Dereliction of duty

I was curious if the CBMW had a response to the decision to open all combat roles to women.  I was curious given their great ambivalence regarding biblical gender roles if they would oppose the inclusion of women in combat, and if they opposed it, if they would call out the very obvious rebellion by women in this regard.  Like Eve in Eden, women are envious of a position they don’t have, and are grasping for that which they should not grasp.

I don’t see a response to yesterday’s announcement, but I did find an article in response to the announcement back in 2013 that started this process.  The piece was written by CBMW Executive Director Owen Strachan, titled Women in combat: A complementarian perspective

The piece doesn’t acknowledge that women are grasping for the roles of men.  Instead it astonishingly presents this as a problem of men being unwilling to serve in combat, thereby forcing women to serve in men’s place.  The piece twists the message of Genesis to remove Eve’s rebellion, implying that Eve only sinned because Adam failed to protect her from the possibility of sinning (emphasis mine):

Scripture teaches that woman was made from man, a truth that grounds her dependence on him (Gen. 2:21-22). It details how Adam failed to own this responsibility and protect his wife. For this reason, God addressed him first after the forbidden fruit was eaten: “Where are you?” (Gen. 3:9). Adam was a self-crippled man.

This is the common complementarian dodge of the issue of women’s rebellion, but it is still striking to see the claim made so shamelessly.  Clearly if Adam failed to protect Eve from the possibility of sin, God did as well.  But this wasn’t Adam’s sin in the garden.  Adam’s sin was going along with his wife when he witnessed her rebellion, because confronting the rebellion would have been uncomfortable.

Modern Christian men are failing Christian women in the exact same way Adam failed Eve.  We aren’t willing to call out their rebellion, and instead are taking the easy feel good path.  This is ironically exactly what the CBMW is doing on the subject of women in the military.  Out of fear of confronting the rebellion, they have constructed a fantasy world where women aren’t grasping for the position of men, but instead men are begging women to serve in their place.

This is a fantasy no-one but the complementarians believes, as feminists are quite clear as to their intent. The push to integrate women into all combat roles is also part of a wider “progressive” push with the military, including the repeal of the bans on transvestites and open homosexuality.  Men are no more to blame for women wanting to take on the roles of men than women are to blame for men like Bruce Jenner wanting to have vaginas.

The piece closes with:

If men will not own this responsibility, then women will be forced to take it on as did biblical women such as Deborah and Jael (and the extrabiblical figure Judith). Many modern men fail to mirror Christ in leading, providing, and protecting. In the cries of fatherless children, the strained voice of working mothers desperately seeking “work-life balance,” and the Marine Corps Gazette, we hear echoes of the Bible’s first question, addressed to a self-crippled man: “Where are you?”

As Christian men we aren’t responsible for women’s temptation to rebel, but we do have a responsibility to try to guide them away from this sin. It is true that doing this is at times very uncomfortable, and in our feminist age for many the idea of it is quite terrifying.  Yet we can’t allow our fears to overwhelm us as the CBMW is doing.  Women need us to do our duty, and we must not allow ourselves to flee this duty in fear.

This entry was posted in Complementarian, Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood, Denial, Envy, Headship, Manliness, Military, Owen Strachan, Rebellion, Turning a blind eye. Bookmark the permalink.

219 Responses to Dereliction of duty

  1. Pingback: Dereliction of duty | Manosphere.com

  2. Anonymous Reader says:

    “Complimentarianism” alll to often is just the same old trad-con neo-Victorian pedestalization of women with a side of 2nd stage equalitarian feminism. A Venn diagram of the two ideologies has a prominent intersection in the area of “It’s All Men’s Fault” as an explanation of any problem, be it societal or individual. IMO this is due to the Complementarian’s failure to actually analyze the world around them, failure to engage the science that is out there, failure to actually read the plain language of the Bible quotes they wave around – why, it’s almost as though the complimentarians emote rather than think. Emoting is their default position, it appears.

    Now, how could that be, I wonder?

  3. Pingback: Dereliction of duty | Neoreactive

  4. Minesweeper says:

    Im not sure if they are retarded, deluded, insane or just blind and stupid.

    But I’ve certainly seen alot of this type of thinking among the foolish white knights in the church. Its an absolute perversion to put women into the place of being sinless and without fault.

  5. BradA says:

    Very good points Dalrock. We need to keep the proper focus in issues like this. Neither blaming men nor freeing them from all accountability is appropriate.

  6. javaloco says:

    These ministries like to trot out, “what came first” in a sequence of events. One of the passages about love respect first instructs men to love their wives, so obviously that is most important. When confronted with that, the fact that later in the bible, women are urged to respect their husbands first is not considered.

    Similarly here, Adam was the first to be confronted by God when they perceived their nakedness. Fair enough. He is the boss. However, Eve was the first of those two to be punished. What does that say? Perhaps that while she falls under Adam’s headship, she still is responsible for herself to do so. Adam did tell her not to eat of the tree. She disobeyed. She paid her own consequences FIRST.

  7. Dolan says:

    Women need to serve because its mens fault for fucking things up… give me a fucking break. Pfft they can all start getting shipped off do die in the next pointless war as far as I’m concerned. Lets see how well grrl power holds up in combat.

  8. Anonymous Reader says:

    An interesting test might be to ask someone who identifies as “complimentarian” questions centered around women’s rebellion. I speculate that most such people would grudgingly, eventually, admit that some women rebel sometimes, but then hasten on to add that the only reason a woman ever gets into rebellion is because she isn’t being led properly. In other words, her rebelliousness is All Men’t Fault.

    Another test would be to ask the same people if women have agency or not, i.e. can women be held responsible for their actions…I would predict a strong affirmative answer, but of course any bad behavior is still All Men’s Fault. Such is to be expected from feminized emoters.

  9. craig says:

    Let me get this straight:
    — Men who allow women combat roles are at fault for not protecting women.
    — Men who deny women combat roles are at fault for holding women back.
    — Men who willingly accept women in combat roles, following the orders of their superiors, are at fault for indifference.
    — Men who unwillingly accept women in combat roles, following the orders of their superiors, are at fault for misogyny.

    Modernist Churchianity = men at fault in all cases.

  10. 2084GO says:

    Is it ever transmen’s fault?

  11. rugby11ljh says:

    Adam’s apple
    It details how Adam failed to own this responsibility and protect his wife

  12. Easttexasfatboy says:

    Let women get shot up, just like the men. Strong independent women bleed and die just like men. Stop protecting them. Seriously. What’s going to happen is this…..as this society collapses, massacres are going to become more common. Feminists are quite capable of dying alone. Let them. Women are useless in combat. Under pressure, they will be subject to friendly fire. Oh well…..combat is unforgiving, and women are the weak link.

  13. KB says:

    “As Christian men we aren’t responsible for women’s temptation to rebel, but we do have a responsibility to try to guide them away from this sin.”

    Please show your work.

    It’s one thing if you are married or are worried about rebellion from family members etc… but outside of that I have a hard time understanding why men have an obligation to engage in this conversation.

  14. desiderian says:

    “Where are you?”

    Not in your pews, hotshot; you can be sure of that.

  15. The Question says:

    @ Dalrock

    This goes back to what I was saying in an earlier post. This kind of rationalization justifying what feminists advocate as the fault of weak men is what could take things down a very dark path if nothing changes, especially when the current cultural Keynesian setup we have going on collapses at some unknown point in the future. Feminists will of course blame men as scapegoats, and God knows what they will advocate to “solve” the problem.

    The question is, will churchians like these finally realize their folly, or will they continue to turn a blind eye and blame it on the men for not being strong enough or not fulfilling their duties as men? So far, that is what they have been doing. If they do turn a blind eye, who will stand up for the rights of men – or at least the ones who will get stepped on? And what if any remaining goodwill amongst those men has by then been completely squandered?

    I’m not saying any of this will happen, but gunpowder stored next to gasoline doesn’t always cause an explosion. That doesn’t mean the very real potential for one is nonexistent.

    It reminds me of what Fred Thompson said in The Hunt for Red October: “This business will get out of control. It will get out of control and we’ll be lucky to live through it.”

  16. Miserman says:

    In a previous blog article, I asked the question of what Adam was supposed to do in Eden when the serpent came around. The current narrative would require Adam as a husband to directly impinge on Eve’s freedom of will. In other words, Adam would have had to command Eve what to do. In modern Christianity, the idea that a husband regulating his wife’s life is anathema, though the universal guilt of the husband all but requires such control to protect him from a fatalistic future. If Adam is completely responsible for Eve’s spiritual state, then he cannot be separated from the authority needed to protect that state.

  17. The piece twists the message of Genesis to remove Eve’s rebellion, implying that Eve only sinned because Adam failed to protect her from the possibility of sinning,…

    http://therationalmale.com/2015/07/14/our-sisters-keeper/

    It becomes men’s fault for not having the fortitude and presence of mind to correct them when they needed it – never mind the lifetime of Blue Pill conditioning that taught them judging women made them misogynistic assholes. I understand axiom that men and women get the men and women they deserve, but I wanted to explore this blame game dynamic a bit more.

    […]The Feminine Imperative relies on memes and conventions which shift the ownership of women’s personal liabilities for their sexual strategy to men.

    Still think the mindset of church culture hasn’t been assimilated by the Feminine Imperative?

  18. Easttexasfatboy says:

    I learned a good while back about horses and water. Essentially, feminism is a easily spread mental and spiritual disorder that destroys all who are infected. Once a woman becomes a feminist, she’s lost. As for defending them, let them defend themselves. MGTOW is the rational response to this whole mess.

    As for christianity, well, we are warned about what’s happening right now. Best know the Bible for yourself. As has been said……a man’s enemies will rise up from his own household. Plain enough for me.

  19. It’s not complementarian, it’s passing the egalitarian buck for women’s choices.

    My favorite of Dalrock’s comments from Bitter Taste of the Red Pill:

    […]They want to take an inherently unsafe activity and make it safe. They want to submit to a man without having to submit; they want a man who can tame their feral self. They want him to trip their danger signals. Even better if he is a stranger from a strange land.

    They wan’t this all to happen without giving up their freedom; they want to play this out in the context of serial monogamy, so they can feel loved while also claiming their promiscuity is moral. They want to lose control to a string of strangers who have all of the hallmarks of very dangerous men, and they want a promise that this will always end well.

    They want to know that this will be safe, without it losing the excitement of it feeling unsafe. They are telling men to build a sort of serial monogamy amusement park where they can ride the roller coaster and experience the fear of falling or crashing, while knowing that just behind the scenes grown ups are actually in charge and are responsible for them safely feeling unsafe.

    One more thing. As I mentioned above they don’t want to be hemmed in. So instead of building an actual amusement park, they want roller coasters to spring up randomly in the same exact circumstances where the real danger they mimic would appear. They want to be driving their car on the freeway one instant, and the next experience the fear of careening out of control the next. They want to impulsively jump off the edge of the Grand Canyon and have a parachute appear and deploy at the last minute. And all they ask is your guarantee that all of this will be safe.

    Now apply this dynamic to a woman wanting to endanger herself and the lives of others by opting in for a combat role that a feminine-primary social order has convinced her (by lowering its standards to accommodate her) that she is in fact capable of.

  20. Chris says:

    “Lets see how well grrl power holds up in combat.”

    For the ones that don’t “fall” pregnant when their numbers come up, anyway.

  21. DrTorch says:

    “Where are you?”

    Not in your pews, hotshot; you can be sure of that.

    +1

  22. Gunner Q says:

    “If men will not own this responsibility, then women will be forced to take it on as did biblical women such as Deborah and Jael (and the extrabiblical figure Judith).”

    Deborah is on record in Judges 4 as a prophetess that other people came to for decisions. Not an authoritative management style. (Being a married woman, her husband could have led Israel by using her as a proxy.) When it was time for real leadership, she nominated Barak to lead the army. Barak is confirmed as the deliverer of Israel in 1 Samuel 12:11. Interestingly, Barak makes the list of Hebrews 11 but Deborah does not.

    Also in Judges 4, God gave the victory of killing Sisera to Jael specifically as a punishment to Barak’s reliance upon Deborah. Note that Jael betrayed an alliance when she killed Sisera (4:17) and, far from being a soldier, she murdered him in his sleep.

  23. payne325 says:

    I’m getting some hate on my FB page for disagreeing with pro-feminist, pro-abortion claptrap. I occasionally post links to your posts. They are not popular with some. That’s why I keep posting.

  24. Easttexasfatboy says:

    Combat requires trust. Women aren’t trustworthy. I wonder how many will get shot in the back, or get short fused. You see, if you can’t pull your weight, well……crap happens, as they say. Fairness, equality? Lots of explosives lying around…..So, don’t get all worked up about women in combat. It’s a sign of a dying society. Feminists have no idea of how violent things can get.

  25. Looking Glass says:

    @Gunner Q:

    It’s fascinating how the story of Deborah and Barak has been twisted by moderns. Just actually reading it explains what’s going on very clearly. Deborah was a Prophetess (not something unique, just rare), but Barak was the Judge and over Israel.

    I also see they never like to mention Jephthah from Judges 11. Having to keep vows (even stupid ones)? The Jews only mourned the foolishness for several hundred years.

  26. BradA says:

    Miserman,

    I believe Adam should have abrogated her will in this case, if he really was there. The text implies that, but doesn’t confirm it, so we can’t know. That is also why I hold him more responsible, but I still would not hold Eve blameless. She also should have checked with her husband before acting. That would certainly go against the grain today.

  27. Wibbins says:

    Question: me and the wife and recently decided to forgo birth control in a few months to start adding to the family, my question is what or where can I find fatherly advice on raising children with a Christian red pill direction

  28. I have no doubt that in usual circumstances Strachan would be on the right lines but before he engages men in shaming them perhaps we should see how he does with feminists first because
    it is unfair to ask men to counsel their women when those same women will tell them to F— off.
    Strachan has his work cut out for him,not from men but certainly from feminists.His is a voice in the wilderness.

  29. ws1835 says:

    So the article unwittingly advocates men taking up their responsibility, the responsibility to tell women ‘no’ when necessary…….

    Ironic….

  30. Ah yes, to armed combat! Ladies first!

  31. This is a feminist society, it’s only fair that women fight to keep it. I won’t lift a finger.

  32. Easttexasfatboy says:

    Yeppers, FH, kinda hard to defend those who hate you.

  33. DrTorch says:

    From Instapundit

    CRYBULLIES & NARCISSISTS: The president of Oklahoma Wesleyan blames the current campus tantrums on students who are taught to be “self-absorbed and narcissistic.” He’s on to something, according to Jean Twenge, who has reported an increase in narcissism among young people. Narcissists have inflated conceptions of themselves and feel entitled to special privileges, while at the same time they’re quite brittle — if anyone questions their wonderfulness, they quickly take offense and turn extremely aggressive. (Remind you of anyone?)

    Twenge has found the rise in narcissism to be especially notable in young women, so it may be no coincidence that the crybullies have so often been female.

    The point is that CBMW, FLT, FotF, etc aren’t confronting, rebuking and disciplining sin, they’re cultivating it. Ironically, as CBMW and others bash Adam for his original sin, it is they who are repeating it.

  34. Will S. says:

    Reblogged this on Patriactionary and commented:
    As can be seen here and in Dalrock’s previous posts on the CBMW, they give real complementarianism a bad name, by tarring the term with their men-bashing churchian evanjellyfish ideology. No man with any brains should bother listening to anything they say (except to critique, of course).

  35. Pingback: Dereliction of duty | Reaction Times

  36. feeriker says:

    Best know the Bible for yourself.

    Indeed, if everyone –especially every man– knew and understood the Bible for himself, churchianity would never have become the all-pervasive virus that it is. Alas, humans being a fundamentally indolent lot, to know the Bible for thyself takes conscious effort, rearranging of priorities, and the sacrifice of time. This the indolent do not do as a matter of habit. Much easier to be passively spoon-fed predigested pablum, however bland and devoid of nutrition, than to go out and hunt and prepare fresh food for oneself.

