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.

Advertisements

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”.

Examining Crime with a Speculum

The other day Zippy Catholic wrote:

The most primal power of men is violence. Therefore the besetting sins of incontinent men tend to be sins of violence primarily, and to involve sex only circumstantially/accidentally.  A violent man will use violence to get sex that he desires, but he will also use violence to get other things that he desires: money, drugs, prestige, etc.  This decreases as individual power decreases: the besetting sins of incontinent men with diminished capacity for violence will tend to be more effeminate or androgynous sins.

[…]

This is reflected in prison populations, which are mostly men, because our society is willing to punish crimes of violence but is not willing to punish crimes of sex.

This is, basically, what I believed for years and it is what I was taught. However, it is a false–but seductive–dichotomy which is not actually true. And is not actually reflected in prison populations; 66.7% of which are non-violent criminals and only 33.3% are.

Criminals Imprisoned for Crimes of Violence

g Homicide, Aggravated Assault, and Kidnapping Offenses 5,596 3.20%
k Robbery 6,565 3.80%
l Sex Offenses 15,873 9.10%
m Weapons, Explosives, Arson 29,881 17.20%
33.30%

Criminals Imprisoned for Non-Violent Crimes

a Banking and Insurance, Counterfeit, Embezzlement 517 0.30%
b Burglary, Larceny, Property Offenses 8,171 4.70%
c Continuing Criminal Enterprise 387 0.20%
d Courts or Corrections 802 0.50%
e Drug Offenses 80,585 46.30%
f Extortion, Fraud, Bribery 11,231 6.40%
h Immigration 13,227 7.60%
i Miscellaneous 1,305 0.70%
j National Security 68 0.00%
66.70%

In fact, the most primal power of men is the ability to produce work, and the besetting sin of incontinent men is avoidance of productive work.  Here are the same stats grouped to reflect that.

Criminals Imprisoned for Unlawful Gain

a Banking and Insurance, Counterfeit, Embezzlement 517 0.30%
b Burglary, Larceny, Property Offenses 8,171 4.70%
c Continuing Criminal Enterprise 387 0.20%
e Drug Offenses 80,585 46.30%
f Extortion, Fraud, Bribery 11,231 6.40%
h Immigration 13,227 7.60%
i Miscellaneous 1,305 0.70%
k Robbery 6,565 3.80%
70.00%

Criminals Imprisoned for Gainless Crimes

d Courts or Corrections 802 0.50%
g Homicide, Aggravated Assault, and Kidnapping Offenses 5,596 3.20%
l Sex Offenses 15,873 9.10%
j National Security 68 0.00%
m Weapons, Explosives, Arson 29,881 17.20%
30.00%

It would be even more skewed than that if we could tease out from “gainless crimes” those crimes which were committed en route to unlawful gain; murder for hire, murder for drug turf control, assault for intimidation, kidnapping for ransom, sale of weapons or explosives, arson for fraud, prostitution, pimping, etc. The split is probably closer to 80/20 unlawful gain/gainless crime and possibly even 90/10.

What Zippy, tough-on-crime politicians, and my younger self were noticing was not “the most primal power of men”, but the most sensational. Violence can be scary to everyone, but it really scares the hell out of women. And the West is one giant gynecology office where every problem is a pussy problem.

 

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.

Go to the Mattresses, Female Edition

New commenter Joe was kind enough to drop some hilarious history here which does not speak well for the shield maiden trope.

During the late stages of the [American Civil] War, the town of LaGrange, Georgia, had an armed all-female militia unit which drilled with weapons and which mustered in the street apparently ready to fight when the Federals arrived. The Yank in command, a gentleman and a diplomat, sent a messenger under a white flag to tell them that their homes would not be burned and that (as I recall) “they could surely do more damage with their eyes than with their old squirrel-rifles”.) Reassured, they stood down. LaGrange was not burned, but in a touch suitable for the worst of novels, the Federal in command later married one of the members of the “Nancy Harts” girl militia unit.

Otherwise: They would have been slaughtered. The Union force was strong enough that the Confederate cavalry fled them; according to a link provided by Dalrock.

In mid-April 1865 Major General James H. Wilson led a Union raid on west Georgia. As the Union troops approached LaGrange from West Point, the local Confederate cavalrymen fled, and the Nancy Harts stepped in to protect the town.

…which was accomplished by entreating the Union soldiers to spare the town, and then surrendering to the strong handsome Union soldiers; even unto the mattress.

Real Men Make Riots Safe for Women.

