Music as Moral Solvent: Hypocriticisms in the Cacophonic Phenomenon

One of the things I impress upon my family is how cynical the entertainment industry is towards women. They pump out nonsensical media for women at such speed and volume that one experiences it as a single Cacophonic Phenomenon. As a man, you want to just ignore it and get about your business, or your play, or whathaveyou… I advise against that.

One assault that is common in women’s pop music is the “stream of contradictions”. It’s those songs where the earnest woman sings a bunch of antonyms, seemingly-opposing ideas, or hypocriticisms–boom, boom, boom–one right after the other. Here’s a famous example. (I apologize for what I’m about to do to you.)

I’m a bitch, I’m a lover
I’m a child, I’m a mother
I’m a sinner, I’m a saint
I do not feel ashamed
I’m your hell, I’m your dream
I’m nothing in between
You know you wouldn’t want it any other way

You can read all the lyrics here.

The first thing I want to point out is that last line; which I bolded. Meredith Brooks isn’t just speaking to the man in her life. She’s setting an expectation for all men towards all women, and discouraging all women from seeking sanity. This is accepted because men do often find women confusing, and because women are easily confused. Men underestimate how bewildered and blundering women are as the go through the world. Part of the way they fake understanding is by this pretense of mystery-in-contradictions; such as Brooks describes. The truth is just confusion and lack of boundaries.

The second thing I want to point out is that the song was super popular. In its heyday it seemed like it was on everywhere, all the time. From Wikipedia:

The song steadily rose on the Billboard charts, eventually peaking at number two for four weeks, only behind “I’ll Be Missing You” by Puff Daddy and Faith Evans featuring 112. It debuted and peaked at number six on the UK Singles Chart on 27 July 1997 and stayed in the top ten for four weeks. The song was also a big hit in Oceania, where it reached number two in Australia and four in New Zealand. It ranked at number 79 on VH1’s 100 Greatest Songs of the ’90s.

And, just to underline my point about the widespread acceptance of confusion masked as mystery-in-contradiction, here’s the next paragraph from Wikipedia:

“Bitch” was also used in the 2000 Nancy Myers film What Woman Want, starring Mel Gibson and Helen Hunt. The scene is arguably the most memorable part of the film, as Mel Gibson is seen dressing in womans’ tights and wearing make-up singing to the chorus of the song. From this point in the film the character is able to “hear” what woman want.

There you have it: Only when a man deliberately confuses himself as much as possible can he “hear” what women want, i.e., be pleasing to women. Right. Did any woman suspend that disbelief? Mel Gibson…the guy for whom People magazine invented the “Sexiest Man Alive” award.

This came up today when I was cleaning the music library on my laptop. Over the summer I had backed up all the phones in the house to my iTunes account; including importing everyone’s songs into my library. My wife and daughters, like everyone, get music here and there; free downloads from Starbucks, or copying a coworker’s CD, etc. And they’re girls, so they like girly music and they get music from other girls. While during a long lull of waiting at work, I listened to the songs to see if I wanted to keep any of them. That’s when I came upon this song.

If you save yourself for marriage
You’re a bore
If you don’t save yourself for marriage
You’re a whore-able person
If you won’t have a drink
Then you’re a prude
But they’ll call you a drunk
As soon as you down the first one

If you can’t lose the weight
Then you’re just fat
But if you lose too much
Then you’re on crack
You’re damned if you do
And you’re damned if you don’t
So you might as well just do
Whatever you want

For her oeuvre to foolish peers[1] Kacey Musgraves was awarded performances at both the CMAs and the Grammys in 2013, and CMAs’ Song of the Year in 2014.

“Now, Caldo,” you say, “these songs are nearly two decades apart. This does not a trend make.” My friends, the mystery-in-contradiction is everywhere in the top playlists of every English station, and have been; particularly since the 1990s. There are many previous instances, but it really took off with the rise of Tori Amos, Meredith Brooks, Liz Fair, Something Apple-whatsherface, and all the rest of the Lilith Faire crowd. And it goes on through The Dixie Chicks, KT Tunstall, Taylor Swift, Katy Perry, Kacey Musgraves…

What does the music industry get from women’s confusion? Money. It turns out that confused, vain, and nigh-amoral consumption ‘bots are addicts repeat customers.

Be forewarned: There’s a common bit of advice “Once you see it, you’ll see it everywhere.” It’s the same with the Cacophonic Phenomenon and the mystery-in-contradiction, but it’s more like “Once you make out the words, you can’t ignore them.” Listening to the radio stops being background noise and becomes reports of a horrifying, nearby, war. This knowledge can feel like a curse, but the alternative is more tragic because the Cacophonic Phenomenon is a kind of hypnotism, or snake-charming.

