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.”

 

Advertisements

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.

On Christian Female Bloggers II: The Gold Standard of Reverent

Prepare to be offended.

But as for you [Titus], teach what accords with sound doctrine. Older men are to be sober-minded, dignified, self-controlled, sound in faith, in love, and in steadfastness. Older women likewise are to be reverent in behavior, not slanderers or slaves to much wine. They are to teach what is good, and so train the young women to love their husbands and children, to be self-controlled, pure, working at home, kind, and submissive to their own husbands, that the word of God may not be reviled.

I think my readers know what is meant by “not slanderers” and “or slaves to much wine”, but “reverent in behavior” means what for people in our society? Towards the end of his post (and him with no knowledge my post was in the works) Dalrock translated the specific Greek words used in Ephesians for fear and reverence.

Fearing women, however, is not something that the Bible teaches.  Christians are to fear God, and wives are to fear their husbands.  As every Christian feminist’s favorite verse in Ephesians 5 explains, Christians in general are to submit to one another in fear (also translated as reverence) of God:

21 Submitting yourselves one to another in the fear of God.

A bit later, in Ephesians 5:33, Paul explains that a wife is to fear (also translated as reverence) her husband (ISV):

33 But each individual man among you must love his wife as he loves himself; and may the wife fear her husband.

Interestingly in some translations fear is used in verse 21 while reverence is used in verse 33***, as is the case with the King James version:

21 Submitting yourselves one to another in the fear of God.

…33 Nevertheless let every one of you in particular so love his wife even as himself; and the wife see that she reverence her husband.

Other times we see it the other way around as is the case with the International Standard Version:

21 and you will submit to one another out of reverence for the Messiah.

…33 But each individual man among you must love his wife as he loves himself; and may the wife fear her husband.

Translation is a necessary and noble endeavor, but it is one I am happy to trust to professionals and my friends[1].

My process is much simpler. I performed a Google search of every blog recommended to me for the word knee because kneeling is the gold standard of submission and reverence. That (should have) found even comments with knee and its derivatives. Then I bookmarked each result. Of them all, only one post contained a reference of one spouse kneeling to another. It was at “A Peaceful Wife”, by April Cassidy[2]

It came from an email from a reader which April posted for mutual inspiration. She wrote:

I finally found out what he meant by “arguing” by reading your blog. I seriously had NO IDEA!! I didn’t understand why he would get mad when I “shared my feelings” with him until reading your blog. I felt absolutely baffled by it! He also notoriously calls me “negative” and tells me I “complain” a lot, which would make me furious! And so I would defend myself thinking that he would then see that he was hurting me and fall on his knees to apologize.. I had no idea that I was actually perpetuating the disrespect by defending myself. This is still the hardest thing for me because I hate being wrong and being the person who needs to apologize, etc.[3]

She knew that the right thing to do when asking forgiveness was assume a humble posture, but when she realized it was herself who should apologize: She didn’t kneel as she had wanted her husband to do. Instead she took April’s advice and walked out of the room. Later she told her husband he’s a very good boy:

One other huge break through, I have tried many times in the past to tell him things I do respect about him but he has never believed me and he knew I was just doing an exercise I read in a book or something. However, after reading your blog and comments on there, etc, I realized that he has never withdrawn from me or our boys and he has never stopped leading, even in the face of my disrespect and attempts to control.
  • So I told him that I was very impressed that he still continues to lead, to tell me my sin, and to try to engage in the family even when I’m wrong and even when most men do the opposite.[3]

April posted this to her own blog as an example of a submissive wife. That–walking out of a room, and saying what a good boy a husband is– is not a picture of submissive wife. That is a picture of a doting mother. I must assume she knows the difference. Remember: This woman wanted her husband to give her the gold standard in submission. She knows that standard is kneeling.

