Rules for dating the candidate’s daughter.

Kemp is running for Governor in Georgia, but I think the same message would go over well in Texas.

H/T Cane Caldo

Posted in Cartoonish Chivalry, Chivalry, Guns, Traditional Conservatives, Turning a blind eye | 42 Comments

Shame on him who thinks evil of it.

The Daily Mail has a new article up naming and shaming a young man who is accused* of privately telling his (then) girlfriend the dress she bought was too slutty: US high school student, 16, who dumped her slut-shaming boyfriend after he said her prom dress ‘showed too much skin’ finally reveals the offending gown – but says she WON’T be attending

Slut shaming is one of the gravest sins of our feminist age, but it is not merely a feminist sin. Slut shaming is also a sin against chivalry. This goes all the way back to the 1300s and the Order of the Garter, Britain’s highest order of chivalry.  The founding motto of the Order of the Garter shames any man who commits the sin of slut shaming:

Honi soit qui mal y pense (Shame on him who thinks evil of it)

In the case of the slut shaming boyfriend, it was the girl’s father who wanted the world to know who had sinned against his daughter in this way:

The teen had initially kept her ex’s identity anonymous, but her father, Kevin Witham told ‘My daughter’s ex-boyfriend’s name is Justice Champion he is a 19-year old boy who lives in a nearby town.

‘In the past I met him a few times and I was really impressed by him. Justice graduated from high school last year. His father is a local policeman in the area.’

Not surprisingly, many of the responses the Daily Mail recounted came from a chivalrous perspective:

‘We love a queen that knows her self worth!!!!!!!!!’ one user wrote to the teen.

‘Yes girl drop that boy and find yourself a real man!’

One man who stepped up to the plate even offered to be a stand-in for her prom date writing: ‘If you need someone to give you a great night and treat you the way you deserve let me know. You deserve better than that. Respect.’

Her father’s attitude strikes me as a natural blending of both chivalry and feminism:

Her father added: ‘Madison is a strong young women and wasn’t expecting all of the media attentions she had garnered from all of this.

‘But she is happy with the amount of followers she is getting on Instagram.’

*The accused claims that he did not send the text messages in question. H/T Devon35

Posted in Chivalry, Daily Mail, Modesty, Slut, Traditional Conservatives, Turning a blind eye, Ugly Feminists | 90 Comments

She’s too traditional to marry her baby daddy.

From the Daily Mail:  Mother reveals she REJECTED ‘thoughtless and lazy’ blackboard proposal 

I said I didn’t like the ring and it was obvious that it was completely mid judged with the timing of the proposal.’

The mother explained that they agreed that he would try again with another ring, but that the surprise element had been ruined for her.

Adding that her partner was an amazing father but put no effort into occasions, she questioned whether she could move past the fact that he wasn’t romantic, admitting that she had stayed awake crying at night over it.

In her defense, while we still pretend otherwise, marriage is no longer a real family model. Legally speaking, marriage is now almost entirely symbolic, an optional facade we place over our real family model, the child support system.  Since legal marriage is a matter of aesthetics, there is a certain logic to only constructing the facade if the aesthetics are right.

Moreover, even if she refuses to marry her baby daddy after he manages to jump through all of her proposal hoops, she knows that traditional conservatives will do her the favor of pretending that she was “abandoned” by her children’s father.

Posted in Child Support, Marriage, Traditional Conservatives | 320 Comments

Not enough cash and prizes.

The Telegraph has an article up about the impact of reduced cash incentives for women to divorce:

Fewer wives are being awarded income for life and they are increasingly having their divorce settlement limited to a few years.

This is making some of them back off from going through with a split, law firms say.

This should surprise no one.  Incentives matter.  Raise the cash reward paid to women who blow up their families, and more women will choose to blow up their families.  Lower the cash reward, and more children will grow up with daddy in the home (but mommy is restricted from having sex with other men).

There is a less obvious but socially even more powerful impact of these cash incentives.  Cash incentives aren’t just designed to blow up some families, they are designed to destabilize all families.  As Wolfers and Stevenson explain in Bargaining in the Shadow of the Law: Divorce Laws and Family Distress, by encouraging wives to divorce, feminists are able to give wives power and control over their husbands (emphasis mine):

In the literature on the economics of the family there has been growing consensus on the need to take bargaining and distribution within marriage seriously. Such models of the family rely on a threat point to determine distribution within the household. The switch to a unilateral divorce regime redistributes power in a marriage, giving power to the person who wants out, and reducing the power previously held by the partner interested in preserving the marriage.

To see how divorce laws affect the external threat point, note that prior to unilateral divorce, a partner wishing to dissolve the marriage could leave without their spouse’s consent.  However, in such a situation, a legal divorce is not granted and, as such, the right to remarry is forfeited. Under unilateral divorce the value of the exit threat increases for the unsatisfied spouse, as the right to remarry is retained regardless of the position of one’s spouse. Thus, the exit threat model predicts that changes in divorce regimes will have real effects. If the divorce threat is sufficiently credible, it may directly affect intrafamily bargaining outcomes without the option ever being exercised.