  37. Easttexasfatboy says:

    If you know and stand up for what God has actually said, you are going to be hated……no doubt about it. Feminists following in the footsteps of Eve? Of course they are. Churchianity and the Pharisees? You bet. So, we’re told to consider it all joy, right? Treachery and betrayal……start in the house of God. Isn’t that one of the reasons why the Lord is coming?

  38. donalgraeme says:

    @ Wibbins

    There aren’t a whole lot out there. My primary suggestion would be Scott’s blog:

    https://morallycontextualizedromanceblog.wordpress.com/

  39. Gunner Q says:

    @Wibbins,

    The Bible itself is a good start. A lot of Manosphere principles can be found in the stories of Samson, Solomon, Esther, Ruth and other places. Not to mention the NT’s guidelines for male/female relationships.

    Simply pointing out examples of Blue Pill/Red Pill as your family goes through life is very effective.

  40. payne325 says:

    Rollo, you posted this: “Still think the mindset of church culture hasn’t been assimilated by the Feminine Imperative?” Is it not more accurate to say that Church culture has assimilated the mindset of the Feminine Imperative?

  41. infowarrior1 says:

    @Gunner Q

    ”Deborah is on record in Judges 4 as a prophetess that other people came to for decisions.”

    Not to mention that women bearing rule over men is mentioned in Isaiah as a judgment of God.

    Although I am curious. How did Deborah fulfil her role? Was she like a wise old woman that dispensed wisdom and help resolve disputes that way or did she judge between one man and another like Moses when he led Israel in the Desert?

  42. A Visitor says:

    Try this one on for size: women shouldn’t be in the military, period. I don’t care how well a woman is at a) military intel b) supply, etc (or even those rare few that have the physical fortitude to be in combat arms positions). Warfare was and should be the exclusive domain of men.

    The moment women are introduced anywhere in the military picture several things happen: 1) women’s hygiene must be considered 2) women’s inability to maintain the same physical standards as men puts said men in danger in combat and 3) all the drama that comes along with women being in (sleeping with superior officers, cat fights, etc.).

    It’d be better for our national security if they weren’t there. But, that’d be too logical…

  43. A Visitor says:

    That’s what I’d say to fools such as the one you quoted from, Dalrock. Just my 2¢ as always.

  44. payne325 says:

    I whole-heartedly second A Visitor’s point of view.

  45. 2084GO says:

    “Warfare was and should be the exclusive domain of men. ”

    Not according to world history. There have always been women warriors, Not nearly the numerical amount as men, but enough to make history. In general warfare is not something women are interested in waging and they probably never will be. This ruling will not change that. Nothing to see here, move on. Lets talk about how we can get men to become uninterested in this bullshit as well. Out of all the mens’ cultures on line, MGTOW is the only one I’d dare expose my sons to.

  46. Easttexasfatboy says:

    Gents, ya’ll are missing the point……Women are going to be thrown in combat, and they’ll be killed in great numbers. Men used to want to protect women…..now, not so much. The women can’t be trusted……and no amount of bs will cover that up. The men who won’t kill the weak women will be killed in combat, all because of the failures of these weak women.

  47. 2084GO says:

    “Gents, ya’ll are missing the point……Women are going to be thrown in combat, and they’ll be killed in great numbers. ”

    Yeah we get it. Cause for celebration? Everyone who signs up for combat knows the risks.

  48. freebird says:

    Seen a hatchet faced woman in Wally world wearing a T-shirt that said:”My daughter is serving so your son doesn’t have to.”

    I wanted to punch her in the face.

  49. Modsquad says:

    CBMW isn’t afraid of calling out the women’s rebellion, they’re afraid of her first husband, as you are. The Garden aside, every Eve today is betrothed in marriage the day she’s born, and her first spouse is the State. Behind her stands the law, the courts, the police and the pain for any man who dishonors her position as first lady. The State can do with her as it wishes, but men need to watch their step. Her fear is just as great as any man’s, in an unacknowledged way. This was an arranged marriage—she knows no other way of life and knows of no way out.

    Men and women both know how this will end. Today the State is giving her permission to serve in the military as men do, if she so wishes. Tomorrow the State will tell her she’s obligated to serve. The day after that the State will exercise her service in combat and she will know firsthand the pain that every man already understands.

    CBMW isn’t the coward sacrifice you’re looking for.

  50. Anonymous Reader says:

    CBMW isn’t afraid of calling out the women’s rebellion,

    Cites, please. Should be easy for you to provide links.

  51. 2084GO says:

    “Seen a hatchet faced woman in Wally world wearing a T-shirt that said:”My daughter is serving so your son doesn’t have to.”

    A “hell yeah!” pro-‘Murican empire, warmongering, right wing biyotch.

    “I wanted to punch her in the face.”

    Better to give her a flower and flash her the peace sign. That riles those types up more.

  52. mmaier2112 says:

    Meh. I don’t care. Most women will wilt and cower and do ANYTHING up to and including faking insanity to get out of combat. I know one woman who did that to get out of BASIC TRAINING. And another that would have gone AWOL on her NG deployment to Trashkanistan but she would have been fired from her day job in the DoD so she “sucked it up” and went. (To sit around in AC-cooled rooms, do nothing and get combat pay… WTFF?) Then she was lauded for her “service”. Fuck the military.

    Even if they (male or female) go and get shot dead, I do not care any more. Nothing about this country is worth fighting or dying for. My family and friends are all I care about and all I will fight or die for. The government can rot or burn. It will discard me in a split second. The feeling is mutual.

  53. ray says:

    Well said.

    Scripture doesn’t report that Adam failed to protect Eve from disobedience. She’d already transgressed, and his failure was inability to rebuke and correct her. Take the toy away. Then he compounded it all by imitating her. Hello Cupcake Jenner!

    “If men will not own this responsibility, then women will be forced to take it on as did biblical women such as Deborah and Jael (and the extrabiblical figure Judith).”

    That’s his post-facto rationalization for allowing feminism, and the authority of women over him . . . the complicity of these people in maintaining and extending Eve’s sin. Then calling it Christianity.

    His public support of female rebellion insufficient, he assures us that women are FORCED to rebel against men and to usurp masculinity. :O) Adam made Eve eat from knowledge. And would have abused her if she hadn’t.

    Conversely, the way to return to the edenic relationship with God is, in part, by refusing Adam’s sin. Better yet, by identifying and rejecting those who sell or enable that error.

  54. embracingreality says:

    A Visitor said “Try this one on for size: women shouldn’t be in the military, period.”

    If you’d like to add to that > *Shouldn’t be allowed the right to vote, period* then I say fine, otherwise to hell with special privileges for women! WOMEN CURRENTLY VOTE, any administration who gets in office will be heavily, if not primarily, supported by women. They are the largest voting block.

    Women have the freedom to vote, they need the obligation to defend that same freedom or give it up. If you’re telling me I’m obligated, through selective service, to fight, suffer even die to defend these shitty American women who vote in these liberal socialist trash? Piss right on that!

  55. cynthia says:

    What everyone these days seems to forget is that when a nation fields large numbers of female soldiers, it’s only doing so because that nation is on its last legs, desperate to survive by any means it has left. These sorts of moves are applauded in the West as signs of “progress,” but to our enemies, they’re further indications of our weakness.

  56. Easttexasfatboy says:

    You’re right, Cynthia. We’re living at the end of our country. Lots of reasons, but mainly due to feminism. God is not one to be mocked, we’ve sown a real bitter harvest as a nation. Infanticide and baby parts.

  57. Gunner Q says:

    infowarrior1 @ 5:40 pm:
    “Although I am curious. How did Deborah fulfil her role? Was she like a wise old woman that dispensed wisdom and help resolve disputes that way or did she judge between one man and another like Moses when he led Israel in the Desert?”

    Judges 4:5 heavily favors the former. There’s nothing to indicate she forced people to accept her decisions; she didn’t even force Barak to proceed without her, just forwarded a warning like prophets do. Either Deborah is the one single woman in the entire Bible to rule over men with God’s authority, despite God’s design for human nature and many commands the contrary, and was still replaced by God as soon as there was fighting to be done, or the men took their disputes to her voluntarily.

  58. jack says:

    If the unfallen Adam couldn’t keep the evil one’s snake out of his woman’s mind, I’m not sure how any of us could be expected to.

    Like children, women really don’t seem to handle options well.

  59. ray says:

    “Treachery and betrayal……start in the house of God. Isn’t that one of the reasons why the Lord is coming?”

    It is. And he is.

    King Jeshua begins the Book of Revelation by reviewing the house of God, calling out ‘synagogues of satan’ and so forth. The false, the self-serving, the treacherous.

    But repentance and restoration also start in the Church, amongst various groups using his Name. He repeats this in those early chapters, affirmation those who have ‘not denied my Name’ and inferring some of these will shape-up. That means the Gentiles plus the few Hebrews who’ve seen the light. Then he usually says we’ll get snuffed-out if we insist on rebelling.

  60. rednig says:

    Rarely has having women in combat done anything but get men killed. In christian times, a great many women have gone to war. Eleanor of Aquitaine, for one. Molly Pitcher for another. Native American women had every right to go to war is they wanted, yet it was considered unusual to do so. A number of them did, and were successful, but never warred overlong. Losen, the Apache, the Cherokee Widows in 1812. They did it more for revenge. Comanche newlyweds often went raiding together, but again, usual. Women felt it somewhat demeaning to make war, and rarely did so unless the town was attacked. Like Spartans, they trained as children with the boys but preferred to remain women, not something half-over. I wish them well, but hope they never get men killed, but they will. The USSR saw that, as did Vietnam and other places. Oh, and the Moskitos Indians, women do night patrol with their men until they become pregnant. Something, they claim about war. It makes men and women eager and more fertile🙂

  61. feeriker says:

    Seen a hatchet faced woman in Wally world wearing a T-shirt that said:”My daughter is serving so your son doesn’t have to.”

    I wanted to punch her in the face.

    She might as well have been wearing a t-shirt that read “I’m with Stupid” (with an arrow pointing up toward her neck).

  62. Dave says:

    Let me get this straight:
    — Men who allow women combat roles are at fault for not protecting women.
    — Men who deny women combat roles are at fault for holding women back.
    — Men who willingly accept women in combat roles, following the orders of their superiors, are at fault for indifference.
    — Men who unwillingly accept women in combat roles, following the orders of their superiors, are at fault for misogyny.

    Modernist Churchianity = men at fault in all cases.

    You got that right. All men are guilty until proven guilty.

  63. Dave says:

    Like children, women really don’t seem to handle options well.

    God never intended that women would have lots of options, and that is what they tend to agonize over very simple decisions which a man would make in a jiffy. She was created for specific reasons: to support the man, and bear and nurture children. Everything else is just details. When you put a woman where she must make independent decisions, you have unwittingly put her in a hostile environment. Like taking fish out of water, or putting an oriental animal in an American zoo.
    A woman will show how beautiful she can be when she is under the authority, guidance and protection of a masculine man who loves her. The further away she gets from this picture, the uglier and incompetent she naturally becomes.
    No, women were not made to have power, or many options, because they are not equipped to handle either.

  64. rednig says:

    Old saying by old men, oh a woman’s faults are many, this we know it true, while man he has but two: Everything he say, everything he do.

  65. rednig says:

    Man, ouch. You don’t know any Native American women, do you? They own everything, control everything because “Woman is born to life, man but to die, but to die well for Woman and children.” What happens when the big masculine hubby gets his butt shot off? should the widow die, too? Or will she go on to raise the kids, keep house, have a job, and live in quiet dignity? You do not understand the Bible or women. Women are the power. They’re the ones who sigh and maybe cry and their children become civilized, not little heathens. Your first teacher was a woman, and the one who was respected because she held power as a woman. Chesterton, I think, said it best, We go not to battle because we hate that which is before us, but because we love that which we left behind. Jesus put women above him by calling all believing women his mother. Then, a mother had the right to kill an erring son. Men, tho, were mere younger brothers.

  66. Spike says:

    Stachan is one of a long line of Christian (churchian) men who do one thing well: stab Christian men in the back. His “men are useless, therefore women must do it themselves” is straight out of feminism, not Scripture.
    How does this man intend Christian men are to exercise their responsibilities, without offending feminism’s delicate sensitivities, which is, pretty much everything a man does to control women’s excesses?
    We can’t condemn the culture at large, can’t condemn church culture, can’t exercise authority in our own home because men like him side with rebellious women every time.
    In fact, a more perceptive thinker would note that men are exercising the only option left to them: not participating. Men not enlisting is the equivalent to the husband trying to help the neurotic wife with household chores. His work is never good enough, so one day he throws up his hands and says, “Okay. You do it all…”.
    The tasks inevitably don’t get done and the house looks like a tip.

  67. Meh, pretty simple this, if they get it right. Women with children, OUT of military service, period. Single, married mothers= Not Mission Capable for squadrons and carriers. Yet, the carriers and their associated squadrons and escorts are crewed 30% plus women with children and the ships are tied to the pier because they cannot get sufficient crew to sail because after all, “What to do with the children?”. They want the jobs, they will not deploy. We need carrier Tactical Air off Syria NOW and can’t have it because 4 carriers sitting in Norfolk this very day cannot sail for the above reason. So we fly from Kuwait, Qtar, out of Saudi, 1500 miles away. It’s a serious problem, very serious. We could cut up the carriers for razor blades for all the use we get out of them anymore, but no, there IS another purpose-pier side welfare jobs for single-slut women and their bastard children. They literally ran the men out the last twenty years, handed the billets to women and bingo bango, our ships are now giant, pier side floating office buildings to provide easy-duty jobs for single-mother-sluts and their bastard children. Draft women, by all means. If they have children, they’re OUT. If they get pregnant, they’re OUT. If they miss ship’s movement for any reason, they’re Court Marshalled and put OUT. Gee, just like the men. Accountability. See, the women want the goodies, but not accountability.

    IF women want equality, if they want to occupy positions of danger and are capable, fine. But allowing any women into the military and into deployable positions from which these women draw salary and benefits who then will not deploy is idiotic. And yet, it’s done because it’s a welfare program. Everything in the military is now being done for single-slut mothers and their bastard children. Top it off, all they have to do is go to the Veteran’s Admin, say they were hit on and traumatized instantly get 100% disability and Social Security for LIFE. Until the single-mother problem is fixed, drafting women or hiring women is merely a ruination of the military. We are there now. Frankly, I don’t know if you can even retrieve the old effective culture because the MEN that are required to run Naval Air and carrier decks are so few and far between because of the rotten, feminine and now gay culture, the fellas just won’t do it anymore, they’ve had it and moved on.

  68. ACThinker says:

    Dalrock, you can’t have it both ways that m n are to be the leaders and protectors and say that Adam didn’t sin by not protecting Eve. It was a failure of leadership. HOWEVER just because the guy next to me do its a sin is no excuse for me sinning. So it was for Eve. If Adam failed, then that doesn’t give Eve a pass at taking authority.

    As for women in combat. This should be an extreme fall back position like the some snipers in ww2 Russia or the same in other places and times. We have no need for Queen Bodica fighting the Romans. I believe every person has a right to self defense and therefore should be able to fight within the limitations of their person. Not all of us can be sgt York or Bruce Lee.

  69. Easttexasfatboy says:

    Just a question, Gents…..but it fits in with this discussion. Suppose that you find yourself caught up in one of these Jihadist terror attacks…..you’re at work, and they burst in and start shooting. Now, you find yourself close to an emergency exit, and you can escape. You see the feminist group that has hounded you about to be gunned down. These women have tried to get you fired, filing complaints. What do you do? Do you try to help women who are doing their best to ruin you, or do you try to grab them to make it to the door?

    This scenario doesn’t sound too far fetched now, does it? You see, this is the problem that’s going to be resolved……how much abuse can men take before they’ll just let the women get killed? The subject of this thread is dereliction of duty…….when does it become possible in a man’s mind to turn away, and let them get killed?