In fact none of the female Christian blogs I searched ever mentioned a wife assuming the posture of submission; of her kneeling. There are admonitions for tone of voice, and silence, and just about any other vagaries of action which are only nonchalance disguised as submission. This lack shows in a couple ways. First, you can see it in wordiness and meandering of posts on submission by otherwise well-meaning women. (One has to shovel a lot of vagaries to fill the hole left by kneeling.) Second, even women who are trying to be submissive leave comment after comment about “running out of ideas” on how to make their submission apparent to their husbands; as if men hadn’t the eyes to see submission. I’m sorry to say that is often the charge leveled at husbands. If a wife kneeled, could her submission be in question? No.

This topic makes me uncomfortable. I don’t think I’m alone in that. Dalrock’s post continues:

This is not to say that Christian wives are to worship their husbands as Christian men today so often worship women, but clearly there is a healthy reverence wives are instructed to have for their husbands in line with headship and submission.

I know I’ve said the same. While it is murmured elsewhere that I am an oppressive dolt, the fact is you can’t keep me from tripping over myself to make clear my haste to demonstrate my lack of need for submission…which is a lie that I’ve been telling myself since I began thinking about submission. I do need my wife’s submission if I want a wife at all!

The truth is that I I had been overlooking it forever. And–in my defense–I’ve been warned away from female submission my entire life. In the post this series corrects, I erroneously wrote:

Submission is the absence of rebellion. Wives don’t have to learn “how to be submissive”; they just have to decide not to rebel.

It’s true that one way to define submission is the absence of rebellion, but I was wrong in that women do have to learn to submit. And I do have to learn how to accept it. My mind has put forth to me every kind of excuse against kneeling, but–discomforting or not–the fact is irrefutable that the gold standard of submission is kneeling. Therefore, can we say of anyone who disdains (or even merely eschews) kneeling, that they are in submission?

I’m a bit timid of this line of thinking. There is some sickness in me that wants my wife to find me…what? Equal? Unworthy? Something. At the same time: The sickness makes me bitter when it gets its wish! It is a stupid sickness of the Old Adam and it must be crucified within me. Healthy marriage is too important.

Here’s why: I see the ships of those who pilot for Biblical Marriage repeatedly crash on the shoals of questions like this:

  • What if my husband asks me to sin?
  • What if my husband won’t follow-through on (church, praying, controlling finances, etc.)?
  • What if my husband ignores me?
  • What if my husband won’t forgive me for my mistakes?
  • What if I really need (food, clothes, etc.) but my husband won’t provide it?
  • What if I’ve tried everything and nothing works?

Here’s my response from now on: After you tried smiling sweetly, and doting on him, and the silent treatment, and standing up for yourself, and going behind his back, and taking matters into your own hands, and bringing in the pastor: Did you try kneeling before your husband in submission?

Are Christian female bloggers aware that kneeling is the gold standard of submission? Yes. In fact, the more “spiritual” the blogger wants to sound, the more she mentions kneeling submissively in prayer. “Hit my knees!” “Fell to my knees!” “Knelt right there on the linoleum!” They know submission during prayer is important.

As I said: Not one of the Christian female bloggers suggest kneeling to her husband. To be reverent to their husbands, and to teach young women to be submissive, they must start.


[1] I’m looking at you, Deep Strength, Jonadab, and others!

[2] Who is not 60, nor a grandmother, nor post-menopausal. In no way do I find her to be an elder woman.

[3] Emphasis in original

Inverted Propaganda of Perverted Reality

Commenter GK Chesterton wrote:

Great story but…ugh. Pizza delivery?

I myself am surprised at the location in which I have found myself. Somewhere around here I am sure I have a tract given to me by feminists. In it, are pictures of male devils (Patriarci, perhaps) leading around women in chains, whoring them out, and then promptly confiscating the funds into their own demonic treasuries.

If that nonsense were the truth, then Patriarchy would still be in force. It is in fact the exact opposite in every way. Women who are let to run around unattached whore themselves out at the expense of their fathers.