What Are We Doing Here II: That Rock Has Moral Value

Leave it to Dalrock to ask the hard questions. I’ve twice deleted 1500-plus words on this subject because both drafts went in the wrong directions. I’ve chosen to just go the direct route; taking it for granted that everyone understands I’m arguing ideas, and that I have tremendous respect for Dalrock.

In the comments of my previous post Dalrock asks some questions that highlight a clear distinction between myself and most of the rest of the Manosphere, and the majority of the Western world. I had wrote:

Should we blame mental/spiritual sickness on intrinsic womanhood? No, but that’s what the idea of the Feminine Imperative does. It’s the equivalent of blaming war on manhood.

To which he replied:

I don’t think “blame” is an accurate word to describe Rollo’s view. This is actually an area where I disagree with him. Rollo is very careful to avoid value judgments, especially when he is describing the actions of women. Beyond this, your argument resembles the feminist denial of nature in the nature vs nurture debate. Are you arguing that there is nothing intrinsic to womanhood (in general). Or are you arguing that there is nothing intrinsic to womanhood which when unchecked can produce bad (or even catastrophic) results?

As the paragraph goes on, Dalrock does the same thing I do: He digs through my statements to unearth the principle lying below; the frame of the argument. Another way to say that is he is discerning the nature of my argument.

1) Blame is the right word. It’s called the “Feminine Imperative”. The title (to which I obviously disagree, but I’m trying to not lose anybody in the argument) lays the blame directly at the feet of women, womanly behavior, and those who work with with. Rollo may claim that this is not blame, but it can be no other way. At best, it’s confused to call something “feminine” and not “blame” it on women.

In that same vein: We should be judging and assessing value. Aside from the (hopefully) common sense perspective that good is better than bad, and that profitable is better than unprofitable–we are Christians. We are followers of the son of the One True God, Creator of all, and we are made in His image. What does He do? He makes things, and then He judges them. “This is good”. “Depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness.” Lawlessness…lacking judgment…lacking value assessment.

Christ goes further in the Sermon on the Mount. He says:

16 “And when you fast, do not look gloomy like the hypocrites, for they disfigure their faces that their fasting may be seen by others. Truly, I say to you, they have received their reward. 17 But when you fast, anoint your head and wash your face, 18 that your fasting may not be seen by others but by your Father who is in secret. And your Father who sees in secret will reward you.

19 “Do not lay up for yourselves treasures on earth, where moth and rust destroy and where thieves break in and steal, 20 but lay up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where neither moth nor rust destroys and where thieves do not break in and steal. 21 For where your treasure is, there your heart will be also.

22 “The eye is the lamp of the body. So, if your eye is healthy, your whole body will be full of light, 23 but if your eye is bad, your whole body will be full of darkness. If then the light in you is darkness, how great is the darkness!

24 “No one can serve two masters, for either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve God and money.

In my thoughts, I keep coming back to this passage in my refutations of the desirableness of Game (as based on Dark Triad traits, or the 16 Commandments of Poon; both of which dovetail smoothly with the precepts of the Feminine Imperative as most specifically laid out.), but for right now I just want to look at the bolded part. Whatever we do not give value to is worthless. Whatever value we blind ourselves to–in a misguided attempt to be impartial or inclusive–is filling ourselves with emptiness…nothing…darkness–because the light is empty, valueless, and know-nothing. We should be extraordinarily careful in rendering judgment, but to refuse to value is as bad as valuing improperly, i.e., to choose evil over good. How we should value things could be another very long post, or it can be summed up as: value as God values, and not as the world does. No man can server two masters.

2) Nature-vs.-nurture debates are usually nothing of the sort. They’re almost always nature-vs.-nature arguments, with each side choosing to emphasize or detract from various natural components.

For example: Egalitarians almost always consider themselves nurture-over-nature; that the “environment” (peer-group, parents, education, etc.) around a person can override or overcome a person’s “natural” tendencies, strengths and weaknesses. First, humans are inherently social creatures. Environments are completely natural phenomenon, and part of the person’s make-up. It’s not extra-personal. Lots to be said here, but I’ll move on.

More importantly: Egalitarians are trying to bring cognizant and demonstrable equality to things that are nature-ally very similar already. Both men and women are human. They can mate. They have extraordinarily similar sets of organs, motivations, and environments. In turn, apes aren’t far off. In fact you have to drill down a few levels into the secular scientists’ animal kingdom before you hit truly different classes of creatures. What egalitarians say to themselves is “This woman-thing has a head and a brain and a heart just as man-things do. They can both learn and speak and read and do all the same sorts of things. There are really only minor natural differences. Therefore: we ought to see them as equals.” It’s not an argument based on nurturing at all!

