No crisis here.

Instapundit host Glenn Reynolds has a great line:

I’ll believe it’s a crisis when the people who tell me it’s a crisis act like it’s a crisis.

I would apply this same line to Stephen Green’s recent Instapundit entry:

THE PRICE OF WAR, NEGLECT, DOWNSIZING, AND A BROKEN PROCUREMENT SYSTEM: House Panel says $1 Trillion Needed to Reboot Military.

It was just over a year ago that the Republican lead House Armed Services Committee telegraphed its readiness to pretend that trans-gendered soldiers, airmen, sailors, and marines would make our military stronger.  The Senate Republicans and the Admirals and Generals fell in line as well.  We saw the same with women in combat.  All of our civilian and military leadership is telling us that we have no significant military threats, and therefore we can stop focusing on fielding warriors and get on with the business of fielding Social Justice Warriors.  I’m inclined to take them at their word.

Besides, we just completed a massively expensive SJW reboot;  surely that should hold us over for a few years.

Posted in Instapundit, Military, Social Justice Warriors, Traditional Conservatives | 80 Comments

Hierarchy equals abuse.

As I’ve explained most recently in All roads lead to Duluth, the Duluth model has become by far the dominant paradigm for viewing domestic violence.  This is essential to understand because Duluth isn’t really about domestic violence, but about legislating feminist theory.  The focus of Duluth is to end what feminists call male privilege, or male entitlement.  While the flag of domestic violence and abuse is waved in front of the crowd, the Duluth creators go out of their way to make it clear that their focus is not on violence or abuse, but on the idea that a husband is head of the household.  In the Duluth model the idea of headship is both the root of abuse, and it is in itself abuse.

This paradigm is so widely accepted that very often it isn’t named Duluth when it is presented.  For example, in the article Domestic violence: Male entitlement mentality a factor, the word Duluth is never used.  However, the model is clearly the Duluth model, as it is about power and control and ending male entitlement (emphasis mine):

The real problem is a belief system rooted in male entitlement.

“The underlying belief system is, ‘Because I’m the man in this relationship, I’m in charge,'” Steffy said.

The goal is to help men change the way they think and live, Steffy said. The counselors help them to view relationships as egalitarian, not a hierarchy.

“Our ultimate goal would be for each client to make an absolute commitment to be noncontrolling, nonviolent,” Steffy said.

In the case above the advocate (Roger Steffy with Lutheran Social Services of South Central Pennsylvania) is very open about pushing a feminist/egalitarian model.  But in other cases the same feminist model is delivered by Christian leaders presenting themselves as traditional.  These leaders teach the same feminist concepts, and very often adopt the same feminist terminology, but they present the Duluth paradigm as a (traditional) biblical paradigm and not a radical feminist creation.  This is far more dangerous than the overt teaching of feminism.

I’ve offered examples of this before, but for another example see Pastor Sam Powell’s Headship is not Hierarchy* and his related post Genesis 3:16.  Like Steffy, Powell explains that a hierarchical marriage is by it’s very nature abusive, but he goes a step further and claims the very idea of hierarchy in marriage is of the devil:

The goal of marriage is the one flesh relationship, rather than the antagonistic and abusive relationship that characterized the kingdom of the devil. It isn’t about who makes the coffee, changes the diapers, or does the dishes.

Note how he weaves in feminist resentment to poison the very concept of headship.  Modern wives are constantly encouraged to simmer in feminist resentment over who does the dishes, and Powell makes brilliant use of this to poison the very idea of biblical headship in his reader’s minds.  Part of the ruse here is a very effective distraction.  Powell wants the reader to focus on what he presents as men abusing headship, but his real argument is against headship itself.  In Headship he writes:

I think it is reading to much into the text to say that this means that Adam ruled over his wife. Did Adam sit on the couch and say “Woman, beer me and shut those kids up!” I think not. He did not rule his wife. They both served God and one another perfectly, being without sin.

These are feminist nuclear emotional triggers, designed to terrify the men who are reading and make the women reading furious.  They are stink bombs of marital strife.  But his real point, the one he is sneaking in while lobbing stink bombs, is that husbands are not to lead, even in a loving way. He explains this in his Genesis post:

Let’s take it with the second part of the phrase, “But he shall rule over thee”, which is set in contrast to the first phrase. It’s a disjunctive clause. The word “rule” (mashal) can be good rule, benevolent rule, tyrannical rule or any other kind of rule…

Now that Christ has come, we as men are called, not to rule over our wives (whether benevolently or not) but to love our wives, and thus reflect to the world the love of our great savior, who gave himself for us.

This is also clear in the title “Headship is not hierarchy”;  Powell is against any idea of headship other than one which redefines it as purely submission.