Last night (close to midnight) I made a delivery to an apartment of two attractive women and their very fat male friend. One of the women was lying sprawled on the front porch. It was a low porch, directly adjacent to the parking lot and the headlights of my vehicle shone directly between her spread legs and up her gym shorts; illuminating the interior. She did not mind. I cannot say if light shone out her belly button; as her shirt was actually performing its function…and more.

They were laughing, and the supine woman did not close her legs as I approached. Addressing the vertical woman I said, “Howdy. It’s $12.47.” The one on the ground shot her arms up at me for the pizza. Written on her shirt in neat bold marker was the word “TIT”. The word was big enough to cover the two under it, and there were many other scribblings that I did not read because I was distracted by the other “TIT” written in red marker on her cheek.

I handed the pie to the lying girl as the porcine man got out money. The standing woman took a picture of her friend holding up the pizza as I loomed over the latter, waiting for the fat guy’s cash.

Yet, for some reason, adults (I mean adults who live in the real world and not college world) I know are mystified, sad, and even snide about my choices. That is not a reference to commenter GKC, but to those around me in physical space.

The point is: Don’t believe the brochure. Patriarchy, in relationship to its daughters, is more about standing guard and sacrifice and not much about pleasure and riches.

Find the Lady in Weighting: The Church Woman’s Con Game

Oscar asked:

I have an off-topic question for you regarding 1 Cor 14.

34 Women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the law says. 35 If they want to inquire about something, they should ask their own husbands at home; for it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in the church.

I understand the entire chapter’s subject is maintaining constructive order in collective worship, but I don’t understand why it’s inherently “disgraceful” or detrimental to constructive order for a woman “speak in the church”.

Or, am I missing something about what Paul is referencing when he mentions women speaking in church?

SirHamster replied:

In two different mixed-sex Bible studies I’ve led, I have had women drone on and on off-topic, caught up in their feelings on the subject.

“God is love, so God is feelings! Feelings are important!” That Bible Study had previously emphasized that Biblical love is an act of will, not feelings – and I’m ashamed now that I let that go on with no answer for 5 minutes. Need to learn to cut off unfruitful tangents in a discussion.

What I am learning from those experiences and various Manosphere/Game blogs is that women are not men with boobs, they have a womanly nature that processes the world differently. And they can and will go on a chain of “logic” that is not.

Bobbye added:

Women asking questions in the assembly show a fundamental disrespect for her husband and /or father if he is also a member of the assembly. Did she ask at home and not get an answer? Are the men in her home without knowledge? Or is it that she doesn’t respect their answers? She wants an answer from a ‘real’ authority. If headship serves no real purpose, why pretend that the husband is the head? If the woman’s husband/father is not a christian, then for decorum’s sake she should ask her questions privately, so as to not lead others astray.I once attended a church where an elder did not know who Jeremiah was. If churches actually practiced this observance, then men would be obligated to be more knowledgeable and wise in the Scriptures and the ways of God.

It’s these, altogether. This blog is not a church, but it suffered the same problems. No feminists trouble me. The impetus for my ban on female commenters was the comments of wives who confessed to believe the Bible and the husband’s headship.

Inevitably, disagreement happens and when it does then many of those supposedly Bible-believing, husband-following wives switch to a conversational form of Find the Lady. When what she had said is challenged, that gets shuffled to the position of “what her husband said”; to the cheers and jeers of the shills around the challenger; who becomes their mark. The shills may be male or female, but usually consider themselves conservative, or traditional.

Some of those wives become more emboldened in argument and more immodest in spirit. Like a wild donkey in heat, they will often start feeling around to take a grab at another man’s balls: “If you were a real man…”; “My husband would kick your ass…”; etc. Such a woman’s hands–one on her husband and one on his adversaries–are filled with two weights; which Moses called dishonest and an abomination.

11 “When men fight with one another and the wife of the one draws near to rescue her husband from the hand of him who is beating him and puts out her hand and seizes him by the private parts, 12 then you shall cut off her hand. Your eye shall have no pity.