  70. MV says:

    @Easttexasfatboy

    I’d let those feminists go to Jesus. But I’d surely go out of my way to console their orphaned daughters😉

  71. Easttexasfatboy says:

    When you think about it, doesn’t that question fit our circumstances? This is what happens as a society collapses. Men no longer have a civil compact with women. Who dares to try to raise a family with a feral American female? 😈

  72. I would call that a clear cut case of reaping what they have sown.

  73. 2084GO says:

    In other news, the tall, silent, brooding, alphabots are coming;

    http://www.outajamaica.com/uncategorized/sex-robots-are-being-made-to-replace-men-by-2025/

  74. Gunner Q says:

    Easttexasfatboy @ 8:59 am:
    “Do you try to help women who are doing their best to ruin you, or do you try to grab them to make it to the door?”

    I help the women but not because I care about them. This is MY country, not the attackers’ (and not my leaders’ either, but I digress) so I would have a duty to Christ and Country to fight back. Protecting the hens would be merely an unfortunate consequence of punishing evil.

    An idiot once said the only thing required for evil to win was good to do nothing. He didn’t realize the institutions of civilization are an all-or-nothing deal; you cannot have “civilization for me but not for thee”. So yes, I would protect the HR girls from jihadist murderers on Monday while expecting to be fired by them on Wednesday for violating the company “safe workplace” policy, because the alternative is letting Islam terrorize my society into submission.

    God, George Washington and Dilbert would all be proud of me.

    ACThinker @ 7:06 am:
    “Dalrock, you can’t have it both ways that men are to be the leaders and protectors and say that Adam didn’t sin by not protecting Eve.”

    By the same logic, God sinned when He gave humans access to the tree along with a command they were capable of breaking. He didn’t want us to disobey him but we did as a direct result of his negligence and absence. Perhaps we should sue.

  75. Easttexasfatboy says:

    Gunner, here’s the thing. I consider feminists to be the worse enemy. We can fight off the jihadis later. They’re busy taking care of a problem right now. Like someone said if he was on overwatch, he would let the beheaders make their videos, and then shoot them.

    Civilization depends upon a compact, an agreement between men and women. Gunner believes that agreement still exists. I don’t. The open drugging and indoctrination of our boys and young men have broken the compact. Much less the infanticide and the feminist approval of that whole sickening mess.

    My Father said something before he died that’s always stuck with me…..he said that young men knew when a woman killed her baby. And once she had done that, they would always consider her to be trash. A lot of young men realize that they’re lucky…..that they weren’t killed by an abortionist.

    There’s nothing in the Bible that requires us to spare the evil from an evil day.

  76. Gunner Q says:

    “Civilization depends upon a compact, an agreement between men and women. Gunner believes that agreement still exists. I don’t.”

    It should be obvious from my post that I don’t, either. Every American serviceman knows he’s protecting a lot of monsters and morons… but he’s also protecting a lot of decent people. Similarly, I would protect my society and neighbors knowing at the time that many of them are unworthy.

    “There’s nothing in the Bible that requires us to spare the evil from an evil day.”

    Matt. 5:43-47: “You have heard that it was said, ‘Love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ But I tell you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, that you may be children of your Father in heaven. He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous. If you love those who love you, what reward will you get? Are not even the tax collectors doing that? And if you greet only your own people, what are you doing more than others? Do not even pagans do that?”

  77. Easttexasfatboy says:

    Thing is, there’s a hellacious accounting coming…..and the evil are going to have to pay. Will I protect a feminist? No.They serve Satan, so let him take care of them. Literally. Will I have to pay for that in the Judgement? Probably. But I have to keep my self respect.

  78. feeriker says:

    It should be obvious from my post that I don’t, either. Every American serviceman knows he’s protecting a lot of monsters and morons… but he’s also protecting a lot of decent people.

    In reality, no. That’s certainly what the establishmentarian mythmongers want us all to believe, but it’s the farthest thing from the truth. If the uniformed services of the United State of Amerika were really “protecting” innocent Amercans (actually any Americans), they would have done/be doing the following, among other things:

    1. Occupying Rome-on-the-Potomac (a.k.a. Washington, D.C.) and
    a. Placing the entire Executive Branch, the entire Congress, and the Supreme Court under arrest for high treason.
    b. Putting an immediate end to all operations by any agency of the federal government not specifically authorized by the Constitution.

    2. Withdrawing from ALL of their current deployed positions outside of the United States.

    3. Redeploying to positions inside the continental U.S. along the borders and at ports of entry to interdict arms, human, and narcotics traffickers and keep watch for indications of terrorist infiltrations.

    4. Restrict the operations of the U.S. Navy to defending the sea lanes from piracy or unlawful obstruction by foreign powers and to patrolling U.S. territorial waters.

    5. Remove federal involvement from ANY AND ALL domestic “law enforcement” not specifically authorized by the Constitution (in other words, putting an end to what is for all practical purposes ALL federal involvement in “law enforcement”).

    6. Related directly to item 5 above, use armed and deadly force if necessary to disband, and thus cease the predations of, all extra-constitutional fe(de)ral organizations currently trampling upon the rights and property of the citizenry under the ruse of “national defense,” “national security,” “counter-terrorism,” and other such easily disprovable nonsense.

    7. Release all National Guard personnel currently serving on active duty in the regular army back to their respective states, and in anticipation of a new constitutional amendment specifically prohibiting federal mobilization of state militia under any conditions other than obvious indications of clear and imminent threat of invasion by a foreign power (something that will almost certainly never happen, thus effectively ending the Executive Branch’s opportunity to abuse and co-opt another of the state’s prerogatives).

    8. Disbanding the current standing army as a violation of the constitutional prohibtion against funding an army for a period of more than two years.

    THESE are the things the military would be doing if it were really “protecting/defending” the citizenry. Yes, the implementation of these things would amount in practice to a “coup d’etat” by the military, but a coup d’etat against a tyrannical and unconstitutional regime by an organization seeking to restore representative constitutional government* in the interests of the people would hardly be a travesty of any sort. As it now stands, the U.S. military is nothing but an imperial praetorian guard for the reigning elite whose actions serve to destroy security and freedom rather than preserve it.

    (*Dare we hope that at least a few of the members of the armed forces remember their oaths of commissioning/enlistment, and that their first and foremost responsibility is to “protect and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign AND DOMESTIC?”)

  79. BradA says:

    Ray,

    The question about Adam is exactly where he was during the temptation. She gave it to Adam who was “with her,” but we are not told how close that was. He definitely has blame if he stood there silent in all of it. It would be solely on her if he was in a different place and she got him, but that would not seem to fit the “with her” comment.

    I wish it gave more detail, but we have what we have and it therefore is not as clearcut as some think.

    Neither situation would remove Eve’s responsibility, but the Scriptures do note she was deceived. That has many implications that modern society does not want to address either.

  80. Babalola says:

    If the Bible be any guide, it looks like feminism in the West will only get stronger. In fact, the only other superpower mentioned during the time of the antichrist was described with female terms. She was the whore of Revelation 18, who “caused every nation to drink from the wine of her fornication”.
    It is obvious that the Whore was extremely influential on the earth, and was a great consumer of world goods, because many nations wept after its destruction, as no one would buy their merchandise anymore. The Whore is very wealthy, highly influential in world affairs and pedestalizes women. And of course it loves all kinds of pleasure.
    While it is tempting to name America as the Whore, I am not sure we have all the pieces together yet. For one, America is not a city on 7 hills.

  81. mrteebs says:

    It is a (sad) commentary in and of itself that a Christian “ministry” would even be necessary to state the obvious: men and women are different, and have different roles. Regardless, that is about where any of the positive contributions end at CBMW. The rest seems to be article after article on how men are screwing it up for women – who are different and let’s use this opportunity to point out the ways in which they are different once again without ever holding them responsible. After all, you can’t hold one sex (men) resposible for everything without first establishing the necessary foundation: the sexes are different. From there, it’s a 12-inch putt to the but-one-is-infintely-more-guilty-than-the-other hole. Amazing how both approach shots land within 12″ of the same hole. For feminists, its because men need to be more like women. For CBMW, it’s because men aren’t being different enough. Either way, the final tally is always females 1, males 0.

    I really don’t have the stomach to plow through the bulk of material on the CBMW site to fully verify my initial imptressions. Two articles were enough to do curb my appetite – the one Dalrock comments on here, and a blog post by Grant Castleberry, himself a USMC vet, that cannot simply state his opposition to women in combat. Instead, he is compelled to tell us how absolutely indispensable women are to the USMC – just not in combat roles.

  82. mrteebs says:

    @ACThinker

    By that reasoning, Satan’s fall could only be the result of a lapse in God’s leadership.

    Try again.

  83. thedeti says:

    Maybe someone said this already, here or somewhere else.

    I read the article at CBMW. Yes, the article seems to claim that women in combat is because men aren’t “manning up” and signing up for combat roles/infantry. But, query – where is the evidence for the proposition that it is NECESSARY for women to be put into combat/infantry positions because there aren’t enough men to do the job? Where is the evidence, the numbers, the stats, that tell us there’s a shortage of men willing to do, or volunteering for, combat/infantry soldiering?

  84. Neguy says:

    Deti, men are actually being denied reenlistment and in fact being forced out through “involuntary early separation”:

    http://www.armytimes.com/story/military/careers/army/enlisted/2015/01/23/involuntary-early-separation/22215049/

  85. 2084GO says:

    “In fact, the only other superpower mentioned during the time of the antichrist was described with female terms. She was the whore of Revelation 18, who “caused every nation to drink from the wine of her fornication”.

    Internet porn.

  86. mrteebs says:

    @BradA

    Googling yields numerous discussions of whether “with her” actually means “with her when they both ate” or “with her when she ate” or “with her when he ate.” My personal belief is that she was alone when tempted and when she took the first bite. She then went to Adam, gave him some fruit since he was now “with her” and he ate. God never rebukes Adam for allowing his wife to sin, nor for not shielding her from temptation. He rebukes Adam for listening to his wife in this matter and “going along to get along” even though Adam knew the action to be disobedience to God.

    The narrative in Gen 3 reads to me as though Eve was indeed alone when the exchange with the serpent ensued. As an aside, I am always amazed at the number of people who assume that perfection in the garden meant the man and woman were never apart from one another for even 10 minutes (not that you believe that way, just that I hear it implied in a lot of discussions from women on this topic). Anyway, it is telling to me that when God rebukes Adam, Adam does not retort “The woman whom You gave to be with me, she gave me from the tree, and we ate. ” And when God rebukes Eve, she does not retort “The serpent deceived me, and we ate.” They each say “I ate.” As though the actions occurred separately and individually in time and place.

    Also, in verse 6 it says “she took from its fruit and ate; and she gave also to her husband with her, and he ate.” Seems like it would have said, “she took from its fruit, gave to her husband with her, and they ate” if that is what happened. And it seems very unlikely that the man would have sat mutely by while the serpent directly, verbally contradicted God. He would have engaged in the conversation also.

    Just my two cents…

  87. Gunner Q says:

    feeriker @ 3:03 pm:
    “In reality, no. That’s certainly what the establishmentarian mythmongers want us all to believe…”

    I was speaking generally, not to our current situation. A soldier who fights for his country cannot choose to fight for these members but not those members; it’s an all-or-none thing.

    Easttexasfatboy @ 2:57 pm:
    “Will I protect a feminist? No.”

    Will you protect the non-feminists, realizing you’ll have to also protect the feminists in the process?

  88. Easttexasfatboy says:

    Gunner, American women are feminists. They’re a product of a feminised social structure. Put plainly, they’re indoctrinated. Of they couldn’t be separated out, oh well…..you see, a feminist is duty bound to betray you. Let’s say she knows where your compound is, and where your food a ND ammo are……son, I’ll feed her to the hogs.

  89. infowarrior1 says:

    @cynthia

    ”What everyone these days seems to forget is that when a nation fields large numbers of female soldiers, it’s only doing so because that nation is on its last legs”

    Either that or due to their belief in gender equality employ women as fighters in the same way as various leftist guerilla groups have done. Including the YPG/PKK in Syria right now.

  90. Easttexasfatboy says:

    Info, the Kurds really have no choice. I’m a big fan. Thing is, they have a long front to defend. YouTube has all kinds of video. Some of the footage reminds me of the Israelis in ’48Oman said,min a mtater of fact way. Real “Mockery in Arms” stuff. Got a real feeling Putin is arming the Kurds now, and will keep them rearmed……cheapest way to really stick it to Turkey.

    In our instance, it’s about invading male space. Truth is, I’m MGTOW, and expect no different. Yep, that’s going to be a good way to supply body armor to the jihadis. You see, most of them are smaller in stature. But, and this is a big but, as the Kurdish women have explained……it’s a real bad idea to get captured by ISIS. The women are gang raped, and then beheaded. One woman said in a matter of fact way……to be sure you had a good way to kill yourself. A grenade was good if you were severely wounded, and couldn’t use a pistol.

    You realize, of course, that all of this is going to be Go Pro HD video, right? That’s going to go over real well……Lil’ Sally is in a very demoralizing beheading video, pleading for help, because she didn’t take the warnings seriously.

  91. Easttexasfatboy says:

    The difference between the Kurdish women and American feminists is great. Can you imagine an American feminist in an ambush and firefight at night? And, then, going out with a bayonet to “help”the ISIS wounded? They speak of how the ISIS bandits do a lot of drugs before combat. That sometimes they wander around, lost. Like the woman said, they shoot them anyways. No rules of engagement. That’s important to understand. That’s why a woman will kill a wounded prisoner with a bayonet, eventually. Do you really believe Little American Sally has those stones?

  92. The Old Testament prophets had a similar problem as what ETF and Gunner are talking about. Couldn’t very well root for the Babylonians and Assyrians, knew that Israel/Judah were due a judgment. Can’t stop the judgment, can’t reform the people (who are going to saw you in half for a “traitor”). Judgement has been earned in the form of millions of dead babies, it isn’t going anywhere.

  93. jonakc1 says:

    http://cbmw.org/topics/leadership-2/the-usmc-sought-to-protect-women-now-forced-to-endanger-them/

    he is totally fine with sending women to war, just NOT on the front lines
    and he even respects those women more than many of his male counterparts

    he also said that he would rather work with some of the female marines….

    so he is totally fine with women seeking to be men

    do these people not understand that this is the core issue?

    no wonder CBMW’s form of male leadership is just domesticity and submission, I mean all those female marines he respects need to find servant leading house husbands…

    sad…

  94. Easttexasfatboy says:

    Laughing, Jeremiah had a hard time of it, no doubt about it. What I’ve determined to do, is speak out as I can…….knowing full well that folks hate the measuring stick. “There’s nothing new under the sun”, is there? Everything you would ever need to know about feminism is written about plainly in the Bible. Eve and Jezebel. That’s an education in itself.

    Insofar as the Judgement of God…….He speaks of the blood of the innocent crying out. He has pointedly said that the land has to pay for the Bloodguilt. Frankly, He destroyed civilizations over infant sacrifices to Baal……..we ain’t fixing to miss that bullet. When I heard of the selling of baby parts, my heart nearly stopped.

    So we have murderous feminism on one side……and murderous Islam on the other. Frankly, Islam is way behind the curve at this time. I have to admit something…..I’ve read the Bible a lot in my life, and I’m pretty familiar with it…….but I never figured I’d see things go bad so quickly as its come to pass.

  95. Jim says:

    feministhater says:
    December 4, 2015 at 2:15 pm

    “This is a feminist society, it’s only fair that women fight to keep it. I won’t lift a finger.”

    Amen to that. Me either. I’m not going to die for my own oppression and forced emasculation. That’s like expecting a Jew to fight for the Nazi SS.

  96. jonakc1 says:

    okay that’s it
    CBMW is not even Christian anymore, I know I can’t make that judgement, but
    being fine with sending women to war and just not on the frontlines is SATANIC

  97. feeriker says:

    CBMW is not even Christian anymore

    Was it ever, really?

    I know I can’t make that judgement

    Says who? Of course you can; if what they say, do, and advocate is clearly and obviously diametrically opposed to what Scripture says, then they’re obviously not Christian.

    …being fine with sending women to war and just not on the frontlines is SATANIC.

    An ugly reminder of just how thoroughly and completely modernist thought (of which the FI is a subset) has replaced the Word of God in the church today.