That thought is at the heart of the the conversations about Ann Coulter’s decision to bail from Berkley. The idea that Real Men make _________ safe for women is a particularly effective seduction to use against men. It infers that he–who wants to be a Real Man–has the power and authority to do something about whatever circumstance some woman or women wants to be made safe so that she or they can participate. He usually doesn’t.

Whore Mother May I

The woman was arrayed in purple and scarlet, and adorned with gold and jewels and pearls, holding in her hand a golden cup full of abominations and the impurities of her sexual immorality. And on her forehead was written a name of mystery: “Babylon the great, mother of prostitutes and of earth’s abominations.”And I saw the woman, drunk with the blood of the saints, the blood of the martyrs of Jesus.

When I saw her, I marveled greatly.

I’m sure most of my readers are familiar with Dalrock’s repeated skewering of theological cross-dressing. So they’re also aware that in Protestant teaching and churches this happened under the teaching of the theology of Complementarianism. The Council for Biblical Manhood and Womanhood was formed in 1987 specifically to spread that theology. They have been widely and wildly successful.

But did you know that complementarianism first becomes a thing in a movement called New Feminism? New Feminism is a conservative feminist movement of the 1920s supposedly meant to combat radical feminism by swallowing the radical conceits under a dress. There are overlaps in leadership with the suffragettes. It was also a Roman Catholic movement. The writings of John Paul II are supportive of New Feminism, and I do not know of a retraction from either Benedict XVI, or Francis.

What I observe when I look at Protestant or Roman Catholic clergy is that they are far-and-away more likely to be sons of their mothers rather than sons of their fathers. In short: Clergy are a collection of Momma’s-boys. This makes sense once we realize that the organizing thought of New Feminism, and therefore Complementarianism is around the concept of Mother; not wife, or sister, or daughter. Those are viewed as larval stages. Full-grown woman is Mother. But the Bible, and most of the vastness of Christian theology, teaches men that we are to be imitators of Christ. Christ’s emphasis is on being a son of God; even when full-grown.

Let me say the overarching theology of Christian Complementarianism clearly: The vocation of men is to be Sons of God, and the vocation of women is to be Mothers of God.

What I have also observed of the women of Christian churches is that the majority of them both affirm and excuse the abuse of sex as a means to get what they want (attention, material objects, affection, status, etc.) rather than as the enjoyable work of marriage. They abuse sex by fornicating while unmarried to get what they want, and by refusing sex while married; to either display their unhappiness, or with the full-blown sexual refusal which is divorce. This is the essence of whoredom. The rumors about Catholic school-girls are not unfounded, nor are those about the daughters of Protestant preachers and deacons.

Proposed: Complementarianism just is matriarchy. It was smuggled into churches under the guise of the goodness of motherhood which scratched itchy conservative ears. It has delivered to us whores, and delivered us unto whores.

Poles Tell Us Confronting Women Ineffective

Pro-Lifers[1] tic neurotically about doing what is politically expedient. Namely, if a woman is heading into an abortion clinic then you shouldn’t warn her that she is about to solicit murder, or plead with her to reconsider the murder of her baby. They’ll tell you, if you do that, what will happen is that the woman will defiantly march into the clinic and have her baby murdered. In other words: The hostage-taker will bolt and kill the hostage. And, I am inclined to believe that this is true. But there are at least three big problems with taking this tack.

The first problem for the Pro-Lifer is that we’re not at a sidewalk demonstration. Whether it is me writing on the Internet, you talking amongst friends and family, or a politician’s answer to a talking head: There is no hostage-taking pregnant woman immediately on the scene to woo with soothing words. It’s not politically expedient here to say, as Ted Cruz did

Of course we shouldn’t be talking about punishing women; we should affirm their dignity and the incredible gift they have to bring life into the world.

As I said towards the end of my last post:

Understand that no babies are saved from abortion by ridiculing Trump for his submission to unavoidable logic.

Lies like that don’t save a single baby. Maybe, sometimes, such pandering to would-be murderesses just before they walk into a baby-slaughtering facility is effective in saving the hostage’s life. Outside of that context, such worshipful terms are only that: Worship. The worship is rendered lest some unknown goddess of life and murder out there feels insufficiently served.

The second problem is that giving in to hostage-takers’ demands is a very good way to incite the taking of more hostages. Everyone, including Pro-Lifers, knows that is true, but they do it anyway. WHY? If you want to stop the killing of hostages then the thing to do is make taking hostages at least unprofitable. Even better is to make is punishable. That they don’t (And when the stakes are so high!) leaves me with the inescapable conclusion that the real point of joining a Pro-Life group is that it is the sanctioned method for social-conservatives to bow before women as goddesses. It is a way to pretend to tradition while practicing feminism. As several commenters have rightly noted: They are bowing to the Asherah poles which have been erected in the Temple.