So in answer to the question, “Do I believe that the husband has authority in the home?” My answer is “Yes. Certainly. There is no way around it. He is to wash his wife’s feet, serve her, do good to her, love her – even, as Paul says, give himself for her.

This new definition of headship is really a thinly disguised form of the wife’s role of submission**.  Except in this crossdressing form of headship and submission, husbands are accountable for the outcome while winning their wives without a word:

…the husband is to take the lead in taking the lowest place in the home. That’s not me saying this. That’s Jesus Christ.

It is the husband ultimately responsible for the peace of the home. It is the husband that God will hold accountable for what has been entrusted to him.

Then he switches to Duluth language of abuse, power and control, and male entitlement (emphasis mine):

…he does not rule the home by power and control. He governs his home by service and love. You can see a woman controlled by power. She is downcast and the light is gone in her eyes. And you can see a woman who is loved by her husband. She is alive, fully human, confident, and joyfully doing whatever work God has called her to with spirit and life. Why do so many who claim the name of Christ believe that women are to be controlled by entitlement and power?

The husband isn’t the boss, the commander, the chief, the king. All of that belongs to Christ.

Hierarchy, leading, believing you are the head of the household (in any non feminist sense), is abuse and satanic according to Powell.  Instead, Powell teaches husbands to take on the role of homemaker:

So for you husbands insisting that you are the head of your home, take it seriously. Go home, cook dinner, draw her a bath, do the dishes, put the kids to bed.

As Powell explains, in Christian marriage “It isn’t about who makes the coffee, changes the diapers, or does the dishes”, so long as it is the husband who does these things.

*HT The Question

**The problem is not Powell saying a husband is to serve his wife;  the problem is him using a husband’s obligation to serve his wife to deny headship and entirely recast it as submission.

See Also:  Relishing sin

Posted in Attacking headship, Complementarian, Crossdressing Theology, Disrespecting Respectability, Domestic Violence, Duluth Model, Feminists, Headship, Pastor Sam Powell, Servant Leader, Submission, Traditional Conservatives | 276 Comments

Age of cross-dressing

The woman shall not wear that which pertaineth unto a man, neither shall a man put on a woman’s garment: for all that do so are abomination unto the Lord thy God.

— Deut 22:5, KJV

Yesterday Drudge linked to an article in the Sun about Britain’s first woman to fight on the front line.

GUARDSMAN Chloe Allen has become the British Army’s first female frontline soldier — after being born a boy called Ben.
The 24-year-old joined up four years ago as a man, but changed her name officially last month.

I tried to describe the full absurdity of the story to my wife and daughter last night, with a tattooed man speaking in a deep voice about how honored he is to be the first woman to break through this barrier.

Sporting long polished nails and with silver studs in her ears, she said: “It’s a great honour to make history.

“I’m just looked at as a normal person.”

I finally decided to show them the video embedded in the article, since I really can’t do it justice.  After watching the video my wife was sure it had to be satire, and that I was pulling her leg.

But this is the age we live in, the age of cross-dressing.  It is entirely fitting that the “first woman” to fill this role is a man in the earliest stages of disguising himself as a woman, because putting women in combat has always been about cross-dressing.  When feminists first pitched the idea in earnest, surely nearly everyone had cross dressing in mind, albeit from the other direction.  Who among them would have realized that the culmination of their work would be a man pretending to be a woman pretending to be a man?  The desire was for women to pretend to be men, to wear the garb of men and take on the role of men.  This kind of cross dressing is now entirely normal in our society, just as Ben hopes his apparent change into Chloe will also be accepted as normal.

This morning my wife showed me the cover of the Fall 2016 USAA Magazine.  It features a closeup of a butch woman (Star Cazador) in a Sheriff Department uniform with the caption:


Marine training helped define this law enforcement officer’s mission.

I can’t find the cover image on the web to link to, but it is the top photo here cropped to only show Cazador.  If your browser permits you to blow it up until she takes up the entire frame, you will get a pretty good idea of the cover of the magazine.

Most who see the photo will see nothing wrong with Cazador donning the dress and posture of a man, because this is perfectly normal in our society;  it is seen as a virtue for a woman to do this in our age.  This is even true for most of the people who can still spot the absurdity in Britain’s first female front line soldier.

But now that we have as a society come to not just accept but celebrate Cazador’s cross-dressing, we are also being taught to both accept and celebrate Ben Allen’s cross-dressing.  Just as it was crucial for feminists to teach adults to encourage girls to want to grow up to be men at a young age, Social Justice Warriors are now busy teaching us that boys should be taught to want to grow up to be women at a young age.  This is all around us, but for just one example see the NY Times article Drudge linked to on Friday:  From He to She in First Grade

When our son turned 6, my husband and I bought him a puppet theater and a chest of dress-up clothes because he liked to put on plays. We filled the chest with 20 items from Goodwill, mostly grown-man attire: ties, button-down shirts, a gray pageboy cap and a suit vest.