  98. jonakc1 says:

    http://marines.dodlive.mil/2014/04/08/how-i-got-here-sgt-maj-oneal/
    these are the kinds of women who Grant praises

    women who instead of supporting their husband and running the home would rather be the man themselves…

    and he says he would rather work with female warriors over some of the men..
    really?
    I just cannot see how a man can be Christian and be perfectly fine with women trying to control men
    how he would rather work with warrior women over men

    He sounds and speaks like a Christian
    yet this…

    it is all so confusing these days…

  99. enrique says:

    Women love to be filmed, photographed, etc, naked, or in various states of undress. I recently saw where some female veterans were doing a calendar, then I see this:

    http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/624031/Liverpool-University-rugby-girl-team-strip-calendar-charity-detect-cancer-Coppafeel?utm_source=traffic.outbrain&utm_medium=traffic.outbrain&utm_term=traffic.outbrain&utm_content=traffic.outbrain&utm_campaign=traffic.outbrain

    All for a good cause of course. Smh.

  100. Siobhan says:

    Off topic, I bring to your attention a report of research on the benefits of cohabitation vs. marriage for women vs. men:

    https://news.osu.edu/news/2015/12/03/unions-emotional-health/

    I find this sort of article distressing as I deeply value marriage and am upset by the many and varied messages devaluing it.

  101. 2084GO says:

    “how he would rather work with warrior women over men
    He sounds and speaks like a Christian
    yet this…
    it is all so confusing these days…”

    Maybe the men he’s worked with were assholes.

  102. 2084GO says:

    Are you a man Siobhan? If so, fear not. Marriage still works in your favor. From the article; “Men experienced a drop in emotional distress only when they went directly to marriage, not when they moved in with a romantic partner for the first time.”

  103. jonakc1 says:

    so he would rather work with women?
    what next
    female Pastors and elders are fine because some men are assholes and other men prefer to work with and submit to females?!

  104. feeriker says:

    I find this sort of article distressing as I deeply value marriage

    Looking at the source, its conclusions aren’t surprising. Secular academia is dedicated to putting a “scientific” veneer on efforts by the established culture to destroy the traditional family. Almost certainly the premises established are questionable, if not outright false (I haven’t read the linked article and don’t intend to; having read enough others of similar origin, it’s a waste of time to do so). The danger isn’t so much in the publication of such articles as in their unquestioned acceptance as gospel by those lacking critical thinking skills (i.e., the majority).

  105. infowarrior1 says:

    @easttexasfatboy
    I don’t think its due to desperation given that they have a mandatory 40% quota for women:
    ”Women form at least 40 percent quota of the People’s Defense Units (YPG).”
    https://web.archive.org/web/20150713231511/http://www.ypgrojava.com/en/index.php/ypj

    Their own statements are that of belief in gender equality. Likewise women and children have the option to flee and leave the fighting to the men.

  106. Ray Manta says:

    rednig wrote:
    You don’t know any Native American women, do you?They own everything, control everything because “Woman is born to life, man but to die, but to die well for Woman and children.”

    The url below puts the percentage of Indians on reservations living below the poverty line from between 38% and 63%. I don’t think this business of owning everything and controlling everything is working out very well for them.

    http://www.nrcprograms.org/site/PageServer?pagename=naa_livingconditions

    Women are the power.

    If you consider La Femme Nikita to be a documentary, I’m sure that’s believable.

  107. rednig says:

    Given that 80%+ of us do not live on reservations, you need to dig deeper. Crops on farms, small livestock, mineral rights (oil, coal, gas, uranium, ect) are property of the women. Men have their clothing and tools, and that’s all we ever need. This is how Israel was, as well, and is still the custom among non-Muslim inflicted Jews in Africa, Asia, and the Middle East.

  108. rednig says:

    Never saw la femme, but know this, we have the lowest percentage of gays, lezzies, liar and cheats, lowest percentage of drug abusers, and so on. You need a check on reality, man, you need to understand why Columbus called Natrive Americans un gente en Dios, a people in God.🙂

  109. MarcusD says:

    British men urged to donate sperm and ‘kick foreign banks out of business’
    Laura Witjens, chief executive of Britain’s national sperm bank, issued an appeal after just nine men came forward in its maiden 12 months

    http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/british-men-urged-donate-sperm-6362865

    I have a few ideas as to why that might be.

  110. The reason is given in the article. Laws changed in 2005.. no more protection for anonymity of the father. Oops, no more donations, only those stupid enough which means their sperm is no good anyway. Nice going, stupid femicants.

  111. Men have their clothing and tools, and that’s all we ever need. This is how Israel was, as well, and is still the custom among non-Muslim inflicted Jews in Africa, Asia, and the Middle East.

    Please keep on spouting your nonsense. Matriarchies go down the crapper, Patriarchies produce Civilisation.

  112. MV says:

    @MarcusD

    Hey there mister can you tell me what happened to the seeds I’ve sown?
    Can you give me a reason sir as to why they’ve never grown?

    (Bruce Springsteen, This Hard Land)

  113. enrique says:

    In almost all Indigenous cultures, women run everything and do all the hard peasant work, while men do the fighting, hunting and some of the larger projects, like building huts, homes, etc. Native cultures are largely ‘matriarchal’, even in Latin America, as far as women policing women and operating the household (which is how it should be). Men make the final decisions and otherwise rest when there’s nothing serious going on, and in fact don’t even pick a baby up (their own), or do any manual chores. This may not be true everywhere in all cultures, but it’s mostly true, enough to be universal.

  114. enrique says:

    I should mention, to the degree there is overlap within the Spanish and Indigenous culture, where women have to operate more shrewdly against other women, you have more serious skepticism of women–a healthy skepticism that is COMPLETELY absent in Western culture, which is as Karen Straughan notes, still very Victorian in it’s assumption of female virtue.

    To wit, we have a saying in Spanish: “The child of my daughter…is my grandchild…the child of my son…? [shrugging shoulders silently]” Point being, women’s faults (as with men’s) are recognized…yes, even that beautiful sweet woman your son married. Cracks me up that liberal Jews don’t realize this is the ENTIRE [UNSPOKEN BASIS] of matrilineal descent, essentially: We don’t know the truth about much, but what we DO know is that if we have Jewish daughters, and we see a baby come from her womb, that child is Jewish by blood and belongs to our family no matter what (even if she cheated). It’s based on the ASSUMPTION that women, even your daughter, may be a cheater.

  115. Ray Manta says:

    rednig said:
    Given that 80%+ of us do not live on reservations,

    Well, poverty nosedived to a measly 28% for those off the reservation. Looks like there are some benefits to getting away from woman-run Indian culture and adopting the habits and practices of modern civilization.

    you need to dig deeper.

    I have. The pattern I see that repeats over and over again is that ‘matriarchies’ are invariably failed cultures, and usually either very marginal or are kept on life support by a larger society. Examples include Indian reservations,black ghettoes, and the Mosuo.

    Crops on farms, small livestock, mineral rights (oil, coal, gas, uranium, ect) are property of the women.

    Is this the Indian reservation again? The referenced article should have made clear how poorly it utilizes human capital. You do not see women extracting uranium, coal, or gas out of the ground.

    Men have their clothing and tools, and that’s all we ever need

    Oh yes, you’re bringing us back to the heart and flower of civilization again, the Indian reservation. Let’s just ignore some harsh realities like 12% of Indians dying from alcohol-related deaths and go to the Happy Hunting Ground (with just our clothing and tools).

    This is how Israel was, as well,
    and is still the custom among non-Muslim inflicted Jews in Africa, Asia, and the Middle East.

    Modern secular Israel uses men to do the real work (maintain infrastructure, etc). Then you have the parasitic Haredim who have their women work, while the men study the Torah and their families live in squalor. Yet another squandering of human capital.

  116. Ray Manta says:

    rednig said:
    Never saw la femme,

    It’s just one absurd example shoved down our collective throats by the lamestream media. There are many others, such as Xena. To her possible credit, “Xena” gave a much more realistic portrayal of grrl power in Spartacus when she was held down and sodomized by a Roman.

    but know this, we have the lowest percentage of gays, lezzies, liar and cheats,

    Any data on this?

    lowest percentage of drug abusers, and so on

    My earlier post put the death rate from alcohol-related abuse at 12% for Native Americans – source is Wikipedia. Alcohol is a drug. Therefore you’re just spouting nonsense.

    You need a check on reality, man,

    Sure I do. You’re a laugh a minute – keep on entertaining me with some more “reality checks”.

    you need to understand why Columbus called Natrive Americans un gente en Dios, a people in God.🙂

    He encountered the Arawaks I believe, who are no longer with us. Ever wonder why? I’m inclined to doubt he would have had such a godly opinion of the Sioux, who got their act enough together to form a modern army and massacre Custer’s men. For that, they used horses and guns, which meant they got that good by adopting the white man’s technology and tactics. Oddly enough, “women are the power” didn’t seem to play any role in that piece of history.

  117. @Enqrique; @Rednig: Y’all are arguing in circles. Yes Native populations and primitive hunter gatherer groups were often matriarchal. However, it was not until PATRIARCHY and fathers had control over their feral daughters and wives that men settled down and actually built civilization.

    Show me a civilized Matriarchy in all of human history. Butt naked savages in villages, wearing animal skins, and hunting buffalo, sure you can do it as a matriarchy. Building ships, exploring the world, and ultimately the universe, along with mighty empires and continental sized architectural feats requires the men to be in charge. The only issue is: If the men are all passive servants of the gynocracy then will we go back to coonskin hats, canoes, and digging sticks? Place your bets.

  118. If all men are allowed to own are their tools and clothes, they will have no reason to use said tools. No society thrives like that. Women are now free to get those tools themselves and use them. Men are not slaves for women. And the worship of women, such as the likes of RedShit do, is an abomination.

  119. JDG says:

    Matriarchy = feral daughters with bastard children living in squalor.

  120. 2084GO says:

    Some people are confusing matrilineal with matriarchy. In all my research of American Indian civilizations I’ve not found one true matriarchy. Also, ghettos are by no means matriarchal because women don’t have power or money there (nobody does). The money and power are in the hands of corporations and government, still predominantly run by men, so patriarchy.

    Enrique, Men make the final decisions ” Then that’s not matriarchy, even if the families happen to be matrilineal. Anyway, whether patriarchy or matriarchy, the problem that plagues modern, technologically advanced societies is that we are just too greedy and materialistic to be happy. We are awash in the 7 deadly sins; pride, greed, lust, envy, gluttony, wrath and sloth, and we call it “civilization”!

    We could learn a lot from simpler, happier, more spiritual indigenous cultures, I agree with that Enrique. But we can also retain high technology in a moderate way that can benefit our simplicity, happiness and spirituality. The problem is that our core values are off and therefore we don’t use technology in a simple and efficient manner for the benefit of all sentient beings,

  121. Rednig, matriarchy apparently lost the indigenous people of America their “nations”. They hadn’t developed the wheel or metallurgy. If you are okay with living with pre-bronze age technology matriarchy may be for you.

  122. 2084GO says:

    “My earlier post put the death rate from alcohol-related abuse at 12% for Native Americans – source is Wikipedia.”

    Yeah but I believe Enrique is talking about the ones in South America (who still have their land, languages, cultures, customs and families intact) not the ones here in the States. Drugs and alcohol have ruined many Americans and it goes back to our cultural values of the 7 deadly sins being celebrated rather than shamed and discouraged.

  123. Easttexasfatboy says:

    As I’ve been surfing the net today, something strikes me…..Appeasement is in the air, but time is running out for the appeasers. Hard times are coming. Are you ready?

  124. 2080GO, they are matriarchal, they still are matriarchal. Women own the villages, homes, children. Men are fungible.

  125. 2084GO says:

    “2080GO, they are matriarchal, they still are matriarchal. Women own the villages, homes, children. Men are fungible.”

    Which particular tribes are you talking about?

    Plus lets not forget the early American government policy to introduce alcohol into the Indian communities to purposely get them addicted. Before “the white man” came along, they weren’t drinking his drink. That’s no excuse not to be a drunkard but the policy was enacted to get the hooked generation after generation. Similar to how much later the CIA purposely shipped guns and drugs into the inner cities and targeted black kids. If you think the US government just became a “bad guy” 7.5 year ago, do more research. It was corrupt from its first day inception.

    As far as “inventing wheels”, natives had to have wheels in order to build the pyramids, temples and elaborate structures of ancient South American civilizations.

    Anyway, what’s done is done but going forward we need to combine the best of all previous civilizations, as well as curb the 7 deadly sins that we currently celebrate as “American culture” in order not to become even more f*cked up than we are right now.

  126. JDG says:

    The money and power are in the hands of corporations and government, still predominantly run by men, so patriarchy.

    This is how feminists like to define a Patriarchy, but this is not the description of a Patriarchy. A Patriarchy is a system of society or government in which the father or eldest male is head of the family and descent is traced through the male line.

  127. enrique says:

    bluepillprofessor, I believe you are misunderstanding and/or conflating my comments. All I am saying is, many (if not most) Indigenous cultures are matriarchal, although there is arguably a spectrum to that balance. I am not claiming they are successful. My Spanish ancestors, who were extremely patriarchal, wiped out most of the indigenous people (of my wife’s ancestry).

    I was bringing up Judaism to illustrate the point that outside of the West in the last 40-50 years, skepticism of women’s virtue was the RULE not the exception. In other parts of the world, albeit a changing world (toward the FI), things that feminists do and say are considered stupid. Furthermore, things like the Duke Rape Hoax would have your typical (traditional) Japanese, Malaysian or (non-white) Latin American or Muslimah scratching their heads saying, “Of course she was lying…why would anyone believe such a tale?”

    In cultures with defined roles, men and women both police their own genders.

  128. JDG says:

    If the father is NOT recognized as the head of the family, the society in question is NOT a patriarchy.

  129. enrique says:

    In other news: http://nypost.com/2015/12/06/ashley-madison-hack-steals-mans-job-wife-and-mind/

    Can you imagine any world in which a Western (read: White) woman would ever torch her entire life because she caught cheating, or trying to cheat? Instead she would simply be seen as the victim, file for divorce, get the kids, cash and prizes. Only in Western Culture do men self-immolate over such things–this guy should have embraced it and shamed anyone as “old fashioned” and “un-Christlike” for shaming him, LOL.

  130. JDG says:

    Likewise, if descent is NOT traced through the male lineage, the society in question is NOT a patriarchy.

  131. JDG says:

    The United States of America is NO LONGER abiding by a patriarchal system. It has virtually been outlawed.

  132. 2084GO says:

    “My Spanish ancestors, who were extremely patriarchal, wiped out most of the indigenous people (of my wife’s ancestry). ”

    A great example of toxic patriarchy. A healthy patriarchy would say, “We are on your land, may we share it, learn from each others cultures and help one another to prosper?” A knife can be used to cut an apple or to cut one’s wife’s ancestors. A knife is neutral, amoral, only the user makes its use moral or immoral. Similarly with any man or woman, patriarch or matriarch, system or ism.
    Going forward lets ALL be healthy and non-toxic.

  133. The Tingler says:

    Is there a way we could set up a screening process so that only feminists are drafted? Because I would love to see them sent to the front lines against ISIS.

  134. infowarrior1 says:

    @JDG

    The Ancient Romans had male adoption as heirs. Although patrilineal descent is preferred. Adoption can open up possibilities for greater meritocracy among men. So that the most able eldest direct male descendant or a son through adoption may inherit the throne.

    Likewise there is the Venetian system of elective monarchy.

  135. Boxer says:

    Also, ghettos are by no means matriarchal because women don’t have power or money there (nobody does). The money and power are in the hands of corporations and government, still predominantly run by men, so patriarchy.

    2084GO confirmed as wimminz or mangina.

  136. Gunner Q says:

    2084GO @ 4:02 pm:
    “Also, ghettos are by no means matriarchal because women don’t have power or money there (nobody does).”

    In the ghettos I’ve known and walked, women have all the power and money.

    2084GO @ 4:22 pm:
    “Plus lets not forget the early American government policy to introduce alcohol into the Indian communities to purposely get them addicted. Before “the white man” came along, they weren’t drinking his drink.”

