This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.
Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.
We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:
-
Shaming.
-
Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.
-
Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.
-
Recruiting for a cause.
-
Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.
In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:
-
Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.
-
Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.
-
Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.
-
Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.
On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
I agree with the broad Manosphere / Red Pill interpretation of the feminist slogan "the personal is political", namely that it’s the expression of the simple concept that women, as opposed to men, have an interest in pursuing political solutions to remedy or alleviate their personal problems. These include: no-fault divorce, rape shield laws, punitive child support and alimony laws, affirmative action, the Duluth Model etc. For men, the reverse is true: the political is personal. Namely: political developments have a potential effect on their personal lives, and their only resort are personal options, not political countermeasures. I know this is completely off-topic, my bad.
Virtually all political structures seem like an attempt to engage group dynamics and/or abstract logic to remedy personal grievances. What does gender have to do with it, or what are the male-coded political structures that you see as somehow pure of personal considerations?
Are you sure it's not just that areas of greater practical concern for women (family, children, sexual morality, domestic violence, etc.) seem inappropriately "personal" to you because you don't share the concern, whereas you naturally perceive male-coded personal issues as just objectively Important?
Edit: for instance, there's a discussion lower down about Stand Your Ground laws, which seem clearly like an attempt (on both sides) to use the law to work out a set of very personal, very male-coded feelings about physical aggression and dominance, regulating a set of interactions that are overwhelmingly between men. One might argue "oh no, that's actually a question of objective safety/ public welfare/ individual rights," or "plenty of people of the opposite gender also take sides in this debate," but after all the exact same thing could be said about family law or rape legislation, right?
More options
Context Copy link
I don’t actually know how I feel surrounding this. When I was growing up it felt like there was much greater decentralization and separation between culture and politics in the strict sense of the word. Politics and religion were the 2 standard notions that families rarely brought up apart from church attendance, and you certainly didn’t bring them up with your friends and neighbors either. Not because you were afraid to. It just wasn’t important to why we associated with each other. Unless things naturally turned in that direction it was just considered in poor taste to broach the topic. We liked one another on a closer and personal level.
I couldn’t tell you who my parents voted for and they voted at every state, federal and local election. But that’s not because I’m apprehensive about telling others. It’s because nobody in our family knew who voted for who and we didn’t discuss it. Politics never got in the way of our family importance.
Thomas Sowell once said “if you have a lot of social control you don’t need a whole lot of government control.” I see that as the counterpoint to the intermix of the personal and the political. We resolved issues on our own. I don’t remember seeing a single instance of teenage pregnancy until gangs swept through our neighborhood and it didn’t impact us personally. Child support and alimony existed politically but weren’t a thing in our community. Marriages were mostly stable and of those that weren’t the husband and wife generally separated but never divorced.
The simple fact is you can’t substitute politics for community and there is no substitute for good judgment. Politics comes in to address these wherever there’s a disintegration and tear in the cultural fabric.
I wonder to what extent this is simply because cultures were more effectively separated at the time. It's easy for culture and politics to be separated when everyone that you're talking politics with is either the same culture or a known, geographically adjacent culture. A huge problem with the internet is that there's no easy way to discern the culture of the person you're talking to. Talking gun control with a backwoods Alabaman man is a fundamentally different exercise than with a Canadian woman from Ontario. On the internet, you don't get to know which one you're talking with. More importantly, even if you do, you're likely to experience culturally-mediated political opinions that are fundamentally contrary to your way of life, which is much less likely in person.
If I live in Xtopia, a city where the only mode of travel is bicycles, and I see some tax supportive discussion about taxing and registering bicycles online, I might look at the discussion as anti-Xtopian. They hate bicycles! They hate the way I live! They care nothing for me, my family or my friends! This may or may not be true (it often is, such is the nature of cultural differences) but either way it's very different than talking to my Xtopian neighbor. If he supports the tax, surely there must be a more rational reason for him doing so. He likely enjoys bikes, or he wouldn't live here. I can at least hear him out, maybe learn something. It's just a totally different activity, and frankly it's a shame the same English words are used for both. If I hear someone from Y-ville (city where bicycles are banned) talk about the bike tax, I can be certain that they hate bikes and probably my bike-centric existence, but it really doesn't matter that much. I already knew that, it was priced in. If I'm talking to them in the first place I've already decided they have enough other qualities that outweigh their opinion on bikes.