By slightly reducing the cash and prizes women receive as a reward for divorcing, UK judges are transferring some of the power in marriages back to the party that wants to honor the marriage vows (the husband).

H/T DR Smith

Posted in Disrespecting Respectability, Divorce, Threatpoint, Ugly Feminists | 68 Comments

Modern Christian teachers of the lesson in The Wedding of Sir Gawain.

In The Wedding of Sir Gawain we learn that what women want is sovereynté (control).  If a husband loves his wife, he will grant her the sovereynté that she covets.  As a result of her loving husband granting her sovereynté, the wife will become extremely beautiful.

This of course isn’t just a moral message from the 15th century.  Modern Christian leaders teach variations on the same theme.  Dr Richard Strauss taught in the early 1970s that wives are “responders”.  If her husband treats her right, she will blossom and become beautiful.  If he doesn’t, she will become (or remain) ugly (emphasis mine):

The woman is a responder. This is the obvious role of someone who depends on another person. Flowers depend on sunshine and rain; when they get it, they respond by blossoming into gorgeous beauty. This is how God made a woman too. She responds to what she receives. If she receives irritability, criticism, disapproval, unkindness, indifference, lack of appreciation, or lack of affection, she will respond with a defense mechanism, such as bitterness, coolness, defiance, or nagging. Some women turn to drinking or submerge themselves in social activities.

But if the woman receives love she will respond with love, and will blossom into the most beautiful creature under God’s heaven.

Pastor Doug Wilson teaches something similar in his book Reforming Marriage.  Wilson opens Chapter 4 with a feminist critique of the pressure women feel to “keep themselves up”:

Love Bestows Loveliness

A common assumption in the world is that women must “keep themselves up” in order to keep a man. In the world of attracting and being attracted, women are taught to view themselves as being primarily responsible for their own attractiveness or loveliness. This viewpoint is inculcated early. Once young girls used to play with baby dolls, seeing themselves in the role of the nurturing mother; now they can be seen playing with Barbie dolls, seeing themselves in the place of the doll. And of course, the doll is both pretty and stacked. The pressure is on and stays on.

The problem, according to Wilson, is the evil patriarchy.  Women should not feel pressure to conform to conventional standards of beauty.  Their fathers and husbands have the obligation to make them beautiful by loving them properly.  Wilson continues (all further emphasis mine):

The perversion in this is not that women desire to be attractive or lovely. The perversion is the modern divorce of a woman’s loveliness from the behavior of her father and husband. There is nothing wrong with wanting a lovely garden; there is a great deal of folly in wanting a lovely garden which will tend and keep itself. The Bible teaches that a Christian husband is responsible for the loveliness of his wife. Before she is married, her father is responsible for that loveliness. When she marries, her husband assumes this responsibility. The husband’s example in this kind of loving is Jesus Christ.

…when a man takes a woman into his home, all who know them should expect to see her flourish and grow in loveliness in the years to come. If their wedding ceremony referred at all to the fifth chapter of Ephesians, was this not what he vowed he would do? As a husband treats his wife in the scriptural fashion, he should expect her to grow increasingly lovely. This is not because the husband has earned it, but rather because through the grace of God, he has been blessed

Note that Pastor Wilson isn’t writing about the kind of internal beauty the Apostle Peter writes about in 1 Pet 3:1-6.  If he were writing about that, he would need to acknowledge that it is the wife herself who is responsible for cultivating this through her submission to her husband.  Wilson devotes several pages to explaining that he is writing about physical beauty, and eventually explains:

This may all seem like a belaboring of the obvious—“everyone knows there are pretty women”—but it is an important point for husbands to understand. When husbands undertake the assigned responsibility of loving their wives in such a way that they grow in loveliness, they need to understand that the results will be visible. This does not mean that, with the right husband, all women could be equally beautiful. Some women have the advantage of a greater natural beauty, and others had exceptional fathers—men who treated their daughters right. But it does mean that a man who marries biblically should expect his wife to be visibly lovelier on their tenth anniversary—and if she is not, he knows that he is the one responsible. But as the one responsible, he has to know where true beauty begins. Every husband should learn how to ask, “What will living with a man like me do to this woman’s appearance?”

Eventually Wilson does get around to to quoting 1 Pet 3:1-6, but he only does this after creating a fictitious biblical requirement for husbands to make their wives physically beautiful.  Wilson explains that 1 Pet 3:1-6 must be read as an injunction to husbands to make their wives physically beautiful by loving her as Christ loves the Church:

Peter urges this internal gentleness upon the wives. But taking the teaching of all of Scripture into account, we can see that a woman concentrates on this under the loving oversight of her husband. As he loves her, she bears fruit. As she bears this fruit, it delights him. In this delight he loves her more, and she bears more fruit. The wife is to cooperate fully, receiving his love, but he is the one responsible to give it.

Posted in Attacking headship, Chivalry, Complementarian, Dr. Richard L. Strauss, Pastor Doug Wilson, Reforming Marriage, Romantic Love, Servant Leader, Submission, The Real Feminists, Traditional Conservatives, Turning a blind eye, Wife worship | 487 Comments