    They couldn’t make their own booze and were willing to trade for ours so it’s our fault some became alcoholic? Don’t blame America for what the natives would have done to themselves had they been able to. We don’t blame them for addicting us to tobacco.

    In what year did Congress enact this policy? Please name this government agency whose mission statement was “beer bong the locals into submission”.

  137. Boxer says:

    They hadn’t developed the wheel or metallurgy. If you are okay with living with pre-bronze age technology matriarchy may be for you.

    That’s not really true. The first nations of North America were spread out across two continents and quite diverse. Most of the tribes lived in squalor (think of, for example, the ancient Irish and Germanics in the era of Classical Rome) while a few were quite advanced. The Maya culture had the beginnings of a high civilization, with mathematicians, historians and philosophers living in great cities.

    It’s pertinent here to note that the Maya were certainly a highly patriarchal society. We know they played a sort of stick and ball game (almost looks like basketball) which was a sublimated sort of non-lethal warfare, but was quite dangerous. This suggests that the men had a good system of training up future generations to become leaders and fighters and great thinkers. Had things gone a little differently, they may have become something like the Classical Greeks.

    Boxer

  138. JDG says:

    A great example of toxic patriarchy.

    Seriously?

  139. JDG says:

    infowarrior1 says:
    December 6, 2015 at 6:55 pm

    Yes, but this was mainly practiced by the upper class and not society as the norm. Also, the adopted children were permitted to remain in contact with the biological parents often receiving emotional support from them while receiving political and financial support from their adopted family.

    Things really started to get messy towards the end, much like here in the US today.

  140. Ray Manta says:

    2084GO says:
    Yeah but I believe Enrique is talking about the ones in South America

    My reply was directed to Rednig, not Enrique. Rednig was rhapsodizing about women for a variety of reasons, including their ability to terrify toddlers in kindergarten. I offered a rebuttal, which I’ll summarize in two words:

    “Matriarchies” stink.

    Here’s my working definition of matriarchy – it’s anything that undermines the male role as a civilizing or providing force. Examples are as diverse as lesbian-until-graduation types of colleges to Indian reservations kept afloat by federal funds. The net result will of course vary, but it is always negative.

    (who still have their land, languages, cultures, customs and families intact) not the ones here in the States.

    And for various reasons, the aboriginals there managed to retain a greater percentage of their culture and numbers than in the US. It hardly invalidates my main point that they still need to join the rest of us in the 21st century. None of them are technological or economic dynamos.

    Drugs and alcohol have ruined many Americans

    Is that supposed to imply some type of equivalence between mainstream American and Indians? The hard evidence shows that Native Americans are unusually susceptible to the negative effects of alcohol, which vary widely by ethnic group. Therefore they need to take extra steps to avoid it.

    and it goes back to our cultural values of the 7 deadly sins being celebrated rather than shamed and discouraged

    The American tradition tends towards a deep-rooted suspicion of the 7 deadly sins. Calvinism and Puritanism sure weren’t accommodating of them. I don’t think this mindset has gone away so much as emerged in somewhat different forms, such as the overwrought emphasis on sexual harassment in the workplace, moral panics about campus rape, and social justice warriorhood.

  141. rednig says:

    And, ol’ Ray misses the entire point. He knows nothing of women, and certainly not himself. Try to get a grip, not just mock those who don’t agree with you. Native Americans invented mescal, this is why some peoples are called Mescalero. An Indian still is to take jugs of wine, something common in old village sites, and freeze it to make brandy. This was mostly for the elderly. As said, women owned it all, and they controlled the villages, not just little kids, as you claimed. Get a grip, man, and face reality with more than a chip on the shoulder. My ancestors made the Puritans look like pigs in how strict they were. In case you haven’t notices, Indian schools abound under democrat rule in the 19th and early 20th century. Strict control of the children and what they believed, were allowed to think, even. sound familiar? it’s in every government controlled school today. Native Americans were guinea pigs in the dnc labs. Hitler learned a great deal about race control and mind control from the dnc. As a 4th year student of psychology, yes, I can easily see how it all correlates. In Central America, most Native Americans have retain traditions, language, customs, far more so then in the US. Even those in the cities are often very traditional. every war starts with an angry Indian, Mexicans say, and Mexicans are at war with the atheist party.

  142. A great example of toxic patriarchy.

    Yeah, no. You are a feminist through and through. Go away.

  143. Ray Manta says:

    rednig said:
    And, ol’ Ray misses the entire point.

    What point would that be, pray tell?

    He knows nothing of women,

    Amazingly enough, I married one. And I love her, even if she’s a pain in the ass sometimes.

    and certainly not himself.

    I’m not much for navel-gazing, I admit.

    Try to get a grip, not just mock those who don’t agree with you.

    I’ll try, but I consider mockery to be a fine tradition. Jonathan Swift would agree with me,

    Native Americans invented mescal,

    While my people invented space flight and modern computing.


    this is why some peoples are called Mescalero.

    I would not want to be a member of an ethnic group named after its favorite intoxicant. Sorry.
    People have been tripping out for millennia, and it’s nothing new and nothing to be that proud of. Modern science and technology is something new, and something to be proud of

    I’ve skipped the rest of your babbling in the interests of getting to work on time.

  144. MV says:

    @TheTingler

    That won’t be easy.

    The line between “women” and “feminists” is as blurred as the line between “moderate muslims” and “radical islamists”.

  145. rednig says:

    You married a woman? Yes, amazing. And you’re a Muslim? Amazing. No, my people invented space flight. You Muslims are star-gazers. Christians invented a great many things you people take for granted. Modern science, for one, which several Native American nations excelled at. Trepanning, astronomy (while whites were still into astrology as science). Agronomy. We feed the world. You only use what someone else developed. Oh, wait, Europe gave us oats! And taught the world how to castrate little boys for better lovers, while their wives were considered sub human.

    Mockery is a sign of weak personality–if taken too far. As you’re married, I take it these posts are revenge on the owner? Yeah, I have Muslim relatives, and the men are very uncertain, after marrying Native American women. Mama owns it all, and the courts usually agree.

    What? Oh, that’s right, Muslims aren’t supposed to drink alcohol. And, it was whites who named the Mescalero, not the Apaches🙂 Most was sold to whites, anyway, who thought they died and went to hell afterwards. And came back for more.

    You have a job? Amazing. What do you do? I mean, most of the whites around here are ‘laid-off’ and collecting, while the rest of us work to support them, those whites who aren’t dealing heroin and such.

  146. Rednig, how did “your” people “study” anything without written language? Your argument is not based in reality.

    @Boxer, most of the civilizations extant when Europeans finally established a permanent contact with the Americas had strong matriarchal institutions. The Aztecs and Incas being notable exceptions. Are we going to argue that it was any coincidence that the most patriarchal societies were also the most advanced?

    @2084GO, most of the Inuit and Athabaskan communities have strong matriarchal/hypergamous elements that are considered cultural, that is they predated contact with the white man/horse/wheel/writing and alcohol distillation.

  147. Pingback: Fantasy Land | Dalrock

  148. 2084GO says:

    “Is that supposed to imply some type of equivalence between mainstream American and Indians? The hard evidence shows that Native Americans are unusually susceptible to the negative effects of alcohol, which vary widely by ethnic group. ”

    That’s precisely why the US government targeted them with it.

  149. Ray Manta says:

    rednig said:
    You married a woman? Yes, amazing.

    I’m the descendant of long lines of people who got married. Amazing, but true.

    And you’re a Muslim?

    No. They aren’t the only men who find that women can be a pain in the ass.

    Amazing.

    If so, your ability to jump to idiotic conclusions and deny reality is a true force of nature. I stand in awe.

    No, my people invented space flight.

    In your mescaline-fueled alternate reality, there’s no doubt that’s true. In the real universe, space flight is the culmination of centuries of scientific, technological, and economic progress. Most of it stems from the efforts of white males of European extraction. Whether that’s due to innate ability, historical accident, or a combination thereof is an open question.

    Mockery is a sign of weak personality–if taken too far.

    “Taken too far” is a matter of opinion. Let others weigh in on this matter if they like, especially the blog owner – I’ll stop in a minute if he indicates any displeasure. So far I haven’t seen too much support for your positions.

    As you’re married, I take it these posts are revenge on the owner?

    No, I was inspired to reply by your gushy “Women are wonderful and the center of everything” posts. If you expect unconditional support for that position, you’ve probably come to the wrong blog.

    We feed the world.

    If so, I can only wonder why your typical AmerIndian reservation has to rely on handouts from Uncle Sam or casino earnings to stay afloat.

    Modern science, for one, which several Native American nations excelled at.

    Then where are they in the history books? From what I’ve seen, even the more advanced Native American cultures never went much beyond a makeshift technology inspired by trial-and-error. That is not science.

    You only use what someone else developed.

    Creative people can come up with something on their own, improve what someone else has developed, create novel uses for existing technologies, or any combination thereof. All are worthy of praise. Western Eurocentric civilization has done all of the above. Other cultures such as the Chinese also produced much of value but never made it as far.

    You have a job?

    Yes.

    Amazing.

    I think you are much too easily amazed.

    What do you do?

    Software development and support. Does what I do for a living have any relevance to my arguments?

    I mean, most of the whites around here are ‘laid-off’ and collecting, while the rest of us work to support them, those whites who aren’t dealing heroin and such.

    That’s likely a signal that you need to hang around a different group of whites. Most of my friends and acquaintances are productive, hard-working individuals. I strongly recommend improving the quality of people you associate with. It’s possible some of it may rub off on you.

  150. Ray Manta says:

    2084GO said (about Native American alcoholism):

    That’s precisely why the US government targeted them with it.

    Your source? The Wikipedia article below says a lot about traders pushing it on Indians they did business with, but I didn’t see anything about the US government pushing it on them.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alcohol_and_Native_Americans#Influence_of_Colonialism

  151. Anon says:

    When the Native Americans were first encountered by Europe, they were thousands of years behind in metallurgy, maritime travel technologies, and agriculture. This is particularly noteworthy given that Europe itself was no more advanced than China, India, and the Middle East at the time (1492-1776).

    At the time of Columbus, Cortez, Ponce De Leon, etc., Native Americans were not even in the Bronze age…

  152. rednig says:

    Oldest known written text, Popal Vu, Mayan, and predates them. Cherokee scared texts, which Sequoia created a syllabary from, also an ancient predating anything of Europe. Aztec painted books, which was common long before the Aztec invaded Mexico, also common. Pictograph writing was the most common form, and was likely brought from Asia. The Chinese still use it. Bronze was not common. there was no need for it, but it existed. As did ‘modern’ medical methods such as washing before operating, the herbals. Our architecture has proven itself time and again, especially in earthquake zones. ‘Quake of 86, everyone who died did so in a European-style building while Native American style buildings only needed some repairs. Bridge built in ancient times are still used, and by truckers, and considered safer than European-style, and you see one Native American-style bridge in San Francisco. You do not develop such things without a good system of recording. We were using iron (bog iron) in New York when early explorers found us. Adirondack means where iron is found. Gold was cheap and used to make children’s toys, as were opals, copper, and so on. Stone was still preferred as tools because it was non-toxic, and lighter than most metals. Science is now advocating flint over surgical steel. No one starved to death because were purposely kept down our numbers. as Columbus said, un gente en Dios, a people in God.
    I am not anti-European. that would be asinine considering all the advances we got, and all that we gave to them. Europeans did one thing and did it well, they spread a vast knowledge from Europe to Asia to the Americas and took our around the world. Americans used the energy to create a wonderful, beautiful nation. And now liberals, who we will not vote for (it’s rare any of us vote for a RINO, let alone even a so-called conservative dem) are destroying everything my ancestors helped create, and that includes the RNC.

  153. rednig says:

    Ray, I doubt you do have a job. You seem to have too much time on your hands to spread hate. I’m a manuscript researcher, not an alcoholic. I never picked that up from the whites. Alcoholism, like the local heroin dealers (whites, mostly, is caused by what? I’m in my 4th year mental health studied. But, you tell me🙂 When I was growing up, the bars were filled with whites, not Native Americans. As most of us do not live on a reservation, your use of the atheist site, Wiki, is misleading. A lie on your part. Again, 80% of us do not live on a rez. BTW, you never did tell us where you get your hate of women from. Not the Bible, because Jesus agreed with Native Americans. Yes, the Inca and others were very advanced. They gave white cocaine. Nice, huh.

  154. rednig says:

    Poverty is a harsh drug and the neolibs use it well. Have you read Star Parker’s Uncle Sam’s Plantation. A lot of blacks no longer support the dems because of that. You can see the effects of drugs and alcohol all thru this area, and yes, the government is reconcile by stealing hope from people. This is why most native Americans will not vote for liberals, even good ones. We have too many Waco-like incidents in our history. 9,000 Tarahumara were allowed to starve to death by the PRI in Mexico. It was a planned famine, and Monsato paid 10 billion for that. yet, the dnc continues to support them. Follow the money, as the great one says🙂 Peace to you.

  155. JDG says:

    Popol Vuh was written in K’iche’ (a Mayan language) by a Mayan author or authors between 1554 and 1558, it uses the Latin alphabet with Spanish orthography.

    Ray, I doubt you do have a job. You seem to have too much time on your hands to spread hate.

    This is truly an idiotic thing to say.1st – assuming that someone commenting on a blog is unemployed because they have time to comment is just dumb, and 2nd – confusing hatred for women with the pointing out of the failings of matriarchal leaning societies is a sure sign of ignorance. If you don’t like the idea of women being criticized, you are in the wrong place.

  156. rednig says:

    But, Jesus put women over men (Mt. 12:50). Islam doesn’t see it that way. Native American men have their thing, women their own. Men get respect and support, not a pain in the backside, unless you’re telling us your wife isn’t female? BTW, you’ll find that in most Jewish households, Mama rules the roost. This is considered the natural order of things. We understand it well. Woman is born to life, man but to die, but to die well for Woman.

    Am I calling you an idiot? Please keep this on a more or less adult level. I say you’re mistaken, not stupid. Yes, it’s cool to bust stones, but on an adult level, please.

    No one but white people use mescaline. It’s toxic. As the spread of illegal substances is owned and promoted by whites, what does that tell you? LSD was a white invention used to control the mentally disturbed. Whites took opium, a pain killer, and made heroin. Not us. Alcoholism among all races is a direct result of the mighty white party, dnc/kkk=nazi party usa. You also gave us abortion, forced sterilization, and a host of other things.

    Nope, I’m an America. My people gave us space flight. Yours is still in the stone age, politically speaking. When someone dares disagree with you, you kill them verbally or otherwise.

    No, my post was a reply to your Islamic-like comments. You just wrecked everything Jesus did to force European-like Jews to go back to basics and accept women as equals, as partners. So what if women go to combat? It’s a lib things and rhetoric, not reality. History taught us too well what happens when they do, and no woman wants to give your government more power over them. The conservatives fought too hard and lost too much to force you liberals to accept women as equals.

    You must be using European texts, if you don’t know the gifts of medicine, agriculture, and architecture by Native Americans. According to you, when Europeans came here, we said hey, how ya doing, then all died. Yes, I have had Euros and Asians who use euro texts claim that. How many Native American foods do you eat? Like our suspension bridges and modern medicine? Have you ever worn cotton or alpaca wool?

    Ah, well, when a liberal tells me he has a job, I always find it amazing.

    I live in a staunch dem-controlled area. Look up kids for cash, something the dnc allowed to ride for years. Look up Margaret Sanger and the KKK. Again, you do not mention where God told you women are beneath you.

  157. rednig says:

    You miss the subtlety of things. Why are reservations placed far out of the way? Why did the dems block W from creating more free-trade zones there and in slums? Why did the dems ignore the thousands of starving people in the 90s? Why do the dems ignore slavery in the US? Most slaves are Native Americans; those who died in the planned famine were Tarahumara, targeted because they were demanding Mexico stay out of their territory. But, because of the Quake of ’86, Mexico was taking their lands and selling it to people. You need to see how life is and was, then decide, not just bust stones. Never take another’s word for anything, and that’s Biblical. You study and see for yourself. Too many morons hate the US because, gee Ameriker dooded mean stuff. I have yet to see a continent, stone and earth, rise up and do evil. Politicians and agnostics are the culprits yet today. Columbus died because he supported Native Americans against slavers. Look in the history books and see the opposite. Look in older history books and see how non-whites and women were treated–by neolibs, not Christians. I’m not your enemy, but you’ll never see that if you only look at PC. No one in the publishing field trusts Wiki because anyone can change it.

