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. 

Just to Get Back in the Habit

of writing: here’s a thought I had a couple months ago as I was planing some trim for the house. (I’d be very surprised if it’s new to all my readers, but it was new to me.)

According to the story, Jesus starts his ministry at (about) 30. I always figured that–up until then–he led a relatively normal life. Perhaps it was punctuated by thoughts about his later crucifixion, but also, you know, relatively normal. Besides, He had ultimate faith in the Father, and outright knowledge that He would rebuild the Temple in three days…so perhaps a bit worried, but also secure in the knowledge that before He started His ministry it was basically a different later life. Before the Wedding in Cana is was just a normal life; a basically comfortable pause before the storm.

As I wondered about that previous normal life it occurred to me that His ministry had probably already started, and that for Him there had been one whole life which was not sectioned off as “pre-ministry” and “post-ministry”. Because Jesus, sent from Heaven to die on a wooden cross for our sins, was a carpenter from his youth. He knew the wood by earthly sight and touch. He would have known the beams’ other uses; what they were good for, and not good for. He knew how its grain ran. He would have known the skill (or its lack) of the carpenter who made the cross. Every day He got up to go to work to get better acquainted with the very stuff that would be used to kill Him.

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.

We Do Not Box the Air

Scott over at American Dad Web writes:

All of spiritual discipline is like that. I figure, if its something that you personally find hard to do–but God asks you to do it anyway, you should probably do more of it. Struggle with overeating? Restrict your calories more. Struggle with loving your wife even when she is acting unlovable? Love her more. Struggle with obeying your husband because you think you know better? Submit and get over yourself.

So good.

Our conversations in the Men’s Sphere instruct me in the mystery of communication; of how information is transferred and processed; particularly among men. It is amazing. I mean: You talk about one thing, and I disagree. I say so, and then I talk about something else…but that something else has been influenced–pulled towards agreement–by your first statement, and I don’t even know it. And vice versa, and so on back and forth.

And there is the matrix-ing of information. Months ago Oscar recommended to me Mark Rippetoe’s Starting Strength. Well, Oscar is a big strong guy so I listened to him. I buy Rippetoe’s book and listen to his podcast, and do you know what he says is the best recovery for injury? Lifting weights with the injured limb. He says that physical therapy is a sham which trains one to be weak. Compare that to the words I quoted of you.

Meanwhile, last year someone somewhere linked to an episode of Joe Rogan’s podcast which featured a clinical psychologist and professor named Jordan Peterson. His prescription for solving problems (say, a phobia) is athwart our mass media’s prescription. They say that we should make the problem go away, or that the problem isn’t real. Peterson says (I paraphrase), “No, the problem is real and it’s not going to go away. What you have to do is become stronger than the problem. And you can just like everybody else. Use a tool, chop up the problem into approachable pieces, and then overcome them one by one. The problem doesn’t stop being scary. You just learn to become stronger.”

In all three cases (Scott’s post, Rippetoe, and Peterson) what is brought to mind I will quote below. And it makes sense of why we have a physical body which must die; yet why we are to have hope for an eternal life after that. Here is St. Paul from Romans 5:

Therefore, since we have been justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ. Through him we have also obtained access by faith into this grace in which we stand, and we rejoice in hope of the glory of God. Not only that, but we rejoice in our sufferings, knowing that suffering produces endurance, and endurance produces character, and character produces hope, 5 and hope does not put us to shame, because God’s love has been poured into our hearts through the Holy Spirit who has been given to us.

That hope is that this–life–isn’t just a game. It’s not futile to get stronger (mentally and physically) now only to get weak and die later. Nor is it just of temporal utility; the strength gained isn’t just to make our short lives easier for now. Suffering here is the opportunity to learn to have faith and so to train for eternity.

(Taken almost unmodified from my comment on Scott’s post.)