The Judeo-Christian paradigm is very nurture-over-nature.

Train up a child in the way he should go;
even when he is old he will not depart from it.”

Now therefore fear the Lord and serve him in sincerity and in faithfulness. Put away the gods that your fathers served beyond the River and in Egypt, and serve the Lord.And if it is evil in your eyes to serve the Lord, choose this day whom you will serve, whether the gods your fathers served in the region beyond the River, or the gods of the Amorites in whose land you dwell. But as for me and my house, we will serve the Lord.”

And to Adam he said,

“Because you have listened to the voice of your wife
and have eaten of the tree
of which I commanded you,
‘You shall not eat of it,’
cursed is the ground because of you;
in pain you shall eat of it all the days of your life;”

There is therefore now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus.2 For the law of the Spirit of life has set you free in Christ Jesus from the law of sin and death. 3 For God has done what the law, weakened by the flesh, could not do. By sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and for sin, he condemned sin in the flesh, 4 in order that the righteous requirement of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not according to the flesh but according to the Spirit. 5 For those who live according to the flesh set their minds on the things of the flesh, but those who live according to the Spirit set their minds on the things of the Spirit. 6 For to set the mind on the flesh is death, but to set the mind on the Spirit is life and peace. 7 For the mind that is set on the flesh is hostile to God, for it does not submit to God’s law; indeed, it cannot. 8 Those who are in the flesh cannot please God.”

Nature is the flesh; which is death. Our way–Christ’s way–transcends death, and it does so by a nurturing process. In the beginning, the natural way was life in the Garden of Eden, but because we nurtured evil, that nurturing overcame the nature of life and wrought destruction on the whole planet.

See, when you’re talking about a nurturing thing that is not natural (else one cannot have a nurture-vs.-nature discussiono at all), what you’re really talking about is the spiritual-vs.-the natural, i.e, spirit-vs.-flesh. Egalitarians have NOTHING on Christianity when it comes to truly parsing out the powers of nature and the powers of the spirit.

“For we do not wrestle against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the cosmic powers over this present darkness, against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly places.”

Paul is talking a nurtural war; not a natural one.

“Well, Cane, that’s not really what we mean when we say “nature” and “nurture”, and talk about their various influences.” I know. And I’m telling you that because of this you haven’t even really begun to consider the implications of nurturing and the spirit world because this whole way of thinking about nurture and nature without a spiritual context comes about because these things have been discussed for decades now without assigning value; without judgment…like secular scientists. The Christian ALWAYS has recourse to a definitive ruler on the value of things–all things–and it’s most readily available as scripture. If we’re not starting from the principle and presupposition that scripture is profoundly correct on the nature of man and his state, then we are living with darkened lamps. Everything is darkness to us. In such darkness, you might grope upon a trope like “Feminine Imperative”, and not have the light to see that an amoral genetic conspiracy theory is bunk. This becomes obvious once you realize that even the tree outside your window is NOT amoral, but has a moral value, and that value is probably good. It is intrinsically good–from the beginning it was good. We can know this because God said so. It’s in the Bible. Why we can trust the Bible is another post. For now, I’m assuming that if you can accept that a man who claimed to be the Son of God was raised from the dead and ascended into Heaven, then you can accept that God meant it when He invented trees and said “It is good.”

3) In this last bit, I’ll turn to the word intrinsic, and how I meant it. I mean “from the beginning”, or “by design”. The amoral view of the natural universe is inextricable from an amoral view of feminine nature, and vice versa: a moral assessment of the natural universe (And, again: “It is good.”) necessitates a moral assessment of the nature of women. Therefore, as a follower of Christ–Son of the Creator of the Universe–I must reject the amoral view of nature, and I must accept the goodness of the intrinsic (intended/designed) nature of women. By this light I can see clearly. And if, by this light, I see evil in women, then I must recognize that evil as something separate from their nature. It must be something that grows there, i.e., something nurtured by themselves or another, or both. Whether it is a psychiatric disease like narcissism, or “mundane” spiritual disease like lust, or something exotic like demonic possession–I can categorize them under the heading of “sinful nature”.

Don’t get me twisted: Females have a nature. Hypergamy is a real thing, and I wholly believe it’s scriptural. It’s also a decidedly good thing. Think about it: Her hypergamy drives her into your arms. She wants to “fight” with you, and she wants you to win. It’s a fixed fight! This sort of thing is illegal in real fights because the profits are simply too high! If you don’t like this, then the problem is you. Yes, things can go wrong and she can abuse it out of all proportion, but it is an intrinsically good thing.

