You Can Drive When I’m Dead

Driving Miss Crazy demonstrates (I hope) the unfairness of our situation. A woman does sometimes try to grab the wheel of the car we’re to drive; yet it is his car, and he is in the driver’s seat. When that happens, the only wise thing to do is stop the car, right then, and tell her that his car goes where he wants and it is literally in his hands. She is welcome to come along. She is encouraged to come along. But she should never try to steer the car.

Sometimes he might ask her to hold the wheel on course for moment while he digs something out of his pocket, but that it will never happen while he needs to make a change in direction.

A wise man won’t give up the wheel too often because his wife will being to wonder who is driving this thing? And if she can do it well this far, maybe better progress will be made. Why, if she’s competent to steer with one hand for a moment, how much better could the trip go if she used both as much as she wanted?

If that happens: Stop the car. Don’t wrestle over control. Don’t try to fight her. Don’t wait until the car crashes to prove you were right. Stop the damn car. You go no further until she agrees to keep her hands off the wheel.

What do I mean by “stop the car”? It means nothing else gets done before the steering conflict is resolved. It means don’t talk about anything else until the conflict is resolved: No bills, no budget, no extra-curricular activities, no lawn, no trash, no in-laws, no Daddy Time with the kids. All those things are “driving the car” of a father’s life, and none of them are safe while the wrong person thinks she’s driving the car.

She may get out. Tell her she should get back in. Do not start driving until she agrees to keep her hands off the wheel.

She may not get back in. Roll on, slowly at first, but after a time she either will or won’t and you have to keep moving.

If she grabs the wheel again, stop the damn car again. Never allow the car to go while she fights for control of the car. After you die, then she can drive.

Advertisements

Getting Away with Divorce

Recently, Chasity Dawn Carey, a 42-year old bail bondswoman in Oklahoma was acquitted of first degree murder. Last year she lured her client Brandon Williams back to her office by offering to buy his car for her son. Here’s what happened.

Woman sets up shop to attract lawbreaking men. She gives them time and money in an attempt to extract the same at a later date, but with interest. This lawless man didn’t giver her what she wanted so under false pretenses she lured him into another agreement. Then she springs the trap to get him do surrender to her. She wants her child to actually put on the cuffs–to be the restraining factor–while she scolds away.

The lawless man, which she repeatedly set out to attract, was much bigger and stronger than her, but he didn’t use his superiority. Instead he tried to escape without harming her. While the man was utterly defenseless the woman shot him in the back and he died. Her son was the most traumatized by the violence, but the woman was convinced the justice system would hold her guiltless.

A jury of her peers (society) excused the killing as self-defense because the woman lied that she had been attacked, and because the man was bigger and stronger and so he could have hurt her. It seemed better to them that she shot him even though he didn’t actually abuse her.

It is like an interpretive film of divorce in America.

(Hat-tip: infowarrior1)

(Updated to better reflect the son’s role in this interpretive drama.)

(UPDATE II This post might be confusing. Hopefully this helps unlock the metaphor I mean to convey: I interpret the bail-jumper as a husband who sins in a typical, low-level, way; sinful, but he’s not “jumped bail” on murder charges before returning to his wife (a bail-bondswoman.))

Doing Evil so that Nothing May Come of Marriage

Repurposed from a comment here at Theology Like a Child.

I read Nathan’s Rinne’s post, “Addendum to the LCMS’s When Homes are Heartless: Another Problem from Another Angle”. Then I read,”When Homes are Heartless”. Then I read the post again.

First, the title: “When Homes are Heartless”. It is the beginning of an incomplete statement, the second half of which is, “then Divorce”. That sounds non-Christian, doesn’t it?

Throughout the essay a little game is played where divorce is equated to violence on the strength of Malachi 2:16. That is true: divorce is violence. But what the author(s) do is errantly reverse this truth to say that violence is divorce. That is not true in the same way that “2” is “a number” but “a number” is not “2”. But if one falsely says that violence is divorce, then he can blame the violent for the divorce instead of blaming the divorcer–the one who files for divorce–of committing violence.

This is made explicit when the author(s) writes: “Just as sin can kill a human person, it can also kill a marriage or permanently damage or destroy a family.” No! Divorce kills marriages. The knife in the heart of a marriage is the divorce decreed and nothing else. In the real world, you can punch the spouse, kick the magistrate, run over the bailiff’s dog and still not get married again until the divorce is decreed. In America more than 70% of the time it is the wife who murders her marriage. That’s just reality. Domestic violence is vicious and indefensible, but as despicable as domestic violence is, it does not kill marriage. It does no violence to marriage unless the violence actually stops a physical heart. To say that it does is to judge senselessly. Anyone who doubts this is living in a fantasy. They can test it by trying to marry another before the divorce is decreed.

Heartlessness in the essay is specifically epitomized as domestic violence, but heartlessness comes in many forms; often from women. In fact my observation of the churched (not just people, and not just Christians, but regular attenders) is that the wife is considerably more likely to be heartless towards her husband. Christian husbands I know have suffered through bouts, sometimes years long, when his wife denies him intercourse. I have heard wives publicly berate and shame their husbands for the smallest failures or infractions. I have known no husbands who have beat their wives for years, or even once. I’m sure they exist, but I will believe my eyes and say that whoever wrote “When the Home is Heartless” has acted foolishly and cowardly by wasting time on something that the “Left-hand Kingdom” goes out of its way to punish, but he ignores the weightier sins of fraud by wives within churches.

