BreakerofHorsesandMen
Sweet Sejenus
No bio...
User ID: 3614
Let me be clear: nothing in my comment implies that you have ever said or implied that you are God.
Disagree, but I’ll move on.
Ergo, presumably, the Bible may think that there are things that God does which may not necessarily be things that you should do.
"What is permissible for Jupiter is not permissible for a cow.”
With you so far.
One possible thing that might be in that category could be "treating people as a class". But of course, it could be complicated; maybe it's not in that category!
You’ve lost me, because this maps exactly onto “treating people as individuals.”
If “for everything there is a season,” and everything includes in a non-exhaustive list, “a time to kill, and a time to heal; a time to break down, and a time to build up; a time to keep silence, and a time to speak; a time to love and a time to hate; a time for war, and a time for peace,” then I think it is perfectly reasonable to argue that there is “a time to treat as a class; and a time to treat as individuals.”
Both of those “times” can also be happening at the same time on different levels. I can’t imagine the author of Ecclesiastes was thinking “When the time for war with another nation comes upon me, the time for peace within my family is ended. It’s the war of all against all, baby!”
Neither am I thinking “The time has arrived to acknowledge that women, as a class, are damaging the civilization in which they live, ergo, I should treat my wife or even individual women like shit, because they are damaging the civilization in which they live.”
For this willingness to occasionally treat women as a class, I get accused of Gender Marxism, which is wild, because if that’s what my views are then the first Gender Marxist was…God.
It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make a helper suitable for him.
Your desire will be for your husband, and he will rule over you.
And for men:
Cursed is the ground because of you; through painful toil you will eat food from it all the days of your life. By the sweat of your brow you will eat your food.
None of that says anything about “Some of you women will be helpers suitable, and some of you will be total girl-bosses who don’t need no man.” It also doesn’t say “Some of you men will be hard-working providers for your family, and some of you will be stoners or alcoholics who let your wife do all the work both at home and outside.”
There are failure modes for both groups, we are just currently much more afflicted by the female failure mode and should address that situation as it is.
But I don't think one can generally reason from, "Here is an example of God doing X," to, "Therefore, I should do X."
Unfortunately for your argument, Christ is also God, and we are called to be like Christ, reasoning at a minimum from “Here is an example of Christ doing X,” to “Therefore, I should do X.” And Christ is not a gentle hippy, and he does treat people like classes sometimes.
For example, we know there was at least one decent Pharisee, Nicodemus. And yet, Jesus doesn’t say “Beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and Sadducees! Except Nicodemus, he’s one of the good ones.”
He just says, “Beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and Sadducees!”
This is why I don’t think it’s inappropriate or un-Christian to say things that boil down to “Beware the leaven of what modern women tell each other they should be like!”
BreakerofHorsesandMen
Sweet Sejenus
2d ago
You are not God. God is not you.
If you can go back through my post history, and tell me where I said or even, in your opinion, implied I am God, I will then assume this comment is in good faith.
so then why not just lead with that instead of "boys rule girls drool god says so"?
Because modern society interprets that as “boys rule girls drool god say so.”
You might notice that, for example, this wife who is far more precious than jewels is clearly busy with much more work than just child-rearing and domesticity. She’s finding intellectually stimulating ways to contribute to the family, from within the domestic sphere. She’s clearly interacting with the external economy by buying a vineyard, providing the merchants with sashes, selling linen garments, etc. She’s just doing all that in the name of her home and family, in a way centered around the home, rather than in a way centered around career-progression/girl-bossing and in the name of an NGO or Wal-Mart.
You might also notice that while her works are praised in the city gate, the one who actually takes his seat there and interacts with the elders is the husband. We don’t know what this specific husband does for day to day work, but it’s Proverbs, so I have to assume he is also working hard, just outside of the home in the non-domestic sphere. He’s the one that handles the external politics. He’s the one that’s going to go to war. That’s his job, it’s not hers.