But we didn’t want his or his castmates’ creative output to be curtailed by a lack of costume choices, so we also included high heels, a pink straw hat, a dazzling fairy skirt and a sparkly green halter dress.

With this as only the beginning of her and her husband’s passive aggressive prodding, they are proud to announce that their son now considers himself a girl.  This life altering change of identity was pushed on him at such a young age he could not have hoped to understand what his parents were softly coaxing him towards. After his first three days in first grade his parents had worked their magic, as his mother proudly explains:

“I already decided about that,” he said. “I never think about that anymore.”

It had been three days.

But it was also true. He had already decided. He didn’t think about that anymore. And he — she — never looked back. She grew out her hair. She stopped telling people she was a boy in a skirt and started being a girl in a skirt instead.

We are much farther down this path than nearly everyone is aware.  Even those who are fighting against this latest SJW crusade are almost entirely unequipped to perceive the true insanity of it. As Cane Caldo brilliantly observes:

The tailspin of America has only accelerated, and it is accelerating at a quadratic rate. Whatever our ethnicities or religions, we now have two groups of people in America: Those who think men who dress as women should disrobe with little girls, and those who think they should disrobe with little boys. (There is no debate about the wrongness of trans-sexualism. There is no concern for the boys.) How did we come to this?

Crossdressing is the spirit of our age, with even modern (conservative) Christians fully caught in its thrall.  The instructions to husbands and wives in the Bible make modern Christians deeply uncomfortable, but all of this is solved by the simple act of embracing cross dressing.  Switch the roles of husband and wife, and modern Christians absolutely adore headship and submission.

Posted in Crossdressing Theology, Envy, Feminist Territory Marking, Feminists, Military, New Morality, New York Times, Rebellion, Social Justice Warriors, Traditional Conservatives, Turning a blind eye, Ugly Feminists, You can't make this stuff up | 142 Comments

She quit big law to have babies and make dolls.

And yet she feels compelled to frame this as a courageous stand against the patriarchy.

She’s going to fix men, so that women (like her) who want to be like men will be satisfied being like men.

Posted in Envy, Feminist Territory Marking, Rationalization Hamster, Social Justice Warriors, You can't make this stuff up | 218 Comments

Are real men attracted to boisterous, opinionated women?

In Real Men Love Strong Women*, a feminist laments the fact that weak men are screwing feminism up:

I’ve heard it too many times: “A man likes a quiet woman.” “Guys don’t respond well to smart girls.” “Educated women are too intimidating to attract good men.”

…we feel very clever when we get to diagnose the cause and cure of singleness. “You’re too opinionated.” “You’re too boisterous.” “A woman should be small, quiet, and delicate.”

Yet, it’s easy to forget in the midst of all our diagnosing: whether a woman is “intimidating” is a factor of male perception, not female personality. Do we want women to be less intimidating? That’s a question to be put to men who experience them as such, and we can only wait for such men to grow.

This basic complaint is standard issue for feminists, and you will regularly see the same lament on Jezebel or Gawker.  However, what sets this particular ban bossy article apart is that it appears on John Piper’s Desiring God website.  Piper you will recall is (along with Grudem) one of the two main founders of the CBMW and the complementarian movement.  Piper is also a council member of the other big complementarian group, The Gospel Coalition.  John Piper is at the core of the complementarian movement, and he published this piece on his personal website.

As a complementarian argument for feminism, the author (Paul Maxwell) frames ban bossy as a matter of being good Christians:

We live in a time when women are outperforming men in many areas of professional and personal competency. And men have two choices: to find female strength captivatingly attractive, or to be insecure and intimidated. Real men love strong women, because God’s glory is beautiful, and “woman is the glory of man” (1 Corinthians 11:7).

Jesus, give men the grace to see the beauty of glorious female strength. Give women the resilience to remain strong long enough for the right men to find them beautiful for the right reasons. And help men and women to fall in love with proven, genuine faith, which is “more precious than gold that perishes though it is tested by fire” (1 Peter 1:7).

Maxwell offers the example of Jael in Judges 4 in making his case that Christianity discourages women from being meek and submissive:

…often, godly femininity requires being strong, even intimidating. Consider Jael in Judges 4. Jael’s husband Heber “had separated from the Kenites,” and “had pitched his tent as far away as the oak in Zaanannim, which is near Kedesh” (Judges 4:11).