When I was growing up you couldn’t really help it. Culture moved slower then than it does today and even slower the further in time you go back. I’m younger than the typical cohort here and grew up at the intersection of new changes that were rapidly developing but I was still very beholden to my upbringing of the previous generation fortunately, so trendy new influences never pushed me around in the storm of things very much. I was always a very strong willed kid who was proud to have remained stable in a sea of chaos. People tend to look down on others who haven’t changed throughout in their lives. I haven’t changed one bit since I was 16 years old. Very few people would be able to distinguish the me of then and the me of 2025, but for me, refusing to change has been one of the proudest achievements of my life. A handful of good people I knew growing up and today all the worse because they left their good sense behind them to go down roads they shouldn’t have travelled. My foundational roots had already been solidified for good.
The experience of the world back then was also far more local and felt much smaller than it does today. When I was extremely young, if we went 2-3 hours out of our way for a family event, it felt like I was living at the edge of the known world without much to explore beyond it. Today the whole world can be knocking on your doorstep, demanding and competing for your attention which leaves a lot of people feeling burnt out on life. I can play the whole social media game if I want but it has no appeal to me and I have little desire for it. I have an enormous love for technology, just none of its popular uses. What’s popular is almost guaranteed to be wrong, per Heinlein’s maxim:
“Does history record any case in which the majority was right?”
Or if you like, the quote often misattributed to Henry Ford:
“If I had asked people what they wanted, they would have said faster horses.”
People carry around a lot of standard knowledge for the time in which they live but very few have any truly useful insight to impart with others. Coupled with Sturgeon’s Law, nobody has me convinced that I’m missing out on anything here. Not being a narcissist driving everywhere with a selfie stick in the back of my car is more than enough of a win for me. I hope future anthropologists one day can cite that item as the defining characteristic that marked the downfall of American civilization. It’s pathological.
The Internet in its infancy was a kind of refuge for misfits who could connect and talk to each other and do funny things over BBS boards, among other stuff. Cyberspace then was a form of digital dumpster diving for the curious. Nowadays it’s just another form of crass commercialism. Another marked out district for the display of wealth without culture. Just mindless consumerism.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
What are the personal problems that no-fault divorce is a political solution to? In the absence of such laws it is the state compelling you to stay in a relationship you'd rather end. Is thinking a legal arrangement is unjust a "personal" problem? Same for rape shield laws, which concern the admissibility of evidence in criminal proceedings.
If you consider your husband icky and feel stuck in a marriage, and would prefer to simply get divorced on "grounds" you just don't want to be married anymore, but you can't legally do so because no-fault divorce isn't on the books and your husband has technically not done anything that is grounds for divorce, than yes, I suppose it does feel like a personal problem. It violates your feelings, just like the lack of rape shield laws do. You feel wronged.
This is exactly what’s wrong with today’s social landscape. People I knew just fundamentally had a much more realistic sense of people than those who pass for “adults” in the year 2025.
If you described yourself as being “stuck” in a marriage 25-30 years ago, we ‘all’ knew what that meant. It meant you were in a physically abusive marriage and you needed a way out. Today being “stuck” in a marriage means your husband wanted to have sex with you last week and you don’t feel as attracted to him as you once were. One of these 2 things doesn’t belong.
Adults have this attitude today that life doesn’t involve hardship and making sacrifices. Anything that represents even the slightest inconvenience to you is at liberty to be disregarded because you should just “do what makes you happy.” Well I’m sorry, but that’s ‘life’. Life is about doing 100 things every single day that you don’t want to do. And while your personal happiness is important, it’s far from the highest value to aspire to and is the least enduring and meaningful when you’re on your deathbed and wondering what you’ve left behind.
More options
Context Copy link
Maybe I'm confused. In your comment you referred to no-fault divorce as a political solution to a personal problem. My contention is that it is a political solution to a political problem. The circumstances under which one can exit marriage, and the details of marriage as a matter of law, being themselves political creations. Similarly rape shield laws. The rules of evidence for courts being political creations.
I'd argue that marriage was a religious creation.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
A big part of it is ignoring structural incentives created by political changes. "I can get divorced if I want to get divorced" souds great. But it also creates the incentive structures that causes men to pump and dump women on tinder. "I can sue my ex for tonnes of child support"- sounds great, but my boyfriend of seven years doesn't want to get engaged, doesn't. The thinking is only in one step, government gives me stuff, I want stuff. Not what are the actual consequences of this.
Women can dress however they like sounds lovely. Women are dressing in hyper sexualized ways and compete by having translucent leggings as pants and thong bikinis doesn't sound great. You can't have women competing, no rules regarding dress and not expect women to outbid the competition by showing skin.