Just having this as a baseline stance is already a thoughtcrime and called misogynist thought.
Additionally, we also live in a society where people, for better or worse, don’t accept “The Bible says,” as valid reasoning. So if someone has the intuitive opinion that things have gone wrong with gender relations, has identified some factual evidence of this, and believes the Bible is either the word of God or even just good advice, they have to attempt to validate their position not by quoting the Bible, but by identifying what the secular cause of the man/woman damage is.
That often results in having to tell women they are not perfect, which is immediately interpreted as:
"boys rule girls drool god says so"?
BreakerofHorsesandMen
Sweet Sejenus
3d ago
My fundamental position on the question really is no more complicated than this.
10: A capable wife who can find? She is far more precious than jewels.
11: The heart of her husband trusts in her; and he will have no lack of gain.
12: She does him good, and not harm, A capable wife who can find?
13: She seeks wool and flax, and works with willing hands.
14: She is like the ships of the merchant, she brings her food from far away.
15: She rises while it is still night and provides food for her household and tasks for her servant-girls.
16: She considers a field and buys it; with the fruit of her hands she plants a vineyard.
17: She girds herself with strength, and makes her arms strong.
18: She perceives that her merchandise is profitable. Her lamp does not go out at night.
19: She puts her hands to the distaff, and her hands hold the spindle.
20: She opens her hand to the poor, and reaches out her hands to the needy.
21: She is not afraid for her household when it snows, for all her household are clothed in crimson.
22: She makes herself coverings; her clothing is fine linen and purple.
23: Her husband is known in the city gates, taking his seat among the elders of the land.
24: She makes linen garments and sells them; she supplies the merchant with sashes.
25: Strength and dignity are her clothing, and she laughs at the time to come.
26: She opens her mouth with wisdom, and the teaching of kindness is on her tongue.
27: She looks well to the ways of her household, and does not eat the bread of idleness.
28: Her children rise up and call her happy; her husband too, and he praises her.
29: “Many women have done excellently, but you surpass them all.”
30: Charm is deceitful, and beauty is vain, but a woman who fears the Lord is to be praised.
31: Give her a share in the fruit of her hands, and let her works praise her in the city gates all the days of her life.
BreakerofHorsesandMen
Sweet Sejenus
3d ago
Gender Marxism, man, it’s toxic in every respect. Individual women are not part of a class, I mean, obviously they have interests as a class, but they prefer their interests as part of a family.
This gives me quizzical eyebrows. There are multiple examples of God, in the Bible, treating people as a class. Surely not every single child in Jericho was more inherently wicked than an Israelite child, and yet God instructed the Israelites to kill them all, young and old.
Not every single person in the Kingdom of Israel could have been fully deserving of being conquered by the Assyrians. But they still were caught up in the disaster that fell upon the Kingdom, which God had been warning them about, as a class, for some time.
That being said, there are, I firmly believe, millions of good women out there in America. I want my boys to find the good woman for them, and then be good, responsible, kind, loving husbands who deserve their position at the head of the family, just as much as I imagine you would want the gender-swapped version for your girls. The problem is that those millions of women either have next to no voice or are not exercising it to sufficiently to reel in their sisters. Isaiah and Josiah tried everything they could, and the general trend of Judah was still in the direction of being conquered by Babylon. Even Deborah managed to get the Israelites to stay in line for only 40 years.
Listen to the Bible instead of coming up with excuses, I’d tell the same thing to the gays, drug users, etc. Don’t come at me about anarcho-tyranny or whatever the latest ‘Christian moral rules are for cucks’ framing is
This is less to do with woman specifically, but I don’t think Christian moral rules are cucked. I think they’re great, the result of literally the best thing that ever happened to the Earth and humans. I just also think Urban II was a good Pope and that as recently as 1881 in our Church and civilization, Christians just like you and I could grasp the idea that the guy who started the chant “God wills it!” and was the first mover for hundreds of years of bloodshed, is also Blessed in Heaven.