This, finally, brings us back to the comments of Dalrock’s post that inspired my previous post, upon which Dalrock’s comment and this post grew. In an attempt to describe what a Masculine Imperative would looke like, commenter Bluedog wrote:

A human MI society would be a society where the MI has totally dominated over the FI, so again I’d look to lions as a template for this. You would expect to see high concentrations of women around highly dominant “alpha” males, and you would expect to see men “in between” prides – either because they haven’t established a pride yet or because they got kicked out of one.

The human nuance in this is that I think you would see both men who freely choose to not have prides, who “go their own way” as it were, as well as men who are between prides but wish strongly to have them. All in all, I would imagine this to be a fairly violent and dystopic society.

The assessments of most other commenters lined up with this greatly…which is hilarious because this is what the Feminine Imperative is purported to be! Especially the highlighted portion. That’s right: What we’re here complaining and trying to understand is as much about the society as men have ordered it as how women have…just not most men. Surely not you or I.

Which is what I’ve been saying all along. There is a conspiracy, but it’s not so much run by women as it is run by very rich and powerful (in a worldly sense) men, and perpetrated on average women (which is almost all of them) who don’t even rise to the level of co-conspirator. They’re simply not that smart, important , or powerful enough to be anything but CONSUMERS of the conspiracy. Actually elite women are some of the most hurt by this paradigm. Don’t believe me: Ask John Legend’s model fiance Chrissy Tiegen about Farrah Abraham. Her rage isn’t because somebody banged Farrah, but because all you have to do to make national news is get knocked up as a teen and then make a sextape. I’d never heard of Tiegen before this, but she’s apparently kind of a big deal–and here she is outshined by a common (6 looks; considering physique) whore at the whim of the owners of Viacom and Vivid–companies run by elite men. Warren Buffett is calling for more women in business? Why? Because he knows (whether he has the vocabulary or not) that hypergamy dictates that he’ll get his way and their money. He’s not about empowering women. He’s about enriching himself. To do this: he jumps to the middle of the herd bleating, “Bah-ah-ah! Women are great! Bah-ah-ah!”

Part of the Feminine Imperative stipulates that women gather around each other when enemies attack. Let’s be clear: Tiegen is in the majority in calling Abraham a whore. So trusting to the amoral knowledge of the FI we should expect that Chrissy Tiegen would support and herd-gather around Farrah Abraham. Society doesn’t approve of Abraham–so they’re not gathering around her either…until Tiegen tweets her as a whore in unison with society. Then all Twitter-Hell breaks loose. Why? The Feminine Imperative is at an amoral loss to explain it; unable to tell the sheep from the wolf, and so calling all both. But widespread narcissism–a fundamentally spiritual disorder of falsely assumed self-godhood–explains it. Tiegens critics: 1) assume she is talking to them. 2) assume she is talking about them 3) afraid that someone like Tiegen might reveal their inner-sextaping-teenmom tendencies. So they rage. Tiegen, too, is a narcissist–surprised to discover that her Twitter followers are real people and not just props–so she rages back at them. All the while, each sheep in this milieu (Tiegen, Abraham, and the Twitter followers are trying to jump closer and closer to the center of the herd; to sacrifice enough others to calm whatever and whoever the enemy is. They don’t really care because narcissists can’t be bothered to actually figure that out.

Ok, Cane. Why is this important? What does it matter whether we call this–whatever it is–the Feminine Imperative, or Sin Nature? One, because the truth is important. It just is. If you don’t believe that then stop reading this and everything else I ever have to say.

Two, because those elite men know what I’m talking about. We can’t even fight them for our kids if we don’t know what game they’re playing. This is spiritual warfare, and they know even if it’s too “religulous” for them to say. Maybe you think that too. You might think I’m talking about angels and demons and “invisible bogeymen”…and I am. I’m also talking about how one five year girl with 30 minutes and a bad attitude can transform a whole team of five year olds from content and happy to maladjusted assholes. That’s not the Feminine Imperative–that’s Sin Nature.

One day I’ll go back to posts under 2,000 words.

A Series of Negatives on Inherent Unfairness, Part VII

The story of Creation and the Garden of Eden is well-travelled ground for the Christians (and some non-Christians) in the Manosphere. I want to discuss an aspect of it that I have never realized before last night, and have never seen discussed–though I might have just missed it. Each part is a really short bit that isn’t talked about in scripture explicitly, but is unavoidable once you see it between the lines. By unavoidable, I do not mean that I have the answer, but that it is a question that should definitely be asked.

One of the ways in which the stories of the Bible, and the parables of Jesus, are so good is because they are the field in which new treasures are always being found.

44 “The kingdom of heaven is like treasure hidden in a field, which a man found and covered up. Then in his joy he goes and sells all that he has and buys that field.”