So, when Sisera, a Canaanite military general under Jabin the King of Hazor — the enemy of the people of God — tried to seek refuge, he went to Heber’s tent, “for there was peace between Jabin the King of Hazor and the house of Heber the Kenite” (Judges 4:17). But Sisera found Jael at the tent and started barking orders at her: “Give me a little water.” “Stand at the opening of the tent.” In response, “she went softly to him and drove the peg into his temple until it went down into the ground” (Judges 4:21). Deborah later sang of Jael, “Most blessed of women be Jael . . . She sent her hand to the tent peg and her right hand to the workmen’s mallet” (Judges 5:24, 26).

Thank God Jael wasn’t meek and submissive and respectful toward this friend of her wayward husband. She wasn’t one to be trampled on. Strong women reject the requests of evil men.

A far more relevant (and less obscure) Old Testament example would be Sarah in Genesis.  As the Apostle Peter explains in 1 Pet 3, Sarah is the example Christian wives are to emulate:

Wives, in the same way submit yourselves to your own husbands so that, if any of them do not believe the word, they may be won over without words by the behavior of their wives, when they see the purity and reverence of your lives.Your beauty should not come from outward adornment, such as elaborate hairstyles and the wearing of gold jewelry or fine clothes. Rather, it should be that of your inner self, the unfading beauty of a gentle and quiet spirit, which is of great worth in God’s sight. For this is the way the holy women of the past who put their hope in God used to adorn themselves. They submitted themselves to their own husbands, like Sarah, who obeyed Abraham and called him her lord. You are her daughters if you do what is right and do not give way to fear.

Note that Peter tells us that wives who submit to their husbands, who cultivate a gentle and quiet spirit, are beautiful to God.  Maxwell, on the other hand, tells us that men who are attracted to what God finds beautiful are not real men, and not good Christians.  Is God insecure and intimidated because He finds quiet, gentle, and submissive women beautiful?  Of course not.  Moreover, what is beautiful to God is what is beautiful (period).  God does not have faulty “male perception”, He is perfect, and so is His perception.

Not only has Maxwell chosen a relatively obscure OT story while ignoring much more relevant NT direct instruction, but he has managed to miss entirely the point of Judges 4.  The moral of Judges 4 is not that men need strong women to lead them.  The moral is that it was shameful for Barak to insist that Deborah accompany him to the battle.  Because of this, God ensured that Barak would have no glory in the battle by delivering his enemy into the hands of a woman (Jael).

Then she sent and called for Barak the son of Abinoam from Kedesh in Naphtali, and said to him, “Has not the Lord God of Israel commanded, ‘Go and deploy troops at Mount Tabor; take with you ten thousand men of the sons of Naphtali and of the sons of Zebulun; and against you I will deploy Sisera, the commander of Jabin’s army, with his chariots and his multitude at the River Kishon; and I will deliver him into your hand’?”

And Barak said to her, “If you will go with me, then I will go; but if you will not go with me, I will not go!”

So she said, “I will surely go with you; nevertheless there will be no glory for you in the journey you are taking, for the Lord will sell Sisera into the hand of a woman.”

Every other man in the enemy’s army was slaughtered that day by Barak and his men, except for Sisera, whom God reserved for a woman to kill (as punishment to Barak).

16 But Barak pursued the chariots and the army as far as Harosheth Hagoyim, and all the army of Sisera fell by the edge of the sword; not a man was left.

17 However, Sisera had fled away on foot to the tent of Jael..

Instead of badly misinterpreting Judges 4, Maxwell could have turned to the book immediately following Judges, the Book of Ruth.  While Jael is praised in the Song of Deborah for her role in shaming Barak, she is a foreigner who isn’t chronicled in the Bible as converting to become a Hebrew, and if she had any children they aren’t noted in the Bible.  On the other hand, while also a foreigner, Ruth follows God, has a book of the Bible named after her**, and has the honor of being the great grandmother of King David, from whose line Christ was born.

Maxwell could also have gone further to Proverbs 7:11, where a rebellious woman is described as (depending on the translation) loud or boisterous, traits Maxwell is arguing are encouraged by God.  He could likewise have turned to Isaiah 3:12:

As for my people, children are their oppressors, and women rule over them. O my people, they which lead thee cause thee to err, and destroy the way of thy paths.

*HT Woodchipper

**If you haven’t read the book of Ruth, or haven’t read it recently, I highly recommend taking a few minutes to read it.  The story is moving, sweet, short, and every page is guaranteed to make a feminist want to tear out the hair on her legs.

Posted in Ban Bossy, Complementarian, Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood, Crossdressing Theology, Dr. John Piper, Moxie, Social Justice Warriors, Traditional Conservatives, Turning a blind eye, Ugly Feminists, Weak men screwing feminism up, Wife worship | 257 Comments