  158. rednig says:

    Anon the mouse

    Maize: sweet, popcorn, flint, flour, teocinte (ancestor of modern maize, it bears grain on top of the stalk, as do other grass grains). Stalks used as sweetener. Shucks made cigarettes and mattresses (braided).
    Maple products.
    Peppers: sweet, hot, everything in-between, all size shapes and colors common today.
    Amaranth: Leaves and grain.
    Sunflowers: Grain,
    Jerusalem artichokes: Roots, usually for a sweetener.
    Potatoes and sweet potatoes: Roots.
    Squash and pumpkins: all varieties known (pattypan is supposed to be the oldest squash). For shoots and fruit. Summer, winter, 7 year long storage (and it will stay fresh that long).
    Cotton: white, brown, green, yellow.
    Mesquite: Two varieties used, but Western is the most popular, and has been for thousands of years. Beans (food and sweetener and now costs 14.00/lb), wood, produces nitrogen and was planted for that reason along irrigation ditches.
    Yucca, century plant, ect: Food (roots and fruit) but must be processed or will kill you. This includes tropical yucca, which was the original tapioca.
    Queensland Arrowroot: AKA canna lily (Achira). Roots (for starch), shoots as a vegetable, and the flowers because they look nice. Seeds are used for grain.

    Metallurgy: No need except for toys. You neglect to think here. Why did Asia and Africa introduce metallurgy? For war. We had no need for it because large wars were more a religious event (albeit nasty). Nor did we have to have walls around towns. Gold, silver and most copper made pretty toys, not for other things. Children are the real treasure, as the Bible also states. Copper was medicinal.

    Medicinal: Most herbals recorded by native Americas are still in use today. And, in fact, still work where chems don’t. I take zinc for a virus. Copper is good, just don’t overdo it.

    Writing: Popal Vu was translated into Spanish. Original writings and signs are seen far beyond the K’ichè and Yukatec. The Olmec has some sign of them, as well as most tombs having it. You do not pass on all the knowledge and science known for thousands of years and not have an adequate system. You can see how Europe suffered after Islamics cut her off from paper. The Dark Age was short, and soon defeated by intelligent people. If anyone asks about the crusades, they were a defense, not evil. Once the R. Catholic church controlled most of Europe, science blossomed.

    Architecture: Quake of 86, European-style buildings collapsed, killing hundreds. Native American buildings stood firm, no deaths. We see this all around the world in quake zones. Killer bees do not nest in NA style buildings. Nor do bats. Seminole shacks are the preferred style by locals in Hurricane country. Suspension bridges were common in the Andes and the Europeans took the technology with them.

    Did you ever hear of the Pacific Ocean? Of course you did. Polynesians are descended from people out of Asia and Native Americans who sailed west. The sextant was in common use by the time Europeans came to the Americans. NAs are believed to have sailed to Europe long before there was a Europe. We had menhir and pyramids long before any appeared in Europe. Travel was easy, follow the currents north to Greenland, then Iceland, then Europe. We also traded with Asia.

    Ray busts my stones, I bust his. I doubt either of us takes it too seriously. He is not a stupid man. On the other hand, it takes intelligence to have a sense of humor. One daughter is a computer programmer and married a Muslim. There went her right to work. If I defend women, it’s because my mother wasn’t a pig, nor stupid. In fact, she taught us how to fight with a knife and fishing, while Dad taught all of us how to butcher and hunt. Women have their thing, men their own. God is on my side in this. He said so in that book you know so little of, the Bible.

  159. rednig says:

    Sigh, another one with no sense of humor. Let me clarify: Ray and I are busting stones. If he is a computer programmer, and I do not doubt it, then he has a very good, strong mind. He and I have disagreed on some things. We’re having fun. If you don’t like the idea of women having equal rights with men, then you’re anti-Christian. Sorry, but the Bible is explicit on that. In fact, Jesus even referred to women as superior to men. He stated that women who do the will of God are as a mother to him, and in His day, a mother had the right to kill an erring son. No, Native Americans do not think of their mothers as pigs, something to be abused, nor daughters, either. You seem to. Women have their thing, men have theirs. Everything is based on mutual respect, and women know their place, men know theirs. In modern times, you Euros screwed things up so badly no one understands this. Do you know what a husband is? A care-taker. someone who encourages the best by gentle means. It never meant owner. Try to respect women as women, not sub-human men and look at how different things will be. As I’m not gay, I do not disrespect someone for being a woman.

  160. rednig says:

    BTW, the Popal Vu was translated into Spanish, not originating in it. It’s the Book of Life and of Death. It can be found in many parts of Central America, and in ancient tombs. It’s supposed to predict the coming of the Messiah, and the eventual destruction of civilization in the Cleansing. this will be Number 4 Cleansing. the one after that is the final one.

  161. Anon says:

    rednig,

    Agriculture : The examples you gave prove that Native American agriculture was on par with 3000 BC Europe/Asia. when similar crops were grown in Mesopotamia, the Nile Delta, Europe, etc. No more. There was no domestication of animals by Native Americans either.

    Metallurgy. You said : No need except for toys.

    Lololololololol!!!! That is the same argument Africans use to rationalize their inability to leave the stone age until others took them out of it.

    Metals technology (swords and shields) might have prevented the Aztecs from being massacred by the Spanish, for example.

    Quake of 86, European-style buildings collapsed, killing hundreds. Native American buildings stood firm, no deaths.

    During an Earthquake, a multi-story Stone building is more dangerous to be in than a soft wigwam made of animal skins, yes. But that still means Native Americans were primitive. All of Eurasia has huge stone and brick structures that are over 2000 years old. There are none in what is now the 48 states. The few primitive structures created by Aztecs and Incas by 1500 AD were on par with what Egypt made in 3000 BC.

    We also traded with Asia.

    er…. what? When? Native Americans had no sea-faring capabilities. They only had river rafts and kayaks. Unless you are willing to claim that China reached North America long before Europe did, despite thrice the distance to traverse..

    The examples you gave further prove that Native Americans were at about a 3000 BC level of advancement in 1492 AD. The Spanish had early firearms, horses, and metal weapons, while Native Americans had not even domesticated any animals.

  162. Dale says:

    @rednig

    >But, Jesus put women over men (Mt. 12:50).

    Are you trying to make a joke? The passage is:
    46 While Jesus was still talking to the crowd, his mother and brothers stood outside, wanting to speak to him. 47 Someone told him, “Your mother and brothers are standing outside, wanting to speak to you.”

    48 He replied to him, “Who is my mother, and who are my brothers?” 49 Pointing to his disciples, he said, “Here are my mother and my brothers. 50 For whoever does the will of my Father in heaven is my brother and sister and mother.”

    This passage shows the affinity of Jesus for those who do the will of God the Father, instead of affinity for human genealogical relationships. A theme in Scripture more than once; Rom 10:1-13 springs to mind.
    This passage has nothing to do with making women an authority figure over men.

    Read the whole paragraph, and take the meaning from that, rather than reading half of one sentence.

  163. Ray Manta says:

    rednig said:
    Jesus put women over men (Mt. 12:50).

    Matthew 12:50 King James Version: For whosoever shall do the will of my Father which is in heaven, the same is my brother, and sister, and mother.

    All of the translations I’ve seen say pretty much the same thing and there’s nothing about women being over men. Here’s some free advice – try not to say things that can be easily refuted by a Google search.

    Native American men have their thing, women their own.

    Complementary sexual roles. It’s a part of the human condition. Hell to pay when they’re undermined.

    Men get respect and support,

    They need more than “tools and clothes” for that. A man needs to be acknowledged as the head of the household and his role as essential provider needs to be recognized for that.

    not a pain in the backside,

    But they are. The distaff part of the human race is set up so she gives birth to large-headed offspring who take almost two decades to fully mature, and is practically helpless herself during the later stages of pregnancy and for sometime after. To compensate for that, men specialized in production while women specialized in reproduction. It’s a model that’s turned mankind into the undisputed masters of the planet.
    It’s also left women heavily dependent on men. Therefore they are a pain in the ass.

    unless you’re telling us your wife isn’t female?

    She’s very female. In my opinion, has the strengths of her sex and her weaknesses are on a level I can deal with. She’s a great cook and is adept enough to build a bookshelf rack without assistance. On top of that, she’s beautiful.

    So personally, I lucked out. Unfortunately, it’s become very much the exception to the rule.

    BTW, you’ll find that in most Jewish households, Mama rules the roost.

    Why don’t you explain for me what the hell that means. The Orthodox Jewish girls I knew of didn’t try and rule their husbands. I’ve heard complaints from writers like Glenn Sacks (a Jew) that Jewish women are too demanding but I’m guessing he’s talking about the more liberal “reformed” segment. My own experience with them isn’t that different from Gentile women – they run the spectrum from salt-of-the-earth to ball-breaking.

    Am I calling you an idiot?

    You can call me anything you want, don’t particularly care. I have to have a certain baseline respect for someone to care about their opinion of me. You’re not there now, and I’m skeptical at this point you’ll ever be.

    Please keep this on a more or less adult level.

    It’s my view you’ve already failed more than once in that regard yourself.

    No one but white people use mescaline.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mescaline . States that it’s been in use by Native Americans in Mexico for at least 5700 years. What did I say earlier about making statements that can be refuted with a simple Google search?

    Nope, I’m an America. My people gave us space flight.

    Then you go on to say white people did everything from forced sterilizations to abortions. So you take credit when its convenient, blame it on “white people” when it’s not. You might consider adopting a more logically consistent argumentation style in order to maximize credibility.

    So what if women go to combat?

    It’s been tried before. Results are always disastrous in terms of unit cohesion and casualties. Always.

    no woman wants to give your government more power over them.

    Women as a group consistently vote for more government intervention and prioritize security over freedom. I’ve concluded the reasons are biologically rooted.

    You must be using European texts,

    What other texts did you have in mind? You have to give credit for those Europeans for coming up with a writing system that’s both expressive and easy to learn. If nothing else, it’s spared me the arduous task of learning a pictographic/ideographic system like Aztec

    if you don’t know the gifts of medicine, agriculture, and architecture by Native Americans.

    Nope, I’m well aware of them and impressed with what they came up with. But they never developed a coherent scientific methodology and what passed for their writing system was almost certainly on a very primitive level. They had made some progress with math but it was well behind the sophistication of the Western Europeans. Maybe if they were left alone a few millenia more they could have developed those things independently. But it didn’t happen that way.

  164. JDG says:

    Let me clarify: Ray and I …

    Thanks for the clarification.

    If you don’t like the idea of women having equal rights with men, then you’re anti-Christian. Sorry, but the Bible is explicit on that.

    Chapter and verse please. I don’t recall anything about equal rights (or any kind of rights for that matter) anywhere in the Bible. I recall quite a lot about sowing, reaping, wrath, vengeance, justice, mercy, love, grace, and forgiveness, but please do enlighten me with the whole equal rights with men thing.

  165. Ray Manta says:

    rednig said:
    Ray, I doubt you do have a job.

    Suit yourself. You asked about what I did, I answered, and then asked the relevance. Apparently there is none.

    You seem to have too much time on your hands to spread hate.

    Some of my postings apparently hurt your feelings, so now I’m “spreading hate”. Got it.

    I’m a manuscript researcher, not an alcoholic.

    If you are, why can’t you do some basic Internet research?

    Alcoholism, like the local heroin dealers (whites, mostly, is caused by what?

    A bunch of reasons, ranging from genetics to life history and environment.

    As most of us do not live on a reservation,

    Article I referenced in that case was not from Wikipedia. It quoted the percentage of Native Americans living on a reservation at 22% if I remember correctly.

    your use of the atheist site, Wiki, is misleading.

    It’s certainly not perfect, but its overall accuracy compares favorably with other encyclopedias such as Encyclopedia Britannica. If you’d like to refute me please point me to an alternative source.

  166. rednig says:

    It helps to actually read the Bible. https://www.gci.org/bible/luke/women
    Also: Mat 12:48
    Someone said to Him, “Behold, Your mother and Your brothers are standing outside seeking to speak to You.” 48But Jesus answered the one who was telling Him and said, “Who is My mother and who are My brothers?” 49And stretching out His hand toward His disciples, He said, “Behold My mother and My brothers!…

    Please read the bible and you’ll get some understanding why the suffragettes were a Christian organization. And, why Texas gave equality to women. Wyoming, as well. Or are you another bitter follower of Woodrow Wilson? Liberals fought against equality for all of us, whites included. In Jeus’ day, a mother had the right to kill an erring son. God put women above Him. In the house, woman rules, outside, if you are a man, you rule.

  167. BradA says:

    mrteebs,

    I am not convinced that Adam was far away, but he very well could have been. I do think he should have gone to God first and asked what to do rather than sinning if he was not there. Plenty of blame to go around though and I think we focus on the wrong things if we either totally blame men or completely take it away from them. He did sin willfully and the Scriptures note that as a serious problem, the one that got us under the dominion of sin.

    I do not believe we will ever know since what is written does not provide more details. (We will know in the next life and/or the reign of Heaven on Earth, but that is not here yet.)

    rednig,

    You should not claim to know about Christianity if you refuse to follow it. Your choice is a horrendous one that has far more problems than it solves with the claimed mail leadership. (Which is even questionable when a harem runs the home as has been noted in these discussion areas before.)

  168. Ray Manta says:

    JDG said to rednig:
    This is truly an idiotic thing to say.1st – assuming that someone commenting on a blog is unemployed because they have time to comment is just dumb,

    Thank you JDG. Some people here contribute a lot more to this blog than I do. I doubt a large percentage of them are unemployed.

    and 2nd – confusing hatred for women with the pointing out of the failings of matriarchal leaning societies is a sure sign of ignorance.

    That ties in with my earlier point. that matriarchy in its various guises is invariably a negative civilizational factor. Rednig is free to disagree, but I consider it to be a documented, historical fact.

    If you don’t like the idea of women being criticized, you are in the wrong place.

    This is one of the few blogs that is tackles the subject of women honestly and head-on, so it has a special place in my heart.

  169. rednig says:

    https://www.gci.org/bible/luke/women
    Also: Mat 12:48
    Someone said to Him, “Behold, Your mother and Your brothers are standing outside seeking to speak to You.” 48But Jesus answered the one who was telling Him and said, “Who is My mother and who are My brothers?” 49And stretching out His hand toward His disciples, He said, “Behold My mother and My brothers!…

    Please read the bible and you’ll get some understanding why the suffragettes were a Christian organization. And, why Texas gave equality to women. Wyoming, as well. Or are you another bitter follower of Woodrow Wilson? Liberals fought against equality for all of us, whites included. When Jesus called women followers his mother, he gave them extra rights over men. Jewish women were equal to men, no matter what liberals claim.

    You really need to study on this subject. Just because you don’t agree with me is nothing. Each to their own. I choose to follow God, not the teachings of failed liberal policies.

    Of course you spread hate. You have no idea, do you? Why do you hate women? Why do you think you’re better than all others? We all have our little A-list, but most of us don’t trash half the human race because of it.

    I told you, I do research. You just agreed with what I said. 80% of Native Americans do not live on a reservation. Most reservations were sold by the dems till the repubs stopped it. Reservation termination. Conservatives R us, man. For that matter, most Hispanics were called American Indians before the liberals changed their race to Spanish. And, any Native American no affiliated with a reservations was terminated by the dems in the 20s, reregistered as white or Colored.

    When most of your people start voting conservatively, then denigrate us for acting like whites. And, again, we agree. Alcoholism is caused by suffering, not genetics as the liberals once claimed. We have minerals, timber, and oil to sell, but liberals stop it and hire designated chiefs (stands around the fort, our version of welfare bums, hands out, begging and selling anyone to make a buck). We didn’t produce Kennedy, Clinton, Carter. You did. Your people allowed a massive invasion of aliens into this nation, not us. Most peoples along the southern border would rather shoot one of them than let them pass. And, again, now you’re allowing thousands of Islamics in and don’t care if they’re terrorists no not. Look up Trojan Horse.