This is part VI of a series in digging for what is under the surface. I was going to do several parts, but I have some things I want to say, and I need to get through this so I can build upon it. You can find the other parts here: Part IPart IIPart IIIPart IVPart V, Part VI.

In Part VI I did a pretty comprehensive review of all the previous from Genesis 1:1 to the end of Genesis 2. It wouldn’t be a bad idea to re-read it since I’ve taken more than two weeks to finish up this last section. When you’ve finished that: prepare yourself for some very pro Game. Bear in mind: this is my educated guess based on my experiences of women.

3:1 Now the serpent was more crafty than any other beast of the field that the Lord God had made.

He said to the woman, “Did God actually say, ‘You shall not eat of any tree in the garden’?”

What an opener! First of all: the serpent doesn’t qualify itself. It doesn’t introduce itself. It doesn’t list its merits. It doesn’t show off. It lets her make the assumptions. It leaves it to her to qualify him. It’s her business to wonder who it is to ask. Because the serpent asks her a question though, her mind is likely divided; trying to simultaneously trying to perform several emotional and logical responses. If the serpent had asked this of Adam, Adam probably would have short-circuited the serpent’s routine by asking for the serpent’s qualifications. Men, intuitively understanding authority, would have would have cut first to wondering under what authority the serpent was operating, and not moved on until authority was established.

It’s also an outstanding Neg. In one sentence it both insinuates that it is a strange phenomenon that God would prohibit her from something that might be available to others, and implies that maybe she is not good enough to eat <i>any</i> of the fruit–which would have the effect of raising a shaky sense of defensiveness.

Even the purely logical responses are divided again because she can obviously eat any fruit in the Garden except from the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil–so a simple answer there. However; the prohibition against that tree would weigh heavily in her mind because the repercussions are so severe.

As a little recap and exposition, here is a list of at least some of the things probably simultaneously going through Eve’s mind:

  1. Who is this serpent?
  2. Why is it talking to me?
  3. Which fruits can I eat?
  4. Which fruit can’t I eat?
  5. Why ask such a nonsensical question?
  6. Is it nonsensical?
  7. Who can eat the prohibited fruit?
  8. Why can’t I eat the prohibited fruit?
  9. Am I good enough?
  10. What is that fruit, anyway?

All of which, leaves very little mental energy to make a good judgment about the situation as a whole. Contrary to what you may have heard: women are no better at multitasking than men. Some folks are better than others, but both sexes just trade off the finite amount of resources of the brain, like processing a queue of tasks to be done. As I said above, what the man would have done before even taking on this problem is establish the authority of the questioner. It’s a great strategy to preserve resources for the things that are really important; like work, or sex. Women tend to lack this innate prioritization process because they were purposed to help a man from a submissive position, not at the forefront of the problem.

Finally, the serpent is asking a question to which it already knows the answer; keeping it in its mental territory, and moving her out of hers. The question is fundamentally deceptive in design. On the surface the question is about eating fruit. However; the point is not to get an answer–the serpent has it already–but to use the woman’s lack of sense of the importance of authority and her hypergamous nature to specifically to rev up what PUAs call the woman’s rationalization hamster, i.e., her inability to prioritize wants and needs. It’s an intrinsically deceptive query; which we should expect if we know that the serpent is known for craftiness. It has disarmed Eve’s mind with one question, and now she’s open to suggestion.

I intended to cover a lot more verses, but the more I thought about this (and after getting some expert advice) the more I thought a study of the opening move should stand alone.

A Series of Negatives on Inherent Unfairness, Part VI

The story of Creation and the Garden of Eden is well-travelled ground for the Christians (and some non-Christians) in the Manosphere. I want to discuss an aspect of it that I have never realized before last night, and have never seen discussed–though I might have just missed it. Each part is a really short bit that isn’t talked about in scripture explicitly, but is unavoidable once you see it between the lines. By unavoidable, I do not mean that I have the answer, but that it is a question that should definitely be asked.

One of the ways in which the stories of the Bible, and the parables of Jesus, are so good is because they are the field in which new treasures are always being found.

44 “The kingdom of heaven is like treasure hidden in a field, which a man found and covered up. Then in his joy he goes and sells all that he has and buys that field.”

This is part VI of a series in digging for what is under the surface. I was going to do several parts, but I have some things I want to say, and I need to get through this so I can build upon it. You can find the other parts here: Part IPart IIPart IIIPart IV, Part V.

Before we move on, I need to do a quick recap of everything that’s taken place. Sure, you can just click the links and go back, but it seems better to me to keep a semblance of coherency.