I once got into a conversation with a guy who essentially now treats women along the pattern you described. His argument came down to not having a great deal of pity for them because following their demand for emancipation and independence, if women get burned as a consequence of refusing to adhere to men’s hesitation to grant them their rights then that’s ultimately women’s fault because “they did this to themselves.” They quite literally asked for it, according to him. It’s not exactly an easy point to challenge and I’ve essentially made the argument in another context that if women think it’s men’s job to police the behavior of other men so it’s safe for them to walk the streets at night, then they’re obligated to follow men’s rules at the end of the day and do what they’re told. Otherwise, you’re independent. Fend for yourself. If you want to live independently of the group then you in turn are entitled to no benefit from the group. Hang on tightly to the political ticket in your purse because it’s going to be all you have after you’ve spurned everyone in your community with your attitude. I’m not a fool. I’ll stick with the group and my family and friends. Most women have sadly been duped into abandoning those who actually care for them to hitch their wagon to temporary government giveaways by politicians who don’t have a care in the world for them beyond using them for a vote at the ballot box during the next election. That’s why all politicians that aren’t ideologues with an actual vision are philosophical prostitutes who view their constituents as tools for furthering their own career goals only to in turn sell them down the river at a later time. And I will never trust the principles or supposed “ethics” of a prostitute’s embrace. And the fact that they wear a suit and give speeches makes no difference to the point. You can keep your blank ballot.
As oppressive as feminism is to men in it’s political influence, it’s twice as oppressive to women and unfortunately millions of young women out there have absolutely no idea and won’t even see it coming, despite all the indicators being there. It was a bad idea when it was first conceived and it’s been a bad idea since then. Sure some good came out of it but then again the link between smoking and lung cancer was first discovered in Nazi Germany. Along with world ice theory, racist gravity, racial hygiene and other dogshit, but so what. Many men were already on their side when it came to the right to vote, allowing them to open up bank accounts, full access to educational opportunities and the right to pursue a career. No man who wasn’t a piece of shit then (for which there were many) wanted to stomach the idea of his daughter/sister/wife/mother being oppressed and abused. They were already fully on their side. Thinking women were fully equal in dignity and respect was a no brainer. Thinking men and women were biologically and by norm the same with each other was where they walked right off a cliff. To treat a lady the way we treated men in our community would’ve absolutely made you a misogynist. Men and women are complimentary to each other and should not aggressively compete against one another. This was basic to what we were taught. But the later feminist movement was predicated on a wholly incorrect view women have about what they think being a man is like. Terrible regimes and social movements sometimes produce good things too among a host of bad ideas. Best of luck to them. The Bolshevik’s brought a level of independence to women in the Soviet Union far greater than anything you could’ve imagined that happened in 1st and 2nd wave feminism in the US. And it also brought along Lysenkoism, socialist trees, sexist glaciers and NATO backed mutant space potatoes along with it. They had more than just equality of opportunity but a near complete equity and parity with men when it came to social, political and economic participation. Marriage and divorce was something you could register with the local politburo in a single day and the amount of sexual freedom eclipses what the US had post 1960. After the USSR fell in 91’, millions to women were desperate to rush back to the traditional paradigm prior to the revolution, only now with greater technological assistance in the domestic sphere. They realized it was one of the dumbest things they ever asked for. You’ll see a similar pendulum effect in the US eventually. This stuff has already been tried before.
More options
Context Copy link
One tenet that was getting repeated on those sites is that women don't understand cause and effect well because it's unnecessary for childrearing.
Golly these people are sexist. Women do do better with male supervision but only if those men don't hate them for being women.
Let’s be honest though. Most men don’t faire very well either in their youth when the hormones first kick in and all they can think about is love and sex. It’s all consuming on a level that is maddening to get ahold of and they shouldn’t be entrusted with too much independent decision making either. It’s practically as intoxicating as trying to rear every young man off cocaine because those changes are essentially are a cocktail of drugs. When the testosterone first hit my body and mind were brimming with a level of energy that was uncontrollable and I felt like I could conquer the world. I was a raging hell storm for others to deal with at times. And while I perform quite well in all spheres today, 16-18 year old me could absolutely run circles around me in 2025; I would be no match for myself then.
No, sixteen year old boys shouldn't be emancipated either.