    No one in publishing trusts Wiki because it’s changed too easily. Anyone claiming to be an authority can go in. NYC is a day trip for me. But, like you I can work from home via computer.

  170. rednig says:

    I’m well-aware what the scripture has to say. This line was started to stop some from treating their mothers as pigs. Do you understand that? You do not understand Jewish culture from then, or you’d also note Jesus did not equate men with father. Mothers had the right to kill erring sons. Brothers do not. Read the Bible, not just pick and choose what you want to see.

  171. Dave says:

    If you don’t like the idea of women having equal rights with men, then you’re anti-Christian. Sorry, but the Bible is explicit on that. In fact, Jesus even referred to women as superior to men. He stated that women who do the will of God are as a mother to him, and in His day, a mother had the right to kill an erring son.

    It has been my observation that feminism is the most potent brain poison ever invented against the human race.When you listen to a thoroughly brainwashed feminist speak or reason, you might come away with a feeling that the person is probably high on crack cocaine or the like, and you’d be wrong. It is far worse than that. Their brain is thoroughly fried and unable to arrive at conclusions compatible with the evidence. Even when the evidence is hitting a feminist in the face, they still would end up making insane conclusions that bear no relationship with the evidence before them. How else could someone read what Christ said about those who did the will of God, and come away with the idea that “Jesus even referred to women as superior to men.”? And, a woman having a right to kill an erring son? In NT days? Where in God’s earth did this deluded woman get the idea from? Fact is, women had so few “rights” in Scripture that even their names would not be listed in genealogies (this only began to be changed in the NT).

    Sure, women have equal “rights” as men, because, like men, they have zero rights before God. The idea of “rights” is man made. We all stand by the grace and mercy and love of God. If God were to deal with us according to what we truly deserve, we’d all be dead. God is much more interested in us promoting His glory, than in defending our so-called “rights”.

  172. Ray Manta says:

    rednig said:
    Sigh, another one with no sense of humor.

    No offense, but the people posting here can’t be expected to be mind-readers, and blog posts are a difficult medium for emotional nuance.

    Let me clarify: Ray and I are busting stones. If he is a computer programmer, and I do not doubt it, then he has a very good, strong mind.

    Thank you.

    He and I have disagreed on some things.

    That we have.

    Ray busts my stones, I bust his. I doubt either of us takes it too seriously.

    No problem, but the subject matter I discuss is a very serious one.

    If I defend women, it’s because my mother wasn’t a pig, nor stupid. In fact, she taught us how to fight with a knife and fishing,

    Kind of off-topic, but how does one teach someone how to fight with a knife? I’ve practiced several martial arts ranging from Brazilian Jiu-jitsu to MMA and learning knife fighting strikes me as about as useful as practicing to improve your Russian roulette game.

  173. Dave says:

    That ties in with my earlier point. that matriarchy in its various guises is invariably a negative civilizational factor.

    Absolutely. Women were not created to lead, but to be led. When a woman is under the leadership of a loving, masculine man, her beauty shines best, and she feels happiest. Thrusting a woman into positions of great authority is like taking a bunch of nerds from Silicon Valley, and putting them on the front lines in the deserts of Afghanistan. They simply won’t know what to do, and would most likely end up getting hurt, or hurting others.
    Matriarchy is an aberration, and an unfortunate one at that.

  174. JDG says:

    rednig says:
    December 8, 2015 at 12:20 am

    I am beginning ti think you are either making things up as you go along or else deliberately trolling. The link you gave demonstrates nothing to support YOUR claims about “equality” in the Bible. The one passage from the Bible you actually do reference has nothing to do with women being “equal” to men, and it was already explained to you how you are taking that passage out of context. Then ignoring the explanation of the proper and correct context of that passage you try to use it again to support your erroneous position.

    The Bible IS clear about who is in charge both inside and outside of the home.

    Ephesians 5:22 Wives, submit to your own husbands, as to the Lord. 23 For the husband is the head of the wife even as Christ is the head of the church, his body, and is himself its Savior. 24 Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit in everything to their husbands.

    Colossians 3:18 Wives, submit to your husbands, as is fitting in the Lord.

    1 Peter 3:1 Likewise, wives, be subject to your own husbands, so that even if some do not obey the word, they may be won without a word by the conduct of their wives, 2 when they see your respectful and pure conduct.

    Titus 2:3 Older women likewise are to be reverent in behavior, not slanderers or slaves to much wine. They are to teach what is good, 4 and so train the young women to love their husbands and children, 5 to be self-controlled, pure, working at home, kind, and submissive to their own husbands, that the word of God may not be reviled.

    I don’t know about you but I’m seeing a theme here, although it’s not the one you are advocating.

  175. JDG says:

    and in His day, a mother had the right to kill an erring son.

    The Jewish leaders had to use the Roman authorities to have people put to death or else they would find themselves on the wrong side of Roman law, so how could a mother kill her own son?

    Are you making things up or have you been given bad info? You really do sound like an indoctrinated feminist, and I mean no disrespect. I say this in hopes that you will examine yourself.

  176. JDG says:

    … the suffragettes were a Christian organization.

    Also false. Some suffragettes were Christian and some were not (parish churches were often set on fire by suffragettes). A great many anti-suffragettes were Christian (the Church of England for starters) and some were not. It was not a Christian organization.

  177. JDG says:

    anti-suffragettes should be anti-suffrage

  178. JDG says:

    or maybe not. sorry I should be sleeping now

  179. rednig says:

    Anon-a-mouse: Yeah, you’re a lulu all right🙂 I note that none of you are able to give something, anything that was strictly a European thing. Oats, maybe. Cabbage? No, they were common in Asia. Hm. Yes, I can tell you, but you need to see for yourself just what great things Europeans did prior to colonization, and there are many of them.

    Trading? Ever hear of Siberia? China and Japan both colonized there. The Chuksa people are related to the Eskimo, and have traded back and forth for about 5,000 years, using kayaks. Chinese junks trade in Alaska, and there are stories of them as far south as the longhouses in Washington State. For that matter, Alaska natives were selling Mickey Mouse watches to Russians in exchange for raw gold until the USSR collapsed.

    American ships followed Native American sailing maps, whereas the Europeans did not. Follow the Gulf Stream north, then east and south. Two weeks, tops. Use the European rutters and it takes 6 weeks, same trip. To get home, follow the currents southwest, then west to the Gulf Stream. Americans invented this, so it’s not surprising you would deny it🙂 Africans were coming here for centuries before whites, to trade for gold. Catamarans, common among coastal Native Americans are considered deep-sea worthy.

    Pacific trade, same method. How do you think all those Native Americans spread to the Pacific and the Caribbean? Deep-sea travel. Caribe from Cuba traded with Talluska n Florida and other Caribe in S. America.

    Domesticated animals: Llama, Alpaca, turkey, dogs, it was also common for some people to trap buffalo calves and javalinas to keep for meat. We had no need for more. And, no, no one took wheat of barely and created ears of grain as we did with maize. Even today, we have to use early methods developed for cocoa and vanilla to raise them. Ever seen wild peppers? Three types, all about the size of a pea. The mango pepper (mano grosso) was common by the time of Columbus, as were hundreds of other varieties. Maize was developed for deserts and swamps.

    You have yet to prove Europeans invented anything. When will you? Most agricultural products came from Africa, Asia, and the Middle East, not European a-tall. Show me what you people invented, please. And please, only that which Europeans invented. Yes, there are a lot of things. Many of them important even today. Agriculture isn’t one of them. Nor astronomy.

    But, it was diseases that slaughtered the Aztec, not metal. Cortes made his first landing and was booted out as something grossly vile. 2nd time, he was shocked to see his horses being ridden by Eagle Warriors (thanks to slaves from Holland and elsewhere who stayed with the Aztec). Aztec did not use metal for war because they had no need for it. Their religion denied it. A macana (machete) with stone edges would take off a horse’s head. Spain preferred to use bows and crossbows because no reliable gun had yet been invented. One Native American longbow can, if the bowman is able, shoot 7 arrows accurately while a musketeer fires, loads, and fires again. Longbows like the Aztec used could put an arrow through armor (which is why the Normans outlawed them in England, follow the 1066 backdoor invasion). 2nd invasion fared even worse, even with thousands of Aztec dying of the plagues. Any kid with a sling (leather strap, not the toy) can knock a man off a horse, armor or no. And that was another reason soldiers armed with such things, they worked.

    Nope. You seem to forget all those abandoned cities in the American Southwest. Multistory, long occupation, common architecture. Casa Grande in the states and the one in Mexico are still standing, the architecture and dryness is that good. Look at the walls built by Inca and their predecessors, still standing, still tight despite earthquakes and weathering. One shake and all the European buildings came tumbling down. Some had lasted for centuries, and yet fell.

    BTW, when Islam invaded Africa, it destroyed hundreds of Christian nations and city-states, and then went on to destroy much of black Africa. I believe the death count to date is about 25 million blacks stolen or killed in the slave trade. The only Christian nation that did not fall was Ethiopia, and she’s dying today because of European bigotry against Christianity.

  180. Ray Manta says:

    JDG wrote:
    Are you making things up or have you been given bad info?

    I’ve concluded that rednig is not an intellectually honest debater. In his replies to me he’s contradicted himself several times. He’ll make a statement (or a flurry of them) and then drop them like used Kleenex and take a totally different position. Or he’ll say he wasn’t serious in the first place – I guess the onus is on you to work out when he is and when he isn’t.

    Here’s an example:
    December 7, 2015 at 3:30 am
    Native Americans invented mescal, this is why some peoples are called Mescalero.

    December 7, 2015 at 9:50 pm
    No one but white people use mescaline. It’s toxic.

  181. rednig says:

    Have you ever read the Bible? Look at the Law of Moses. I doubt Rome would have bothered with a family matter. Pax Romana was about statehood and keeping the empire safe.

    Regardless, Jesus gave women back the rights which Sara enjoyed, something unheard of in most of the world. In Europe, most of it, many peoples were matriarchal, and opposite Rome.

    The Suffragette Movement was based on Bible. Later, people like Cary Nation were a little weird and wild, but for her day she was right to do as she did. But, it isn’t Biblical to force others to your beliefs.

    Peace to you and a good night’s rest. I’m supposed to be working…Let’s say I’m on break (free-lance, I can do that🙂

  182. rednig says:

    Feminism and woman are two different subjects. Feminists are called femenazis for a good reason, they lack womanhood. No one is defending femenazis, who stole the movement for political gain over Christianity. The household is still the household in most relationships. Woman owns the house, man protects it because we’re wired towards that. In an equal situation, most women would not take over a man’s duties anymore than we will theirs.

    Agreed with most of the post. Feminism is grossly anti-humanity, and not in the least for the rights of women. No, God slaughtered a pair of sheep, remember? Doing so, he covered the sins of Adam and Eve. If you read about Sara, note Abraham considered her his equal and listen to her council–and made more than a few mistakes do that. And, as well, Jesus did refer to believing women as his mother and sisters, putting them above men, his brothers.

    Femenazis are liberals, and no Native American woman will touch a liberal. Well, unless she has a baseball bat handy, perhaps. My grandmother used to laugh at them because they burned their bras to gain men’s rights, only to find society gave women far more rights than they understood. In the end, we all lose because of their hatred of humanity.

  183. rednig says:

    And here I had such faith in your sense of humor🙂 You tend to be very, ah, Native American in that. We love busting stones.

    You only joke about the serious stuff. Nothing else is worthy our attention.

    Oh, knives? When the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor, my grandfathers made the girls learn to use a rifle, too. Knives are considered women’s weapons, but I’ve had to use them on occasion to my advantage. On guns, Mom had a great little piece that was lightweight and easy to shoot. No range to it, but she had it just in case when working down in the city ages ago. And, used it a few times.

    Knives are easy. Sticks with blunt edges, and you learn a sort of redneck martial art we called slap. It’s closer to kali than most ‘arts. When Dad was in the South Pacific he learned kali from an Asian on the run from the Japanese. Instead of striking with a fist, you use the hand in jujitsu, or in this case, a blade.

  184. JDG says:

    I’ve concluded that rednig is not an intellectually honest debater. In his replies

    I’m not even sure rednig isn’t a she. Young is the only thing I’d put money on at this point.

  185. rednig says:

    Been studying the ministry and the Bible for decades. I’m a full gospel Bible believer, filled with the Holy Spirit and am beginning a ministry of deliverance. My people converted to Christ when William Penn introduced us to it. Close to 100% of us accepted it, and we’ve never left it. Yes, there are many who still go to the darkness (mengwe) but most today have left that if only to tick off the liberals. I was raised an atheist, saw it–at age 14–as being not for the bright, and left it. Every religion I looked into had nothing but wonderful things to say of Christ’s teachings. I chose to become a believer by my mid-20s. I was not handed it as so many were. God worked with me then and since to grow in Him. As I’m beginning into deliverance ministry, you should understand no one who is not fully committed to Christ can do that. Not unless they like to suffer and die badly. The 7 sons of Sceva, no?

    I don’t think Adam was anywhere far from Eve, ever. He was put in charge of war (domination), not her, and he sinned more than she did because of that. Adam was given domination over all things, and that would include spirits such as Satan. Adam sold out.

    I’d like to see a believer who has a harem🙂 One man, one woman and that’s always been the way it goes. Anything else was strictly for the welfare of widows and orphans. And, what man can be an elder is he has more than one wife at a time? Paul was strict on that, as well. And, so were Native Americans.

  186. Dave says:

    In another part of the web, someone persuasively argues that drunken consent is consent nevertheless. Consent: it’s a piece of cake.

  187. rednig says:

    Of course wives should submit to their husbands. Not be slaves for them. Is she going to go out and get shot when there’s a hubby around? Or go work in a factory if she doesn’t have to? If God saw women as being nothing, then how did women become judges and political leaders in the Old Testament? How could Lydia became a major player in the New? Why does the OT refer to women as teachers? These are positions of authority over men. You simply do not understand the customs. I’m not faulting you for that, but PC is not Bible. Equality does not mean she has more right than her husband, but must take equal responsibility for actions. It’s a partnership set up by Jesus’ example to us. If you love your wife, then you’ll work hard to keep that partnership.

    I keep seeing the Bible as a whole unit, not pick and choose what I want to.

  188. Ray Manta says:

    rednig said:
    Knives are easy.

    Agree there. I’m pretty sure my experience with cutting butter and spreading it on bread has given me the essentials of knife handling. Probably anything else isn’t worth the investment in time and the risk of injury.

    Sticks with blunt edges, and you learn a sort of redneck martial art we called slap.

    Problem with that is you can’t really tell when a knife is just going to cause a nick or sever a tendon (or worse). That makes acquiring anything approaching a level of skill just about impossible. When I was taking BJJ I acquired a level of skill that allowed me to completely dominate an untrained opponent. The only reason I was able to do that was because I was able to train both realistically and safely enough to acquire expertise over time. I have no such assurance in knife training.

    Knives are considered women’s weapons,

    I can see why. They can make somebody who without weapons would be almost completely helpless into a force to be reckoned with. Consider how a small woman like Jodi Arias dispatched her much larger boyfriend Travis Alexander. The element of surprise (she attacked him in the shower) plus the deadliness of a blade was simply too much for him. But there was no element of skill involved.

  189. rednig says:

    I’ve seen it all to often, when a woman is forced to take a lead role, she grows bitter. yet, there are places women shine, as well. I never, ever want to have a baby (I can’t of course🙂 Nor am a great shakes in a lot of things women take for granted. It’s how God wired us. Yes, there have been great women leaders, but all too often they collapse in hate.

  190. rednig says:

    You make an erroneous conclusion based on being out talked. You may use all the mescaline you want. It’s from the peyote. Mescal is made from roasted yucca- and agave roots. Not from cactus plants.