There was darkness and void, and God made everything; starting with light and ending with man. This took six days. After thinking about it, particularly in the context of Unger’s excellent comment, I don’t know if it means anything other than the plain reading, but it definitely indicates God’s solitude, His holiness as the secret of secrets, and His desire to love someone. Another thing that I thought about is that it is much easier to see a light in the dark, than it is to see dark in the light. It simply doesn’t work. Dark can’t banish light, but it only works the other way around.

God has somewhat revealed Himself in three persons. The Spirit is there, moving over the waters, and His Word takes action; creating things. We also see that God withholds His judgment on whether a thing is good or not, until He has seen it. If anyone could be sure that what He is going to do is good, it should be God. Since we also know that it is His Word that is creating things, this is (the first?) instance of God complimenting the Son, in Whom He is well-pleased.

I just realized: He speaks everything into existence except man himself. Man is not from His Word. Man is the first “work” that God does with His own “hands”. The creation of man is describe in two parts. First, men and women are described being created together, and then in chapter 2 we get a fuller account, and man is made alone, in a barren landscape, as God was alone. Man, the one thing God formed HImself, is not stated to be good until he is given work to do, as God has been working. God creates the Garden of Eden (fully-formed, unlike the rest of the earth), and brings Adam, the first man, to it, to care for it. To this point, there has been an order to each aspect. God does not create light to help the plants. He creates light, and then makes things that grow in the light. There is order all the way down. In fact, when the order is described, it is a knot-work of sentences that begin with “And”; denoting that these things exists in an order, and yet side-by-side. (This is not the last time we will see this.) At no point during the explanatory process does God say, “It is good for you to do this…”, or, “It is good that animals do such…” It is simply to be taken on faith, and revelation. I compared this order to a knot of string, with a definite path, but also around and atop, and beneath each other.

Adam’s job is to tend the Garden, and in the Garden is “every plant yielding seed that is on the face of all the earth, and every tree with seed in its fruit. You shall have them for food” and also in the midst of the garden are two trees that are different from the rest. One is the Tree of Life, of which nothing else is yet said. The other is the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil. The fruit of this tree is not to be eaten, and from that we can reasonably deduce that its fruit bears no seeds. It does not perpetuate itself. The these two trees are named side-by-side, but not described the same (indeed, one is not described at all) so we can assume that they are related, but different.

God also rests on the seventh day–a day we still have with us. Calendars have changed, and not just names. Months, and years all had different characteristics, but there are still seven days in a week. We know this rest is not necessary for God because He does not have a body, and therefore cannot tire. He is resting with man; an instance of His desire to live truly with us.

He gives no prohibitions except to not eat of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil, and states that the day he eats it, he shall surely die. Not even the Tree of Life is explicitly prohibited.

We don’t know from the text we’ve covered so far, but we know from later scripture that Satan exists, and that there has been a rebellion in Heaven, led by Lucifer, who is Satan. We also know from the book of Job that Satan is like an unethical prosecutor; trying to lure man into sin, that he might be damned. “Satan” means “Adversary”, the opposite of an advocate.

I thought about linking all of this, but you can just go to Genesis 1, and it’s all there. We’ve covered the first half of Genesis 2, also. Here’s the rest.

18 Then the Lord God said, “It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him a helper fit for him.”

Notice, God sees this before Adam does, and for the first time God says something is not good. His solution is to do for Adam what God did for Himself; doing for him as Adam would have done for himself, and without Adam asking. Indeed, without Adam knowing. This prefigures what Christ will say several thousands of years later: “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.” It’s also another picture of husbandry; anticipating the needs of Adam before he is even aware. In this, we see that the Golden Rule is not just an ethic of reciprocity, but an ethic of manliness itself. To whatever extent we don’t do this, we are ungodly, and unmanly. This is important to remember since everything around us is screaming the opposite; encouraging us to forget no wrong, and never give more than we receive.

In Luke we find this verse right in the midst of a statement on how to treat our enemies, and so it also prefigures the solution to the animosities of the sexes that was to come, and is still with us.

27 “But to you who are listening I say: Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you,28 bless those who curse you, pray for those who mistreat you. 29 If someone slaps you on one cheek, turn to them the other also. If someone takes your coat, do not withhold your shirt from them. 30 Give to everyone who asks you, and if anyone takes what belongs to you, do not demand it back. 31 Do to others as you would have them do to you.

32 “If you love those who love you, what credit is that to you? Even sinners love those who love them. 33 And if you do good to those who are good to you, what credit is that to you? Even sinners do that. 34 And if you lend to those from whom you expect repayment, what credit is that to you? Even sinners lend to sinners, expecting to be repaid in full. 35 But love your enemies, do good to them, and lend to them without expecting to get anything back. Then your reward will be great, and you will be children of the Most High, because he is kind to the ungrateful and wicked. 36 Be merciful, just as your Father is merciful.