13 “You shall not have in your bag two kinds of weights, a large and a small. 14 You shall not have in your house two kinds of measures, a large and a small. 15 A full and fair weight you shall have, a full and fair measure you shall have, that your days may be long in the land that the Lord your God is giving you. 16 For all who do such things, all who act dishonestly, are an abomination to the Lord your God.

She needs to be content with the full and fair weight and measure she has been given in her husband, and not go around fondling other men’s weights to see which is heavier. To do so is dishonest and an abomination. It is this which Paul called disgraceful, and it is; to her, to her husband, and to the church.

The only way to beat the con is to never play. The best way to protect gullible men from becoming marks is to never let disgraceful women setup the con. And the best way to keep disgraceful women from setting the con is to not let any women speak in church…or on this blog.

An Example of the Difference Between Deception and Capitulation

For Donal Graeme, Moose Norseman, and Deep Strength; who are thinking through how men and women differently go astray.

Helen wakes and gets ready to see Tom; whom she desires. She does as she has been taught women do to get a man’s attention; what every woman she knows does. She shaves her legs. To her face she applies concealer, powder, lipstick, rouge, mascara, and eyeshadow. She films her dyed and highlighted hair with potions, and blow-dries it into a shape that defies its natural tendencies. Hose tightens and disguises her cellulite, while heels sculpt her legs and buttocks to appear longer and more pert. She puts on a bra that bulks her breasts before lifting and separating them. She tops it all with a frock which gives the appearance of bigger breasts, a smaller waist, and longer legs, and a spritzes herself with perfume to make herself smell different. She is pleased with herself, and thinks this is good for her and Tom; especially if it makes him love her.

Tom sees Helen. He is Texan and crass, and so he says to himself, “I believe I’d drink her dirty bath water.” Of course he believes nothing of the kind. It’s a funny thing to say (in a crass way, of course) because Tom knows drinking dirty bath water is foul, and wrong; just like fornicating with Helen. It’s an admittance that he’d give up his wisdom and respect for a chance to indulge himself in her deception, and her in her arrogance. He is not deceived about the nature of the event. He’s making a choice in full knowledge of what is right and wrong.

Did Helen deceive Tom with her appearance? Somewhat. He is aware it’s a show, and that it’s a show of an available woman. But keep in mind: In order to deceive Tom into believing she is more beautiful than she is, Helen has invested more than two hours in a campaign against her natural state. It is an elaborate and precarious setup which could not survive a washing. If Tom is fooled, then it is because the preparation was so intense.

To Helen he says, “What a lovely-looking lady”; whom he is not loving, and who is not a lady.

She falls immediately for his two-second line.

A Grace for Men

As I’ve maintained: I write this blog for present and future husbands and fathers. Today that sentiment will become more visible. From now on, comments from women will be deleted. My hope is that this will encourage a more brotherly atmosphere. It is doubted in my mind if there has ever been a time or place where men (even Christian men) could talk frankly–and hear earnestly–in the presence of audible women (even Christian women).

Women will probably still read here. They may continue to “Like” posts. They might be in my “Blogs I Read” list. I like women very much, and enough of them like me, but we are made in such a way that men will always react to a woman’s presence, and while it is easy for me to police that tendency in myself, I know it is not for others. This is a grace to them, for a change.

As this goes forward, I won’t be preemptively adding past female commenters to the “moderated” list. My method will be to unapprove them as I see them, and as I am able to discern the commenter is a woman. Some may dress themselves in men’s names and sneak through, but even as they do so they remove the impact of men reacting to a female presence. It would be a meaningless victory for the pretender. At some point I will add this to the tabbed pages, or the “About” tab.

“The Difference between Gold and Pigs”, or “Mennonites in the Mist”

Some people are laboring under the delusion that there exists a continuum upon which modesty slides; that on one end there is attractiveness, and on the other end there is immodesty, and on the other end there is unattractiveness, and on the other end there is gaudiness… If you have figured out that we have too many ends for one continuum, then keep reading this post.

