wisely

The answer–the right warfare against Antifa, Black Lives Matter, Feminists, Democrats–is to put Christ first. The wrong answer is to put anything else first. I said that these groups are against:

  1. Christians
  2. Whites
  3. Men
  4. America (in combination of 1-3)

and that is true. But there are several reasons not to put energy into pro-white movements, or even pro-male movements. The first and most important reason is that Christ is king and lord of all. We are to serve Him in all things we do, and (amazingly, I think) Christ has provided ways for us to serve Him first in all things we do.

The second reason is that we should never let the enemy choose the terrain of the battles; especially when our combatants are so outnumbered. That is when choice of terrain is most vital for victory. So we rightly should counter invasions on whiteness or manhood with counterattacks from Christ; not because we don’t care about whites or men, but because we need to attack from a position of strength. Nothing is stronger than Christ, whose victory is assured. Not only that, but they neither believe nor understand their own motivations and their own spiritual state–or even nature. This makes an attack launched from a Christ-centered force powerful because it is their weak spot.

So what does this look like in practice? That means to put Christians first for Christian reasons. This is something we have taken for granted. The strength of early America wasn’t “Americanism”. The goodness and truth of the founding documents, to the extent that they are good and true,  don’t make appeal to their own goodness, but to the goodness of God and His natural order. The rights of freedom of speech[1], association, etc. are not predicated on either blood or soil, but on the belief that they are God-given.

So, for example: We should counter pagan attacks on Hobby Lobby, Chick-Fil-A, Catholic hospitals, bakers, and florists not on the defensive grounds of freedom of speech, nor freedom of association, nor freedom of religion, nor the whiteness of the staff; but on the counter-offensive terms that they are brothers and sisters in Christ who are upholding the God-ordained natural order. We don’t “pray those poor people are ok” (though we do pray for them), we make it our business to help them be victorious even at our own cost, and that we offer up those sacrifices for Christ’s glory. We do not offer them for freedom of speech or even religion.

This doesn’t mean we “forget” that we are American, our political traditions, or forget our ethnicity. It means we put them into submission into their rightful place, and by so doing make them worthy. It means we volunteer to suffer in the earthly and unworthy things–whether it is money, glory, status, or even blood–as Christ volunteered to suffer all those things for us so that we could inherit eternal riches and glory, and that we do so for the same reasons.


[1] I do believe these freedoms are real, God-given, and should be protected by a just and wise government. Perhaps I’ll write about that in another post.

A Churlish Defense

I originally posted this as a comment under Scott’s post “The Christo-Rational-Consensus Approach” at his recently revived blog, American Dad Web.  I think it’s coherent enough to stand as a post on its own; though I’m often my own worst critic.


Because we are mostly the sociological descendants of Anglo-Saxons, here’s something to think about:

Before the Norman Conquest of England, the accepted premise was that the land was owned by the people; more specifically by the person who was on it; whether male or female. A king rules over the people, but he doesn’t rule their lands directly. With William the Conqueror comes the French idea that the land belongs to the king, and that the people belong to the land. That is very different. So, for example, peasants couldn’t just up and move to another lord’s land because they belong to a defined space. But a king (as ruler of the land) could give peasants to another land, or his peasants could be another king’s by that second’s conquer of the land. Really, a peasant wasn’t of the king. He was of the land. Kings though are not tied to a land. They are something else; something above. Hence: Rigid class structures. That’s a problem because it fundamentally divides the people from its leader.

Nation states are an attempt to correct that. It says that the people and the nobility (the leaders, regardless of nomenclature) both belong to the land. That’s why Marx saw nation states as an obstruction to class struggle; because it gave an excuse to unite the leaders and the people. Marx saw that the actions of the nobility often belie their true allegiance: Like everyone they are prone to be allegiant to themselves first and to make common cause with other wealthy and privileged people from other nations, rather than with their own native peoples. Technology matters too: Marx lived in the time when the ship and the train raised the ability of the commoner to move across borders just like the nobles did.

Like Marx, I think nation states are a less-than-stable idea. Unlike Marx, I think that the problem is more fundamental than that of classes. I believe “class warfare” is a symptom of the sickness which places people under land instead of over it; of saying that people belong to a land instead of to a family and by extension to a nation of people–and that land belongs to them each, individually.

There’s a lot more that can be said about this. For example: In pre-feudal England, each free man (which were the great majority, only slaves weren’t free men) was required to own a spear and was subject to be summoned for war; usually on a rotation. Which makes sense: It’s your land, you defend it. Feudalism led directly to professional mercenary armies that worked anywhere and everywhere for the highest bidder while the inhabitants of the lands in contest got burned, pillaged, and raped–because it wasn’t the peasants place to fight.

Again, there are a lot of things to look at. Feudalism is like a softer Sparta where the 10% of Spartans ruled (brutally) over 90% Helots. Anglo-Saxon England was analogous to Athens. Early America was also in the vein of Athens (e.g. 2nd Amendment of weapons and militias), but we are rapidly moving towards a more feudal and Spartan model (e.g., civilians thanking warriors for their service of invading countries to the sole benefit of the leaders) instead of actually picking up a weapon and defending what they own.

Marx was a wicked and short-sighted man who weaponized envy on a multinational and multigenerational scale, but nation states don’t set the world in order, either.

He Put Her Boots on Like Any Other Man

Oscar left a link to an article about a Wyoming homesteader named Elinor Pruitt Stewart. She is presented as an American heroine, but turns out to be more of a fantasy. Here’s the short version:

Elinor was born after the last Comanches had been sent to reservation. By her adulthood, the American West had been tamed, but not yet settled. After divorcing her first husband of three years she moved to Wyoming and took a job as a housekeeper. Then she married her boss. He built an add-on to his house so that she could live in it and pretend to be an independent homesteader. This pretension went on for years, as she hid the fact that she had married her boss, and that his family controlled “her” homestead; even after Atlantic Monthly began to publish her accounts. For years readers of her letter accounts were misled to believe she was single instead of married and supported by a husband and his family. According to those who published her letters: The greatest (conscious) threat to Stewart were coyotes; which are skittish creatures. 

She didn’t own her homestead. She didn’t build her house. She didn’t depend on herself. She didn’t fight off anyone or anything. She told lies that she homesteaded independently.

I will continue research, so please point me towards more historical books and articles.