Women should submit to their husbands and men should love their wives, but neither of these things is preconditioned. It’s a requirement, not a contractual arrangement. That’s for Mohammedans.
No disagreement there. I too have read Theology of the Body.
But there are still good women out there. They don’t deserve to be treated like radical feminists. Women respond to love and care and consideration, even if they’re in a defensive mode.
I don’t know which sex, on average, defected first. The whole question seems entirely irrelevant. What matters is what an individual should do, how to build virtue, and treating people in accordance with their god given gender roles. No, that’s not exactly the same, but it’s also not in revenge for what some other person who happens to have the same chromosomal configuration did.
This I’m really confused about, because I don’t think they line up well.
If I treat a woman, in the workplace, in accordance with her God-given gender role, perhaps by saying something like “I don’t know if it’s really worth it for you to keep being a lawyer/doctor/shelf-stacker if you can at all avoid it. Children benefit way more from having Mom around, vs going to daycare, and you might find that you like being a stay-at-home Mom more than you thought.” Or something like “It’s better to get married and have kids when you’re young, then think about building your career later.” I mean, really, what’s your over/under on when HR comes around to tell me to stop being such a sexist, or just cuts straight to finding a reason to fire me?
Maybe I should do it anyways, and have the courage of my convictions. I’m no Daniel, I’m not brave to face the incredibly lame corporate arena like the martyr’s, better men than me, were.
But I just don’t see why I shouldn’t treat the average woman like a radical feminist? I don’t see a need to invite more unpleasantness into my life by being chivalric towards them. I’m chivalric towards my wife, the parish ladies, and that’s about it, honestly.
I don’t know if you think that I have some desire to grind the boot into women’s faces or something, but I don’t.
I do, however, think that we are living through the consequences of the modern bio-Leninist view of equality, and the child sacrifice/sexual perversions/upending of gender relations and even the concept of sex itself that came with that view.
I hold out hope. Nineveh received a long reprieve when they repented. We still could too. I just don’t think it’s likely, and that we’re all going to get what some of us wanted, good and hard, eventually. I think having this point of view is at least as loving as, say, Jeremiah, who really did want the best for his people.
BreakerofHorsesandMen
Sweet Sejenus
3d ago
Well, just like when a wife stops submitting when a husband demonstrates over the long term that he doesn’t love her, when women as a class have demonstrated over the long term that they are not interested in anything that even smells like submitting, they shouldn’t anticipate much love from men as a class.
The Bible also has plenty of examples of God allowing his loved children to get the fruits of their bad decisions good and hard while saying some extremely harsh things about them/us, and that’s sometimes part of actually loving someone.
BreakerofHorsesandMen
Sweet Sejenus
3d ago
I didn't find his questions all that hard; he mostly came across as someone trying to make sense of the word salad (maybe that counts as particularly hard in political interviews).
Some people just can’t stop themselves from stepping on rakes. It seems like that’s an awful lot of people in politics. Presumably because they:
A: Like to hear themselves talk
B: Only respond to questions by deploying their talking points
C: Default to word salad when the first-level defense of talking points is penetrated
Chotiner is a massive liberal but he’s had some interviews where the interviewee just Yes Chad’d their way through, and they always come out looking better than the typical politician.
This is a good example with neo-con Eliot Cohen. https://archive.is/R8IZX
BreakerofHorsesandMen
Sweet Sejenus
3d ago
Chotiner is the New Yorker’s resident assassin. Merely being asked to sit down with him is a sign that someone wants to see you politically gutted.
I’m not sure the New Yorker really does view her as especially relevant, so much as they just need to toss a goat into the T-rex paddock every so often.
BreakerofHorsesandMen
Sweet Sejenus
4d ago
I'm fairly sure in both the 1940s and now, if men wish to engage in sporting fisticuffs, there's a protocol for doing it. You might walk up to them and insult them, and when the verbal argument gets heated you suggest taking it outside.