Modesty is first and foremost about holiness. Holiness is about keeping things separate that do not belong together, and keeping things together that do; to set aside for a particular purpose.

Immodesty isn’t about being “too attractive”. Bare breasts aren’t immodest because men find them alluring. Bare breasts are immodest because they don’t belong to anyone but the owner and her husband; who are one flesh. Don’t show what cannot be shared, and what you do show be prepared to lose. Likewise, modesty isn’t about being “not too attractive”. A nude fat guy with seeping wounds all over his body is not modest either; no matter how unattractive he is.

Modesty is on its own continuum, and attractiveness on its. They are separate things, and the second is much more subjective than the first in the eyes of those on this side of the dark glass. The author of Proverbs 11 said it this way:

Like a gold ring in a pig’s snout
    is a beautiful woman without discretion.

Neither diminishes or even modifies the other. Gold is worth its weight whether it adorns a pig or a king, and a pig is an unclean beast no matter how much gold it drags through the mud. It only seems like the pig and the gold are modifying each other if we walk by sight rather than by faith. The faithful one distinguishes (again the idea of setting aside; making discrete) To the pure all things are pure: pigs, breasts, gold…everything. Even Mennonites!

Mom in a Shoe linked to some clothes

2010 sized3

that others[1] labelled “uncool”, “unattractive”, “weird”, and so forth. Whatever else one may say about them: One must admit that Mennonite women dress as their fathers chose, and not as their own natures tempted them. If you cannot say one other good thing about them, then you can say–must say–that they are obedient in their dress, even if nothing else. If modesty is of a kind with set apart, and separate, and pure, and obedient, then the dress of Mennonite women should be seen as–at the very least–women in contrast to the bedazzled pigs of modern society.

Do not put them down. Do not put down the clothing of any modestly dressed women if you want to see more modesty in general. You can encourage, or suggest, or model..but what does it mean to call a woman “uncool” in a world full of pigs? It’s foolishness. Say nothing if you cannot say speak good of good things. From the same Proverb:

With his mouth the godless man would destroy his neighbor,
    but by knowledge the righteous are delivered.
10 When it goes well with the righteous, the city rejoices,
    and when the wicked perish there are shouts of gladness.
11 By the blessing of the upright a city is exalted,
    but by the mouth of the wicked it is overthrown.
12 Whoever belittles his neighbor lacks sense,
    but a man of understanding remains silent.
13 Whoever goes about slandering reveals secrets,
    but he who is trustworthy in spirit keeps a thing covered.

Besides: Look at the picture. Those are four beautiful girls. Appearances can certainly be deceiving[2], but judging by appearances: Any young man would be lucky to gain the favor of those girls’ father, marry one, and then in holiness dress her up for himself however he would like.

[1] These people are mostly young, and had the poor judgment to be born in the modern era just like the rest of us. I don’t blame them for being ignorant, but here it will be challenged. PancakeLoach was one of them, and she’s now engaged in a multi-comment, multi-post rant against me which is totally incoherent. This is what she choose to do when I pointed out that she is among those who are sneering at Mennonites. This has seemed better to her than to say, “My bad”, “point taken”, or something similar.

[2]For all I know they might not be family, and that photo could have been taken right before they modeled bikinis for another company. 

Because He Said So

Despite devilish and divisive opinions to the contrary, there exist persons explicitly ordained and commanded to say what is–and what is not–modest. They are called fathers and husbands. The reason I said “To get out of this trap is going to take generations. I suspect that my daughters may be among the first Yiayias in a long time” is because Yiayia’s don’t occur out of nowhere. Nor do their standards of modesty arise from the ether. They are the product of long and loving toil from their fathers and husbands.