Here’s the biggest problem and here is where it is unavoidably a matter of worshipping the false idol of women: Pro-Lifers are blaming the Lord for abortion. If it were true that telling a woman not to do something–that it is a sin and a crime to commit sins and crimes for which breakers of the law should be and will be punished–pushes women to commit sins and crimes, then it would be the Lord’s fault for bringing sin into the world because He told Eve, through Adam, that if they eat of the Tree of the Fruit of Knowledge they would surely die.

It would be the Lord’s fault that the Ten Commandment’s are broken because He gave them to us and warned us of sin and death.

It would be the Lord’s fault that the Israelites perpetually broke the laws that were given to them through Moses, and that they made and worshipped a golden calf.

It would be the Lord’s fault that the Israelites ignored, mocked, and killed the prophets He sent to warn them, and the Lord’s fault that the Israelites bowed to other gods.

It would be the Lord’s fault that many ignore the Bible because He gave it to us chock full of warnings against sin and death.

It would be the Lord’s fault that many shun the Holy Spirit because He sent Him to us, and bade us listen to Him lest we die forever.

It would be the Lord’s fault that many don’t accept Jesus Christ as their rightful King and Savior because He warned that Hell awaits those who don’t.

All this should sound familiar because it’s been said for a very long time.

The man said, “The woman whom you gave to be with me, she gave me fruit of the tree, and I ate.”

It’s time to get up from among the Pro-Life goddess worshippers, you sleepers.

[1] Can I say too many times that I am anti-abortion?

Throwing Out the Baby to Conserve the Bathwater

A commenter at Dalrock’s tires of explaining the reason for all the lies that were exposed when Donald Trump make the amateur mistake of joining the Pro-Life movement in earnest…

I have already posted enough on this. It’s hard to separate strategy from deep held personal belief. I don’t know what the people who actually dedicate their lives to fighting abortion and not just making blog posts beleive in their deepest heart but I know 100% that their desire to not focus on punishment is largely a strategic decision. As I have posted, to many common people the nuance of explaining we want to punish women for destroying a few cells is so esoteric as to be counter productive.

I, like Zippy and GKC, was surprised at the scorn which was poured on Donald Trump by Pro-Life groups and leadership. I would have previously confessed to be Pro-Life[1], Amateurs, the lot of us. Personally, it is embarrassing to contemplate my rube-ness regarding the Pro-Lifer movement. Days later it would dawn on me that the filthiness Pro-Lifers bathe in is even worse than what prompted my initial shock!

I take it as fact that Donald Trump switched his allegiance from Pro-Choice to Pro-Life and that this was a matter of political prudence for him. I have no problem with that. If someone does the right thing for personal reward, then he has at least worldly wisdom and deserves reward as long as he actually does the right thing.

Having said that: It’s possible that Trump, should he become President, has no intention of changing one dot of abortion law in the US. My suspicion is that Trump has no personal convictions either way. If that’s true, then it should be easier for “real” Pro-Life politicians to entice him to sign-off on some anti-abortion legislation in exchange for support from them on other policies. But I simply don’t know. Regardless, here’s what happened:

  1. Trump decides to run for President as a Republican and claims to be Pro-Life.
  2. Ted Cruz, “Socially Conservative” groups, and the whole breadth of media call bullshit on Trump and accuse him of mere politicking. Another way to explain Trump’s conversion would be to call it adopting an intellectual position rather than naked emotional response. For whatever reason: He thought about it, and changed his mind (correctly) to anti-abortion
  3. Trump, because his conversion was intellectual and not instinctual, got harassed into a logical corner by an openly pro-choice Roman Catholic journalist[2] and confessed the inescapably true argument that the commission of crime is itself a crime, and therefore hypothetically it should be met with “some form of punishment”.
  4. Cruz and Co. pounce on Trump out of both instinct and political expediency; trashing truth and justice in the process.

To me, that is pure monstrosity. They disgust me. Understand that no babies are saved from abortion by ridiculing Trump for his submission to unavoidable logic. What’s important to the Pro-Lifers is conservation of the politically feminist pro-choice bathwater in which they’ve become comfortable; no matter that it’s a tepid 98.6 degrees and red as the Nile on the Passover.

[1]That is to say that I have always been against abortion and thought it to be murder. And, yes, I have fought it personally; against some other Roman Catholics, no less.

[2] Welcome to the whorehouse of mirrors.