Patriarchy is elders the managung incompetent and emotive youngins and the greatest trick of women was to have men take the label when mothers are the ones who exert control over their daughters and other inferiors far more viciously than men do.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Well, I guess they'd say that they hate women not for being women per se, but for being irrational, cowardly, idiotic, etc etc you get it. The chuddiest among them might draw parallels to 13/52 and whatnot.
Honestly, they have a point. The moral inferiority of womankind is an obvious conclusion of most redpill/traditionalist thought, but proponents of such always either handwave it away or dutifully ignore the implications.
But hating them for these things does not help to lead them. The bible's first instruction for husbands is 'love your wives' presented as being as important as wives submitting to their husbands.
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.
I don't think this works as a parallel. It seems to me that submissiveness is not desirable in of itself, but as a proxy for a cooperative demeanor. Trivially, a wife who is capable of exercising sound judgement within her domain and contributing effectively to collective decisions seems superior to a more "submissive" wife who never exercises her agency to the benefit of the couple. I suppose that most men would prefer to be the generally senior partner in the relationship, but that's a much looser paradigm than 1 Timothy 2:12 would have it. If I may also get a little Freudian, surveys consistently find that men prefer to be the dominant partner only by a relatively small margin. By contrast, women are much more insistent that they be the submissive party and are far more averse to dominating than men are to submitting.
Now, insofar as one believes that women are intrinsically poor agents, then female submission is approximately equivalent to effective cooperation. I know @hydroacetylene is insistent on women's lesser capacity for agency, and I presume you are too. However, this view would naturally seem to lead to a recognition that women are lower creatures than men, in accordance with the pre-Christian understanding; a donkey may not be a defective horse, but it is still an ass. Maybe I'm just not familiar enough with Christian philosophy and there's some galaxy-brained epicycle around this implication, but everything else within the redpill/traditionalist consensus on women seems to implicitly corroborate this outlook. This, fundamentally, is the core concern of feminism, or at least the most defensible steelman of feminism, and so long as the Right neither has a satisfying answer for them nor reinstates complete patriarchal control, its spectre shall continue to haunt them.
Women are not lesser creatures than men because agency is not the end all be all. They have their role and it's quite important. It's just not as much about leading.
More options
Context Copy link
This is backwards, imo. The problem is that most women lose all respect for us if we're not. Riffing off what the other guy said, women are still evolved to expect men to take charge of most of that physical reality and survival and stuff. Except now the mechanisms for those things are heavily feminized bureaucracy so it seems natural to let the women take the lead on it and they utterly fucking hate doing it because if they are taking care of and being responsible for something, that means it is a baby.
More options
Context Copy link
My fundamental position on the question really is no more complicated than this.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
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. Corporatism, you know, not Marxism. Women aren’t defective men and men arent defective women, either.
Red pill bullshit makes me worry for my daughters more than feminism does. Granted lots of that is just exposure bias. 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. 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. 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.
Yes...
Getting closer...
And a miss. So close; I'm sure we'll figure out a constructive version of interaction between the sexes without going straight to the cold bucket of water someday.
Nobody defected. What happened was that men went with the best information they had at a time when the bottom fell completely out of the market for the product men provided, that being "material goods for survival". In the US that happened 90 years ago, a timeline most Western countries followed.
See, in the pre-industrial ages, where the picture of the US is Little House on the Prairie (and people think this is true of Europe all the way back to the start of the Dark Ages- it's not true, but this is what most people think), men were responsible for a society's survival. They're the one evolution gave that advantage to.
That gives them leverage in a way it doesn't for women. Even your verse- rated #1 by Wicked Husbands Weekly for the past 2 millennia- has this state of affairs buried in it. The duties assigned there are rhetorically symmetrical, and perhaps in the first century they actually were, but in post-scarcity "men, love your wives" is little more than an inkblot/no-op, while the converse demand of submission is an utterly massive ask for a post-scarcity woman. We're rich enough now that the reason a man would take a wife he wasn't willing to love already has been lost, so it's a strict boon for men at the expense of women.
Wicked and simple men love this verse for a good fucking reason. They know what they're doing.
What happens when a society structured around food scarcity runs into the brick wall that is the hydroelectric generating station, the internal combustion engine, the assembly line, the farming combine, smokeless powder/dynamite/the other trappings of modern chemistry, the Haber-Bosch process, practical fixed-wing aviation, and hundreds of thousands of others? Well, what happens is that men who grew up in a society where being a man had privileges because survival was a scarce resource now had nothing.