“But, but Cane! We haven’t stamped out every instance of domestic violence by every Christian husband. Therefore it is desirable that we focus on this irregular problem of domestic violence in the LCMS, and leave repentance for the common sins later. Besides, we will gain favor with the worldly; even the Feminists! They will see God’s glory in protecting women!”

“Their condemnation is just.” I mean: We do know that the general consensus of the worldly is that Christian men are pansies whose own ugly and cold wives don’t care to touch them, don’t we? Except they be hardcore Feminists or something else like San Francisco liberals–who live their lives without a white Christian (They indulge the non-whites with their “superstitions”) ever in physical sight–they do not believe Christian husbands beat their wives.

Driving Miss Crazy

A man is driving a car with a woman beside him when suddenly she grabs the wheel and tells him it’s dangerous for a passenger to drive at such high speed. A short time later she curses him for a weak right foot while she steers; the jerk was on the gas when his hands were on the wheel!

Who should be held responsible for the safe operation of the car?

I’m for the Opposite of the Pence Rule

Zippy Catholic made me aware of a controversy and scandal (of either one sort or another)  which had happened, and is still happening (in one way or another), at a place called Christendom College in Virginia.

Apparently a young female student drove herself (she was the driver with the car keys) and her boyfriend away from the college, past the local town with its hundreds of businesses and thousands of residences, deep into the Shenandoah mountains, to an isolated location in a national park.  A year and a half later she was talking about it with a professor and claimed she now realized that she was raped, in a classic “he said she said, long after the fact” scenario.

I find this story perfectly plausible. It is also manifestly unverifiable.

By all accounts the college did everything it could do in as professional, compassionate, and (nontrivially) legal a manner as anyone could reasonably expect.  The young man was investigated and punished for actually verifiable behaviors on campus, etc — the details (putative and otherwise), again, are available elsewhere so there is no need to rehash them here.

[…]

A more pertinent question then is, who is responsible for there not being any evidence?  Who put us in this situation?  Was it Christendom College with its overbearing and oppressive institutional success, when compared to pretty much all colleges everywhere, in keeping rapeyness and even consensual debauchery off campus; or was it someone else?

The most proximate person responsible for the impossibility of determining the truth in an objective, public way is the person in the literal driver seat who chose to drive the two of them, alone, deep into the Virginia wilderness.  And in close proximity to that person – perhaps carrying the greater responsibility, because responsibility comes along with age, wisdom, and authority – are parents who give driver’s licenses to young women and send them off to college hundreds of miles distant without any inkling that a seventeen year old driving deep into the wilderness with a random boyfriend is every bit as imprudent as a ten year old getting into a car with a stranger offering candy.

I agree with basically all that. My one difference is that I think we can also add colleges who encourage parents to send their daughters off to coed colleges hundreds of miles distant.

Christendom may be the best run coed in-residence college in the history of colleges. I couldn’t say. I also don’t care because coed in-residence colleges are a really foolish idea. At best, Christendom College is the finest college at conserving Feminist victories and making them “work”.

Seen but not Preached

Ryder commented:

This [CC: women in bawdy forms of men’s dress] is one of those things that, once you see it, you see it everywhere.

How do we know the legs in this photo belong to kick-ass girls on the job site? Because they’re wearing skin-tight pants.

It brought me joy to read. To help men to observe what they have already and always seen is what I really like to do. It’s why the blog is called “Things We Have Heard and Known”.

16 Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee. 17 And unto Adam he said, Because thou hast hearkened unto the voice of thy wife, and hast eaten of the tree, of which I commanded thee, saying, Thou shalt not eat of it: cursed is the ground for thy sake; in sorrow shalt thou eat of it all the days of thy life; 18 thorns also and thistles shall it bring forth to thee; and thou shalt eat the herb of the field; 19 in the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground; for out of it wast thou taken: for dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return.

As far as I can tell, the sight that Christian men in America see but do not observe is that women (especially wives) are tempted to bring to heel men (especially their husbands) because of their sin nature. They are tempted to this like a man is tempted to avoid work.

Every day most men get up and say, “I wish I didn’t have to work today.”, or, “I hope work goes by fast”, or something like it. And every day women get up and say to themselves, “I wish everyone else would do what I say.”, or “I hope I get to prove to him wrong so he’ll see how right I am.”

Think about that. Every day. All day. As many times that you as a man are waiting for work to be over, or wishing that the work was more satisfying, or thinking about what you will do after work, or waiting for retirement: That’s how much and how often a woman is tempted to tell her husband to step the hell off and do what she says.

The desire of his to relax, and her to command, have not yet abated even though Christ has forgiven our sins. We still die and return to dust. Children are still born and reared in sorrow. Men still must labor for bread. Women still chomp at the bit to reign.

Her desire to rule is not hypergamy from an accident of natural selection; a wholesome sexual selection process that sometimes goes awry. No. Hypergamy is one strategy–of many–that women use to project power over men. Because in her mind it is always in question whether or not she can get him to obey.Likewise, women are not shit-testing to see if her man is “fit” to rule. “Shit-tests” are to see how much she can get away with, and how likely she is to get her way. Period. That’s it. That’s why she gets worse about it after marriage and she’s pledged to have and to hold until death. There’s no final test to pass. There will be no satiation for her hunger to rule until the Lord returns.

It’s just a misery that she has to fight against. There is no benefit just as there is no benefit to any sin.

Observe what you see.

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.

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”.