A good name is to be chosen rather than great riches,
    and favor is better than silver or gold.
The rich and the poor meet together;
    the Lord is the maker of them all.
The prudent sees danger and hides himself,
    but the simple go on and suffer for it.
The reward for humility and fear of the Lord
    is riches and honor and life.
Thorns and snares are in the way of the crooked;
    whoever guards his soul will keep far from them.
Train up a child in the way he should go;
    even when he is old he will not depart from it.

and

25 Husbands, love your wives, as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her,26 that he might sanctify her, having cleansed her by the washing of water with the word,27 so that he might present the church to himself in splendor, without spot or wrinkle or any such thing, that she might be holy and without blemish. 28 In the same way husbands should love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself. 29 For no one ever hated his own flesh, but nourishes and cherishes it, just as Christ does the church, 30 because we are members of his body.

The generations before us–since at least and including “The Greatest Generation”–have not only dropped the ball, but tossed it out of the park and declared the whole activity of raising children to be a null and boring and even oppressive pastime. The field itself was let to go wild; so now men like Empath, Dalrock, Oscar–and yes myself–are flat lost in a thorny, rocky, arid wilderness that many pretend is still a fit ballpark. It’s a lie.

What seems so mysterious and subjective to women is not to men. That is because while women are well-positioned to police these matters, they are not the arbiters of them. Husbands and fathers are. What makes Yiayias unseemly to modern people–why they work to make them irrelevant, and corral them into oblivion–is that those women bear the beauty of truth from a lifetime of listening to their husbands and fathers; who they did not rebel against and who they did not divorce as our post-modern women do.

Of those husbands and fathers, not one of them was perfect. It didn’t matter because for the person in the position of submission: Obedience unto a husband and father and unto God will itself prove fruitful. Likewise, imperfection in training a child or washing a wife with the Word does not nullify God’s promise. Steadfast faithfulness with what we have been entrusted will bring forth a harvest.

So, modesty is defined and judged by the fathers and husbands, and policed by older women

But as for you (Titus, the pastor of the church in Crete, a man) , teach what accords with sound doctrine. Older men are to be sober-minded, dignified, self-controlled, sound in faith, in love, and in steadfastness. Older women likewise are to be reverent in behavior, not slanderers or slaves to much wine. They are to teach what is good, and so train the young women to love their husbands and children, to be self-controlled, pure, working at home, kind, and submissive to their own husbands, that the word of God may not be reviled.

Likewise, despite raging controversies over whether Christians ought to date, hook-up, engage in formalized courtship, whathaveyou–the main and Biblical thing is to do is: What your own father and husband approves.  Dating, courtship, “the college experience”…these are all systems that may have been put forth as helpful guidelines, but the moment the father becomes subject to them rather than the systems subject to the fathers, then they become corrals to pen in the shepherds. This cannot be allowed to continue.

Patriarchy scares women. More importantly it incites them to harridan heights under the excuse of fear. But like a man must gird his loins even when fear turns his bowels to water, women are going to have to reach deep down insides themselves and kill that rebellious spirit.

If the Christian’s Men’s Sphere proves anything, it’s that fathers and husbands will have discussions among themselves. They will set the community standards; fluidly and organically, but like concerned family farmers with a vested interest and not as eco-crazed nihilists or money-crazed corpo-rape-tions.  These things can remain subjective and mysterious to women (as their nature adores), but to us they will be toiled over and decided in love. At the same time, we depend most heavily on the support of women to uphold us as we undertake these tasks. It is not good for us to be alone. The blessings of Yiayias are hard to overstate. Just ask those of us fathers and husbands who lack them.

Corralling the Shepherds to Scatter the Sheep

In response to my modesty posts (and to Dalrock’s), there is a consistent refrain that no one gets to set the rules of modesty. Generally it goes thus:

“Modesty is important, and everyone should strive for it..provided that we all understand that modesty cannot be actually be defined or realized. No one gets to set the rules of modesty. Any attempt by an individual to establish what is and what is not modest, is an inherently false attempt. This is because standards of modesty are something that the community establishes…with, again, the important caveat that any such boundaries must be organic, chaotic, and above all unspoken and undecided. Any intentional setting of boundaries–even by the community–immediately disqualifies such boundaries as phony. The worst thing one can do is be deliberate and act as if modesty were real.”