How many husbands and wives have made this same enemies complaint against each other? I would guess all of them. Yet, the solution was right there in the beginning from before there were wives. However; we should not be deceived. Not everything that is good for our enemies will feel like pleasure for either side. In fact, it is often the opposite, as our God loves paradox. Pain is the hallmark of the teacher. It is more likely that the moneychangers were thrown out for their own good, than for the good of the people they were cheating. You can’t con an honest man, and God is not mocked.

19 Now out of the ground the Lord God had formed every beast of the field and every bird of the heavens and brought them to the man to see what he would call them. And whatever the man called every living creature, that was its name. 20 The man gave names to all livestock and to the birds of the heavens and to every beast of the field. But for Adam[g] there was not found a helper fit for him.

This is describes two things:

  1. God is actively submitting all of creation to Adam’s will. God doesn’t name the animals, Adam does, at God’s behest and under God’s power.
  2. This procession has the effect of bringing Adam to understand that he is alone. God is with him, but God is so very beyond him. Adam would see the animals: rooster and hen, ram and ewe, bull and cow, lion and lioness, but not other man.

21 So the Lord God caused a deep sleep to fall upon the man, and while he slept took one of his ribs and closed up its place with flesh.

The same location where our Lord was pierced on the cross, after His heart broke, and He died.

22 And the rib that the Lord God had taken from the man he made into a woman and brought her to the man. 23 Then the man said,

“This at last is bone of my bones
and flesh of my flesh;
she shall be called Woman,
because she was taken out of Man.”[i]

24 Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and they shall become one flesh.

Notice the genetic implications: this woman is fully him; more him than a twin would be; as a female twin would be fraternal. Also, like Adam, she is formed by God’s “hands”, and not simply spoken into existence; the only other true creation, but Adam. She is a sister, and a bride; younger in time and knowledge, almost like a daughter. She is the complete female companion. Also, she is presented to Adam, and he names her kind just as he did all the rest of creation. She, too, is under his authority.

25 And the man and his wife were both naked and were not ashamed.

On one hand, it’s almost easy to see how they were not ashamed. First, they don’t know much. Second, they’re alone in the Garden, except for God.

I want to talk about some concepts that go back to the original idea of this series: negatives and unfairness. We can infer from the last verse that there should be shame associated with nakedness; at least, we know from our own experience that these two states of being walk together: nakedness, and shame. But God is there, so why no shame? I’d suggest that because the Garden of Eden is a God’s dwelling, and we know that God exists in holy darkness. He is the Secret of the universe, sacred and beyond. We understand that God is everywhere, but He designates this Garden as His home on earth. Later, when the tabernacle is built for the Israelites so that God may dwell with them, the inside is dark. The inside of the Ark of the Covenant is dark. The entrance to the Holy of Holies in the temple is shrouded in thick curtains, to keep the light out. To return to the text we’re reading: our clothes create darkness, and holiness. We can see that modesty itself is part and parcel of holiness.

Further, the most sacred place on a woman is hidden between her legs, and is not a protrusion, but a well. Her physical essence is predicated on the idea of modesty, and she has been constructed in such a way as to easily maintain it. That is: womanhood is primarily concerned with remaining holy. This is unlike the man whose manhood not only is a protrusion, but when he is aroused to action it becomes impossible to miss. Her arousal is hidden, yet the blood flow opens the curtains to the sanctuary, and waters flow out; easing the lover into discovery of what is so holy.

Simultaneously, we men know that the sexes are not wholly segregated. After all, woman is the sister of man, bone of our bone, and flesh of our flesh. We speak vulgarly of the man’s bone penetrating the woman’s flesh, but this process is accompanied. Another bone, the rib, is having a similar effect on the man near where it left, and rightfully belongs: his heart. As surely as a man penetrates a woman, she penetrates his heart. There, she sows seeds that will bring a man to grow many things he had not before known. She is as meant to bring forth love in a holy heart, as he is meant to bring forth life in her body.

And all of this is part of a pattern of knots and whorls that has existed and progressed in a definite order, but also around, and atop, and beneath, and has been taking place in a largely dark universe created by a God who works in secret, and then reveals and pronounces the goodness of it to us.

A Series of Negatives on Inherent Unfairness, Part V

The story of Creation and the Garden of Eden is well-travelled ground for the Christians (and some non-Christians) in the Manosphere. I want to discuss an aspect of it that I have never realized before last night, and have never seen discussed–though I might have just missed it. Each part is a really short bit that isn’t talked about in scripture explicitly, but is unavoidable once you see it between the lines. By unavoidable, I do not mean that I have the answer, but that it is a question that should definitely be asked.