Anecdotally, I don’t think this actually stands anymore. I’ve seen a number of situations where people have been ungracious losers (pulling knives), or ungracious winners (kicking on the ground). I used to enjoy getting into fights outside bars when I was younger, but the vibe changed somewhere down the line.
In fairness, I wasn’t a young man in the 40s, although I was in the 20th century, marking me as an old. But I also grew up in a backwards place that was tight-knit and unblessed by diversity at the time.
Maybe your argument would hold water if we still lived in the society of the 1940s, where men at least appeared to be under the impression that they could engage in sporting fisticuffs without having their head purposely smashed into the concrete.
We don’t live in that world anymore.
I was taught by my elders in the way they believed a man should fight. Sportingly, punches and wrestling, knees and elbows frowned upon, let the opponent back up to his feet as many times as necessary until he accepts defeat. No lawyers after the fact, no thoughts of revenge for the loser, move on with your lives.
That was laughably bad advice once I hit the real world.
Roundabout way of saying that I am an objective person and I take Mr. Hayes’ claims of reasonable apprehension of death or serious bodily harm at face value.
BreakerofHorsesandMen
Sweet Sejenus
4d ago
I plan on releasing the little guy about a block way in a small park
Mice can navigate back home from upwards of two miles. You’re going to want to drop it off further than a block away or else you might be seeing it again the next day.
I used to have to use the long tube no-kill traps in England, and I found that the mice were perfectly capable of leaping back and forth over the pressure plate to get whatever goodies were in the bait cache. If you are also using a pressure plate operated trap, my advice is to get a bunch of pennies, smear them with peanut butter, and set enough of them on the pressure plate that it’s on a hair trigger. If the plate depresses when you pick the trap up gently, that’s a pretty good sign that you’re going to catch a mouse.
They can’t resist the peanut butter, and because it’s smeared all over the coins on the pressure plate, they have to get on the plate to eat it and get trapped by the hair trigger.
Kill traps are better and actually make cleanup easier, in my opinion, but the no kill traps work fine. Good luck!
BreakerofHorsesandMen
Sweet Sejenus
5d ago
All I can tell you is that, in my area and social circles, the resistancelib boomers and the shrieking fascism hysterics people are in the same group of people, shrieking about fascism. And I haven’t seen very many masks at the local protests.
What I’m saying is, everyone near me who is even vaguely liberal is yammering on about the impending authoritarian fascist Nazi state. If I were inclined to be a Trumpstapo agent, I would have no trouble racking up huge numbers of people to be disappeared. Not even from edge cases like “They made a joke that can be vaguely interpreted as unflattering to the Fuhrer.” This would be from straight up “I wish I could shoot him myself,” “How can you not see he’s the same as Hitler,” “We must resist Trump at every turn,” “If Trump invaded Hell, I would put in a good word before Parliament for the Devil,” type commentary.
And yet they still show up to protests unmasked driving their personal vehicles and splatter their presence all over social media.
If you don’t see the same things in your area, I’m sure there are reasons, I’m just describing what I see in my area. But this fundamentally unserious phenomenon is a real thing.
BreakerofHorsesandMen
Sweet Sejenus
5d ago
So given that America’s average tariff rate is 1.49%, and Canada’s is 2.35%, isn’t Canada being the defect-bot here?
BreakerofHorsesandMen
Sweet Sejenus
6d ago
The longer the shutdown continues, the more irrelevant Congress becomes. Next expect unilateral executive decrees on assuming full funding authority, essentially rendering Congress defunct. It may never reconvene. Suspension of the Constitution cannot be far behind. Dictatorship came to us while we slept.
I already want to buy this plan, Tonnocus, you don’t have to keep selling it to me. A guy can only get so erect.
But seriously, if Democrats believe they have a well-founded fear that we are on the precipice of the Fourth Reich, and the only thing that stands in the way is continuing Congressional business as usual, then why are they grandstanding over healthcare-budget cuts?