Understand that the opening acceptance of the existence of the thing modesty is meant to sound as if it is a statement in support of it. Rather, it’s establishing the fact of boundaries in general; of which modesty is one sort. Support for boundaries is necessary because the rest of the argument is actually the circumscription to pen in those who would set the boundaries for modesty. The sole purpose of the argument is to hedge the shepherds in and the flocks without.

This argument may be bemoaned, celebrated, or anything in between, but it is so consistent that we must confess it is now the traditional rebuttal to attempts to address immodesty. It is passed from conservative to conservative; most especially by those who call themselves Christian.

It’s a devilishly effective trap that operates in a several ways.The first is that no one is just a shepherd. Everyone beneath God is a sheep to someone, and so out of pride they want those above them to be restrained. They believe that the grass might be greener over there, and they want that option available with minimal fuss.

Secondly, their sheepiness manifests itself as cowardice. Behind the stockade of never shepherding, they can throw up their hands and say, “See? It is out of these! The sheep must, in ignorance, decide for themselves; as we have always done!” Allowing oneself to be hemmed-in is a relief from a fearful thing. To be responsible for someone often enervates and harrows the soul.

Third, shepherds are in favor of boundaries. It’s the nature of their job. Being believers in the goodness of boundaries they desire to not transgress their own boundaries. They are law-abiders who live in a world where the one law they have been told is to not make laws for others. They must be shepherds who must not shepherd.

Then there is the world’s response to us. Dalrock introduced us to Atheno’s (Kraft’s) character Yiayia as a symbol of a female shepherdess. She was created by a an ad agency bolster the Atheno’s brand. Below the linked case study video they write:

We created a story around Yiayia (Greek for grandmother). Specifically, an old-fashioned grandmother who’s not shy about giving her opinion on everything from what’s on TV to who you’ve married, but especially on what you eat. She gets away with it because it comes from love, but it can sometimes be a bit awkward. Yiayia represents old world Greece, Greek values, and most importantly she represents preparing food the right way. And she will intimidate anyone who doesn’t agree with these ways. There is, therefore, no better sign of quality than her approval. This was an idea that captured beloved perceptions of Greek culture but was relatable to everyone.

Yiayia, like plain yogurt, is good for you, but has an odd taste. She was relatable to everyone because we know that grandmothers are supposed to love us, and therefore hold the line because they know better.

The campaign worked. From the case study:

Yiayia launched with a bang: after a critical article in USA Today that got people talking and fans defending, the videos drew 1.6MM views on YiaTube in the first 4 weeks live (this above and beyond what was delivered through television and paid digital media). Within the first week, Yiayia ads mocking Charlie Sheen were produced by a radio DJ in Chicago, and YIayia was mentioned in the Conan monologue.

According to an independent quantitative study done by Ace Metrix for Marketing Daily, the Yiayia spots beat all competitors in effectiveness and overall performance.
But the ultimate proof is in sales results, and a mere 6 weeks into launch, Athenos hummus and Greek Yogurt sales were trending up, significantly more so in markets where Yiayia was on TV.

Despite the success, Kraft could not stand for it. Yiayia was turned into an idiot that could only be rivaled by a sitcom dad on a “family-friendly” station.

If you visit the Athenos YouTube channel, all pro-Yiayia ads are gone, and in their place are eight videos showing what morons are those grandmas; just like all the shepherds. While that message is from the godless world we must recognize that the majority of Christians uphold it just as they do their ambivalence towards the necessity of fathers and husbands leading their families.

To get out of this trap is going to take generations. I suspect that my daughters may be among the first Yiayias in a long time, and they will have a very tough time getting there; as I have had a tough time raising them to be so. We are laughed at and scorned for our choices–my choices–by acquaintances and family. My children believe they are alone in the world, or very near it. Will they stay with me, or will they reject me and choose the false delights of the world? It’s in the Lord’s hands. As for me and my house we will serve the Lord, even if that means my house must diminish to the sound of the sneers of others. God please forbid.