One of the ways in which the stories of the Bible, and the parables of Jesus, are so good is because they are the field in which new treasures are always being found.

44 “The kingdom of heaven is like treasure hidden in a field, which a man found and covered up. Then in his joy he goes and sells all that he has and buys that field.”

This is part V of a series in digging for what is under the surface. I was going to do several parts, but I have some things I want to say, and I need to get through this so I can build upon it. You can find the other parts here: Part IPart IIPart III, Part IV.

Picking up where we left off:

These are the generations
of the heavens and the earth when they were created,
in the day that the Lord God made the earth and the heavens.

When no bush of the field was yet in the land and no small plant of the field had yet sprung up—for the Lord God had not caused it to rain on the land, and there was no man to work the ground, and a mist was going up from the land and was watering the whole face of the ground— then the Lord God formed the man of dust from the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living creature. And the Lord God planted a garden in Eden, in the east, and there he put the man whom he had formed.

Adam knew what the earth looked like outside the Garden of Eden. He knew that it was still desolate. It’s also another view of the provider and protector role–the husband role–that God plays in the life of mankind, even men. He prepares a dwelling for the object of His love, and  brings him to it. He doesn’t build it with Adam. He presents it to Adam; as if to say: “You know the life you had before, but I have much better in store for you.”

And out of the ground the Lord God made to spring up every tree that is pleasant to the sight and good for food. The tree of life was in the midst of the garden, and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.

This is the first mention of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. Of course, all trees and plants were mentioned inclusively in chapter 1, in the description of the third day.

10 A river flowed out of Eden to water the garden, and there it divided and became four rivers.11 The name of the first is the Pishon. It is the one that flowed around the whole land ofHavilah, where there is gold. 12 And the gold of that land is good; bdellium and onyx stone are there. 13 The name of the second river is the Gihon. It is the one that flowed around the whole land of Cush. 14 And the name of the third river is the Tigris, which flows east of Assyria. And the fourth river is the Euphrates.

Notice the symbolism that the whole area, perhaps the whole earth, is watered from within the Garden of Eden. Yes, water springs up from the ground to water plants in the same way that all of creation testifies to God’s existence, and goodness. But the water literally pours from the mouth of Eden; as if it is the source of all good things, where God dwells with man.

15 The Lord God took the man and put him in the garden of Eden to work it and keep it.

Man was to work in God’s home–right from the beginning. Adam wasn’t to lounge around all day eating grapes, but to garden and farm, really. Of course God created and gave the home, but it is important that man tend it. It’s one of his purposes. It’s manly housework.

It should also be obvious that famous “curse” in chapter 3 that man works if false. He was working from the beginning, but in perfection, as he was told. As. He. Was. Told.

16 And the Lord God commanded the man, saying, “You may surely eat of every tree of the garden,17 but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die.”

Why is it even there? Why is there a tree there that has the power to cause death? We know from chapter 1 that God made every seed-bearing tree:

11 And God said, “Let the earth sprout vegetation, plants yielding seed, and fruit trees bearing fruit in which is their seed, each according to its kind, on the earth.”

and that seed-bearing trees are made to eat. All of them.

29 And God said, “Behold, I have given you every plant yielding seed that is on the face of all the earth, and every tree with seed in its fruit. You shall have them for food.

So what is this tree doing here? We have to deduce that this tree bears no seeds, since it is not good for eating. What does that signify? Why does God give no instruction on the Tree of Life? Can man eat of it, or not?

It’s interesting that the forebear to the instrument of Christ’s death was created on the third day. He could have been killed by rocks, or a sword, or hanged, or any number of things, but he was nailed to what is decidedly a very strange, but obvious tree; a tree that bore fruit that was good to eat (the Bread of Life), and yet had no seed (children). It is like the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil, and mentioned with it, but not it. What is left? The Tree of Life. I’ve never read that anywhere that I know of–it just struck me as I was writing. And as I wrote the previous sentences, it dawned on me that Christ returns on the third day after this sign of the third day–which would make it, significantly, the sixth day, the day man is made.

When I discover symbolism like this, I don’t always know what to make of it: imaginings, or insight? It reminds me of the danger of speaking in tongues*, so take it in that spirit and use your own judgment. Surely other theologians have spoken on this? I don’t read many theologians; any theologians, really.

And where are the angels? And Lucifer? If you told me that Satan had went before God, and demanded that God allow him to test Adam, God might let him. He might say Satan may test him, but it may not touch Adam or his wife. Just like Job.

That’s pure speculation, not even symbolism, but it seems reasonable to me.

*With which I have always had a hard time. I’ve never heard it that I know of.