Wouldn’t putting up with those for, at worst, 3 to 7 years and then reverting them to much applause next time Dems are in power, be much preferable to being derelict at the exact moment when the normal procedure of Congressional business could preemptively stop the 1000-year Orange Boot?
This has all the seriousness of the people who allege that they live in existential dread of the Reichsführer-SS kicking their door down and disappearing them to American Auschwitz, and choose to fight back against this dread future by…attending 3 hour protests and plastering their face and presence all over public social media feeds.
BreakerofHorsesandMen
Sweet Sejenus
6d ago
In my area, there is a very small contingent of young women, maybe 2-3%, that are already ugly and obese and have further committed to uglifying themselves via ultra-short haircuts, facial tattoos, and multiple facial piercings.
The rest of the young women wear clothing that apparently range in style from early 2000’s midriffs and tight jeans, to tradwife dresses and skirts. Basically, 95% plus of the young women are at least attempting to wear flattering styles of clothing.
Granted, this is anecdotal, I live in a fashion backwards area, and I haven’t done a survey in the high schools. Maybe there’s an older Zoomer/younger Zoomer divide here, but I’m willing to accept a lack of epistemic certainty on that point in exchange for not having to do fashion surveys in high schools.
BreakerofHorsesandMen
Sweet Sejenus
11d ago
This appears to be something of an awkward statement. As far as I am aware, Constantine is a Saint in all/nearly-all Orthodox Churches. Not just a Saint, but Equal-to-the-Apostles. Is this correct for your particular branch of Orthodoxy?
If he is a Saint and Equal-to-the-Apostles, this feels like someone who is nominally Christian saying “I think Simon Peter putting his nets down and following Christ is one of the worst things that ever happened to the Church.”
BreakerofHorsesandMen
Sweet Sejenus
11d ago
My immediate take is that he's a Catholic saint after the schism, so I do not consider him a valid Saint.
Sad to see you taking that as an out, given the commentary about how well respected he was in Christendom, well before being canonized.
Nevertheless, Orthobros have their own militant saints. Does your particular branch of Orthodoxy recognize the feast day of Justinian the Great?
BreakerofHorsesandMen
Sweet Sejenus
11d ago
The parallel construction theory of political bribery. Seems potentially plausible.
BreakerofHorsesandMen
Sweet Sejenus
11d ago
“Gentlemen, is it gay to fuck another dude?” is a question that no amount of philosophizing can answer satisfactorily for a certain segment of the population.
BreakerofHorsesandMen
Sweet Sejenus
11d ago
I’m sorry my friend, but this is Zengid dynasty erasure.
James Callendar is not going to be winning any awards for trans-allyship, I tell you what.
BreakerofHorsesandMen
Sweet Sejenus
12d ago
I believe there is serious value in having a degree of ritual and civic religion.
I think the problem here is that your (possibly yours personally, but definitely my political opponents) ritual and civic religion is directly contradictory to mine and so why should I not want to tear it down and replace it with my own?
It has to stop somewhere
Yes. When one side or the other is so beaten down they accept defeat. That’s when it will stop. That’s how wars, even culture wars, work. And then it will start again at some point in the future, either near or far, about the same or different things.
Or we’ll all be AI serfs. I guess that might be enough to finally beat that dawg out of humanity.
BreakerofHorsesandMen
Sweet Sejenus
12d ago
Ultimately as a Christian, I find this sort of blatant hatred and mockery of the outgroup quite disturbing.
I simply find his aesthetics to be revolting.
What would you say your take is on the aesthetics of Saint Louis the IX?
Louis IX's reign is often marked as an economic and political zenith for medieval France, and he held immense respect throughout Christendom.
Louis was a staunch Christian and rigorously enforced Catholic orthodoxy. He enacted harsh laws against blasphemy,[5] and he also launched actions against France's Jewish population, including ordering them to wear a yellow badge of shame, as well as the notorious burning of the Talmud following the Disputation of Paris.