So you get a few generations of people born right at the tail end of scarcity, right as the value of survival was hitting zero, and their children, who have absolutely no earthly clue on how to maximize their daughters' standing in modern society, did the only thing they know how to, the only thing they reasonably could have been expected to. Fathers and mothers alike agree, because that is how it was back in their living memory, that women must be submissive to men because men do deserve it, or rocks fall and everyone dies. That is why going barefoot from kitchen to bedroom was the highest calling- Mom would have legitimately loved that this job had been made so much easier to the point it turned her full-time job into one that required perhaps an hour or two at a time and Dad just can't fully understand what the big deal is; after all, it worked for them, and Mom loved it, did she not?
Thus leading us to having a breed of more-than-average-disagreeable woman who refused to listen to their folks who told them not to make anything of themselves, and they prospered wildly, especially compared to the ones that did and never made anything of themselves (and who comprised the first huge divorce wave once it was legalized in the '70s). Which now makes the selection effect of "don't listen to your folks, they don't know fuck all" because they really, truly, genuinely did not know fuck all (they simply weren't equipped to do so; nobody at the time really had a good idea of what "the value of men just dropped to zero" would mean), so as the generations go by and the older pre-scarcity people die off, there's no counter-meme for moderation.
So if you're wondering how you get feminists, and how '60s feminists turn into '10s gynosupremacists, that's how. Under Whig History, this is traditionalists' "fault", and aspiring traditionalists who still believe in that (and perhaps more importantly, who want to convert people into Christians) must absolutely come up with an answer for that. Until that day, our "god-given gender roles" will continue to be viewed as a twisted joke, and our persecution complex (and the makeup of our churches- which is selected for men and women who haven't come to terms with modernity, whether we like that or not, healthy people don't need doctors after all) will tempt us to double down on RETVRN.
There were some academics- the autistic women [and men] who were disagreeable enough to get into an academic career track to study this- that did show some signs of actual understanding. But the weapons they left lying around were then picked up by wicked women, and it turns out they continue to work even today. We even pretend it is an advancement to be ruled over by wicked women than by wicked men.
So, uh, what's a path forward? Well, I don't actually think men can do anything about it on their own; their marginal value is basically zero, after all- other than noting that men did not fight a violent battle against women when it became clear the "battle" was lost, or to attempt to restore our monopoly on survival, and that the main problem is women fighting a violent battle [by proxy, and forcing men to bear the costs of intentional inaction because the solution wasn't "just right"] against us now.
We'll generally be in the supporting role for this one: specifically, that if we ultimately agree that the role/general desire of the statistical-average woman is indeed to be provided for, that we take care not to burn out the devotion that makes that state of affairs tolerable -> attractive -> stable. Already we see this is on a knife's edge more than it used to be in part to an overzealous slash-and-burn of what used to provide a path resistant to mere boredom/casual unwillingness to work, and the standard traditionalist "the moral inferiority of womankind is an obvious conclusion of most redpill/traditionalist thought, but proponents of such always either handwave it away or dutifully ignore the implication" doesn't actually help that (I'm not sure why redpillers are particularly interested in doing the mental equivalent of calling their wives, or the stock of the pool of wives for the average man, stupid and fat- oh, wait, yes we do).
Fortunately, the average progressive has a weakness: they also believe (due to instinct) that they're morally inferior to men, and are as such so focused on taking revenge for this state of nature that they make mistakes in a way that the traditionalist female stereotype can predict and outperform.
That is, when it's not just being used as an excuse to be retarded. Oh well, at least if we fumble the ball sufficiently we can at least take solace in the fact that virtueless women (and men) will fail to reproduce at outsized rates, and will have a eugenic effect on the population. So maybe humanity will evolve to solve it ourselves.
More options
Context Copy link
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.
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.
No disagreement there. I too have read Theology of the Body.
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.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Well, yes, it's sexist. Then again, society is also sexist, as are most women.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Isn't it? Surely punishing a child is just reinforcement learning.
The punishing was normally done by the father though, wasn't it?
No? My grandfather recalls his cousins that were still subsistence farmers at the time(Acadiana in the early 20th century was not a developed country) living in terror of their mothers, who would immediately beat them with whatever was at hand at the slightest sign of wrongdoing. The chancla is female coded even today.
I suppose there's a gender norm of serious corporal punishment being administered by men, but the average spanking was probably done by a woman.
More options
Context Copy link
On a farm, yes. By the mid-20th century, no - Dad didn't reliably get home before bedtime, and in any case Mum knew that immediate punishment was dramatically more effective than delayed punishment.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link