The loss of Damietta again shocked the Muslim world, and, like his father thirty years ago, as-Salih Ayyub offered to trade Damietta for Jerusalem. The offer was rejected as Louis refused to negotiate with an infidel.
Or the aesthetics of Charles Martel?
Prince Charles boldly drew up his battle lines against them [the Arabs] and the warrior rushed in against them. With Christ's help, he overturned their tents and hastened to battle to grind them small in slaughter. The king Abdirama having been killed, he destroyed [them], driving forth the army, he fought and won. Thus did the victor triumph over his enemies.
Perhaps Saint Bede’s aesthetics when discussing the Hammer of the Moors?
"... a dreadful plague of Saracens ravaged France with miserable slaughter, but they not long after in that country received the punishment due to their wickedness"
Speaking of Saracens, I always enjoy the very modern quote that Ridley Scott puts into Saladin’s mouth in Kingdom of Heaven
Mullah: [the mullah pays a visit to Saladin in his tent after the battle at Kerak] Why did we retire? Why? God did not favor them. God alone determines the results of battles.
Saladin: The results of battles ARE determined by God, but also by preparation, numbers, the absence of disease, and the availability of water. One cannot maintain a siege with the enemy behind. How many battles did God win for the Muslims before I came... that is, before God determined that I should come?
Mullah: Few enough. That's because we were sinful.
Saladin: It is because you were unprepared.
Mullah: If you think that way, you shall not be king for long.
Saladin: [Saladin rises to his feet] When I'm not king, I quake for Islam.
I would happily take a King who refuses to negotiate with infidels, or who grinds them small in slaughter, or delivers them the punishment due to their wickedness, over someone who cares about modern liberal aesthetics. That’s how my side, any side really, gets lasting victories.
This is all a Motte-appropriate long winded way to say, “Modern liberal aesthetics have sucked the nobility and grandeur out of everything. We’ve got to go through the grinding small part before we get out the other end and back to the beautiful and noble aesthetics that I suspect you and I both prefer.”
BreakerofHorsesandMen
Sweet Sejenus
13d ago
Sorry, I had a more detailed response and lost it, but I hope this suffices to give you the point of view I use to think about these things.
He who builds the biggest bridges and the fanciest paved roads is not necessarily going to be the last man standing. There are other very successful strategies for overcoming your neighbor.
The Vandals and the Goths out-competed the Romans. The Seljuk Turks outcompeted the Caliph in Baghdad. The Mongols outcompeted the Chinese, the Persians, the Turks, and the Eastern European principalities.
Those are the obvious military accomplishments, where a significantly less advanced and technological state has the vigor to punch way above its weight class when fighting against more, allegedly, militarily capable states.
There are also other strategies. One might say that the Goths, either wittingly or unwittingly, pursued a strategy of educating their sons in the advanced society of their day, while retaining their essential Goth-ness (by going to clubs), and eventually completing the long destruction of Western Roman society even while they adopted on the surface some of its formalities. What matters here is that the Goths were the last culture standing.
This is obviously an endlessly iterating game, but in this current iteration, I think that the curve might be slow, but the parallel Muslim cultures growing in the West and supported by the Dar-al-Islam, are beginning to outcompete the societies they are embedded in while retaining and even doubling down on their, uhhhh, less than fully feminist laws and cultural traits.
Could this change? Of course. It didn’t take the Chinese very long to out-compete the Mongols via a different strategy, after all. But that strategy is not a silver bullet. The Tatar Yoke wasn’t lifted by the Golden Horde converting to dome-based architecture and Orthodoxy, after all.
So, I don’t count “We have more bridges, McDonalds, and better military toys” as a definitive killer app in the endless war between peoples/nations/cultures.
In the spirit of acknowledging when I’ve been off target, I will be quick to say kudos to the people who stuck by their guns and said this couldn’t have been a misfire.
More options
Context Copy link