  191. rednig says:

    Ray, I don’t mean to be an ass, but you do not get into a fight with knives hoping to win first blood. It’s all or nothing. This isn’t challenges on the mat in a gym. It’s considered a basic survival skill, one which anyone can learn. You do not take knives to a gun fight, right? Anyone who comes at you with a knife is also vulnerable to other weapons. Lamps, chairs, anything to knock the knife out. Surprise or fear are the best thing knives can offer, which is why they’re a woman’s weapon–in the old days, most women understood how to butcher–ouch🙂 Like I was taught, there’s always going to be someone bigger or meaner than I am. Ouch, again! But, this is part of military training because all too often men will find themselves without arms. a knife is the ultimate survival skill tool.

  192. rednig says:

    I thought you were headed for bed?🙂 Sorry, but I’m all male, wouldn’t want to be a woman for nothing, and choose to be straight, as well. If I’m wrong, then my grandkids will have to stop calling me Pappy. I at least answer honestly and in kind. You have yet to tell me what Europeans added to the plate in per-colonial times.

  193. rednig says:

    Wow, excuse me, but at first I thought you were sending me to a porn site. What they’re doing in the UK is decriminalizing a lot of crime. Rape is one of them. They banned guns, and now the crime rate is through the roof, so that’s the next step rather than give people the right to defend themselves. Look at what they did to the man who killed someone and wounded the other when they planned to mutilate and then murder him. The Harvard Law study proved that more crime means more guns, because guns are bought because his higher crime, not the cause of it. It also showed that the more guns in the hands of citizens will, eventually mean less crime.

  194. ray says:

    Brad A —

    “I wish it gave more detail, but we have what we have and it therefore is not as clearcut as some think.”

    In Genesis 3, Adam is punished for ‘hearkening to the voice of his wife” and for ‘eating of the tree’. NOT for ‘failing to protect the woman’. If Adam’s offense against the LORD had consisted of failure to protect the female, and that’s what stirred Him, we can be certain He would have mentioned it at the time.

    Apostolic support follows —

    “And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.” (1 Timothy 2)

    Again, no mention of Adam being cited or cursed for failure to protect. Instead, the woman sins and the man goes along with her ‘voice’. No different than present circumstances, except now that voice is greatly collectivized.

  195. Dave says:

    If God saw women as being nothing, then how did women become judges and political leaders in the Old Testament? How could Lydia became a major player in the New? Why does the OT refer to women as teachers? These are positions of authority over men.

    You seem to have the gift of making things up as you go. Are you this intellectually dishonest in other areas of your life?
    1. God never said women were nothing. Heck, he loves women just as He loves men. If there was only one sinful woman in existence, Christ would still have died to save her. So get rid of this baseless assertion.
    2. God calls, qualifies and promotes whoever He chooses to lead His people and for His glory, and we have no right to question Him. He chose Esther “for a time such as this” (Esther 4:14). He puts up one and puts down another.
    3. Even in His choice of women as leaders, He always chose men to guide and lead those women. Esther had Mordecai; Deborah, a prophetess and wife of Lapidoth had Barak the warrior; etc
    4. In the NT, no woman assumed any position of authority over men; the Bible was very explicit that this should never happen (1 Timothy 2:11-13).
    5. And, Lydia did not assume any position of leadership in the bible. She was a trader from Thyatira who, after hearing Paul preach, got saved and prevailed on the missionaries to lodge at her house (Acts 14:13;-15). This not a leadership position, so, you were really making things up. You will have to try harder to convince us you’re not.

  196. Ray Manta says:

    rednig said:
    Ray, I don’t mean to be an ass, but you do not get into a fight with knives hoping to win first blood. It’s all or nothing

    Which makes it impossible to acquire any level of skill. My straightforward conclusion is that training for knife fighting is a waste of time. Pretending to stab each other does not and cannot be useful in preparing you for the real thing.

    You do not take knives to a gun fight, right?

    Probably not, but someone with a knife who’s about 30 feet away can reach you within 2 seconds.

    Anyone who comes at you with a knife is also vulnerable to other weapons. Lamps, chairs, anything to knock the knife out.

    Had a friend who used one of the above to dispatch a girlfriend who attacked him with a kitchen knife. He made it through the encounter well enough to beat her down, throw her sorry ass out of his home, and get himself a better girlfriend. He does not care to repeat the encounter. No, he did not practice for this event. Anyone who comes at you with a knife is also vulnerable to other weapons. Lamps, chairs, anything to knock the knife out.

    Surprise or fear are the best thing knives can offer, which is why they’re a woman’s weapon

    So is poison. Neither is a skill-based weapon.

    –in the old days, most women understood how to butcher–ouch

    In other words, they acquired their “expertise” in an activity that had nothing to do with knife-fighting. Given the way short edged weapons work that’s the only way that’s possible. I’ll stick to my bread and butter in my knife fighting practice sessions, thank you very much. Or maybe I’ll help my wife butcher a turkey if I’m in the mood.

  197. Ray Manta says:

    “Had a friend who used one of the above to dispatch a girlfriend who attacked him with a kitchen knife. He made it through the encounter well enough to beat her down, throw her sorry ass out of his home, and get himself a better girlfriend. He does not care to repeat the encounter. No, he did not practice for this event.” Anyone who comes at you with a knife is also vulnerable to other weapons. Lamps, chairs, anything to knock the knife out.

    Sorry, words in italics are rednig’s while the rest is mine.

  198. JDG says:

    Of course wives should submit to their husbands. Not be slaves for them.

    1st you say women rule inside the home, then you say “of course wives should submit”. Well which is it? Your not being consistent. And now you pull out the typical feminist re-frame about not being slaves for their husbands. I expect to read about women being doormats pretty soon.

    The whole argument is laughable at its face. In the 1st place are we not slaves for Christ? If you answer yes, then why wouldn’t wives be slaves for their husbands when the Bible says “wives should submit in everything to their husbands.”? If you answer no, then on what basis are you accusing anyone here of claiming wives should be slaves for their husbands? No one here has said a wife’s relationship with her husband is any different than that of the Churches relationship with Christ.

    If God saw women as being nothing, then how did women become judges and political leaders in the Old Testament?

    So in your esteem a woman is nothing unless she fill’s a man’s shoes. This is the typical feminist position. Feminists place no value on the role of wife and mother. To them a woman must be doing the things normally reserved for men or she is nothing. You couldn’t be more wrong about what is valuable.

    How could Lydia became a major player in the New?

    If you want to put it like this than all who follow Christ and share the gospel are major players. No argument from me.

    Why does the OT refer to women as teachers? These are positions of authority over men. You simply do not understand the customs.

    I don’t recall where the OT refers to women as teachers, but as I quoted above women are instructed to teach other women in the NT. They are also instructed NOT to teach or have authority over men (1 Tim 2:12).

    I’m not faulting you for that, but PC is not Bible.

    Correct, but your position is the PC one. You advocate a position that feminists have been arguing for years, a position which is opposed to scripture, and then claim the biblical one is PC. That’s quite a move.

    Equality does not mean she has more right than her husband, but must take equal responsibility for actions.

    Equality as understood by feminists is a myth. I can only assume that your understanding of equality is the same as feminists (sameness), because thus far every position you have taken is the feminist one. When feminist try to make women “equal” to men, women get special privileges (what you are calling rights). Why? Because women are NOT “equal” to men.

    I keep seeing the Bible as a whole unit, not pick and choose what I want to.

    No you are not understanding the Bible at all. If you aren’t doing the picking and the choosing, then someone else is doing it for you.

  199. JDG says:

    rednig, you should give pastor Voddie a listen. The women in this clip have taken the feminist position, while the Pastor has the biblical one.

  200. BradA says:

    rednig,

    I thought I read you saying you were following Islam above. It appears I was wrong about that.

    Your Biblical reasoning is still weak no matter how much your ancestors follow the Bible.

    Ray,

    The sticking point in my mind is that Eve gave to Adam who was there with her and he ate. It does not say she went and found him and he ate. All the things you note could apply whether Adam was there or not.

    The general point about focusing on the rebellion remains, however. I do see the refusal of men to step up to their responsibilities as a serious issue. I think many men don’t follow the Biblical way because letting their wives run things is an easier way. They would have to take ownership of their lives and those of their family to do otherwise.

    I basically see this as an application of the principle of being responsible to use the tools you have. You are responsible to use any talent the Master gives you.

  201. @Rednig

    Bronze is a product of metallurgy, so it’s scarcity in pre-Columbian Americas is easily explained.

    Metallurgy is only good for making weapons? Try tool making? Hardware? Do you happen to drive a wooden car built using the dugout method? Is it held together with wooden pin driven by wooden hammers? When you start it how does your internal combustion engine (running on wood-gas) prevent itself from burning up? Carefully crafted pottery cylinders?

    I’m just curious if there is anything that you don’t have a fantastic construction of reality about.

  202. Ray Manta says:

    Brad said:
    Ray,
    The sticking point in my mind is that Eve gave to Adam who was there with her and he ate. It does not say she went and found him and he ate. All the things you note could apply whether Adam was there or not.

    Hi Brad,

    Thank you for your input. You’re approaching M/F relations from a biblical viewpoint, which I respect.
    But I’m approaching it from a sociobiological/evolutionary one, although I appreciate the moral perspectives and teachings of the Bible.

    I do see the refusal of men to step up to their responsibilities as a serious issue.

    Genesis shows M/F relations from an individual standpoint, while the undermining of Western societies by feminism/matriarchy is a product of female dynamics at a group level. In earlier societies there was a balance of power where women’s propensity to network together was counterbalanced by strong patrilocal clans. Advanced societies have weakened the influence of male kinship networks in favor of rule of law while doing nothing to weaken women’s influence networks (which aren’t based on genetic relationships). I believe that explanation is a better fit of the facts then yours is, which emphasizes individual male failure to step up to the plate and reign in women’s negative behavior.

  203. Ray Manta says:

    rednig wrote:
    You make an erroneous conclusion based on being out talked.

    Agree, one for you. I did have them confused. Although it does state that the peyote plant produces a “mescal button”, which is a legitimate usage.

    http://the-difference-between.com/peyote/mescal

    You may use all the mescaline you want. It’s from the peyote.

    Thanks but no thanks.

    Mescal is made from roasted yucca- and agave roots. Not from cactus plants.

  204. rednig says:

    Nah, it was rhetorical. You’re too bright to fall for such crap. I didn’t want to embarrass you but wanted to show the difference. To many of us, most, in fact, using any drug like that, even pot, is considered witchcraft and punishable. Our witches aren’t the sort to eat a little mushroom and pretend to fly. We’re strict in policing our own. A witch, a skinwalker, up on the Navajo Big Rez was busted when he tried to kill someone. He attacked the cops, and in the end, it took 26 or so bullets to stop him. Not kill him, he was eating datura and that’s an excellent coagulant. Provided the natural LSD in it doesn’t burn out the brain. Like absinth, it can cause violent, homicidal behavior. We had a case here, in PA, of one but a Puerto Rican witch (Caribe) who was on it. He freaked out, wow. Howling and screaming, trashed his apartment, then the police showed and took him down with darts. He’s locked away in a mental institute, with nothing much left. Drugs are evil when used for evil, and even pot will make some people violent (the hashashin assassins, say).

  205. rednig says:

    1st, read the Bible. I’ve studied it for decades, often under rabbis. My church is very strictly Bible, not liberal or tainted by men and false pride as yours seems to be. Next, the house is the woman’s property. Next, Paul taught that in Christ there is male nor female in the eyes of God, Gal 3:28. Women are given everything, just as Jesus gave all for us. The man is ultimately in charge. But, a wise man lets his wife have the authority in the house. Are you doing the budget, the laundry, watching the kids, teaching the kids, the dishes, and all that? Or is she in charge? In the Bible and in Native America, women run things. Men give love and support–and that support means the war department. When outside, man rules because he’s the one who is the shied, the authority. In the house, if we say something is needed, the woman in her support role to the warrior will do it. Discuss things. Romance her. Support her always because she needs you more than you need her. We lived like this for thousands of years, as did all matriarchal societies, and it worked and it still works where femenazis aren’t in control.

    Submission does not mean slavery. Are you a slave to your children? To your boss? Women are the teachers and can be civil leaders. The bible notes this without disclaiming a woman’s rights to lead. A religious leader, no. Someone who is a pastor is a religious leader. A prophet is a leader, and there were a number of female prophets. The word in the Bible is servants for Christ, and is voluntary. The term for slave to sin means forced, bondage to. You really need to learn better skills at languages.

    http://rachelheldevans.com/blog/mutuality-women-leaders
    women leaders in the Bible.

    Lydia was vital to the missionary work in her area. She was a leader or Paul would not have noted her. Jesus noted many women who followed him as important. You like to twist things to your own meaning, then accuse others of lying. Yet, we all see it.

  206. rednig says:

    Dave, you just slapped God in the face, accusing Him of being a liar. Did you understand that? You call me a lair when I use Bible to back up wheat I claim, and then you call God a liar. You forget that there were women prophets. What is the office of a prophet? Women leaders were uncommon but certain accepted. Who taught you Bible? Not a Christian from your arguments.

  207. rednig says:

    No woman should need to fight, ever. She has you, no? But, you can’t guard her 24/7. So yes, women will learn because a knife saved a lot of them from rape. Again, knives are something taught by the military because all too often, a soldier has found himself alone and armed only with that knife.

  208. rednig says:

    I say good for your friend. Women should never have a reason to attack a man, tho in some cases–self-defense and that’s very rare–yes. A lot of women today are violent and need a good whipping ’cause mommy and dada never did. I had a girlfriend decades ago, as a teenager, who would punch and claw me. I went to her mother, who gave her a good beating. The mother told me, the girl had been raped as a child, and if she ever hit me again, to hit her back. She did, I did, and we got on all right after that, but she later turned to drugs and alcohol, and that ended the relationship. Good thing she wasn’t Native American, she would have shot me.🙂

  209. rednig says:

    Sounds stranger and nasty. doesn’t the woman have a real man in her life? A black Cherokee told me when I was a kid, a real man loves his women into loving him. If he does that, she’ll cut her own brother’s throat to defend her man. then he changed the subject. Sorry, but I’m completely Bible based. I don’t follow cults like the gays who are anti-women, or femenazis, either. Bible. It’s what good for you.

  210. rednig says:

    Brad, Mohammed advocated beating women to make the obey. In a strict Sharia Law house, women are baby makers attached to a life-support system, and that’s what gays claim, as well. Any teaching about women being underlings in Christianity came from Islam and Buddhism, not the Bible. Yes, the Buddhists had a strong influence on Israel. It was in Iran at the time of Christ.

    My Bible teaching is whole Bible, I don’t know where yours comes from, but God doesn’t seem to be anti-women, as so many think. Or are some claiming He made a gross mistake? Adam gave his approval of Eve and the fruit, and then lied to God. He was in charge, she was under his authority in things. She screed up, he screwed up. He was punished greater than she. God sacrificed two sheep to cover their sins and their bodies. Ask a rabbi, I did, and much of what I know came form them.

    As men, we’re ultimately in charge of things. Life is war. Jesus is warlord and leader. Jesus gave His all for us in the war, giving us back the rights we had in Eden. Most people weaken scripture to the point it’s meaningless as a way to live. No place is woman a pig in God’s eyes, no place is woman evil. In war, you have one commander. Man is leader in war, not woman. In the house, who knows the needs of the household better? Then she leads. Outside, she does as I say because i know who and what I’m dealing with better than she ever will. Men and women are almost two separate species, that’s how differently we’re wired.

  211. rednig says:

    One cousin, archeologist. How soft is gold? Native Americans smelted it, cast it, and made toys of it. Copper is common in many sites, as well. Tin was known. What is bronze? Copper and tin alloy. I made a dance stick of bronze by combining the two, just as the ancestors did. Bronze was not much used except as a healing item. Bacteria cannot handle copper. Given all the times Asians and Europeans visited here, why wouldn’t we have bronze? For that matter, some were using iron. Women, bah.🙂

    I said, if you actually read it and not just made up your mind before you did, that we had no need for weapons of war with metal. Stone is easier to work and anyone can do that. Modern surgery is back to using flint. We used it for that and for tools. It looks nice, it works, and it’s still very popular among rendezvous people (mountain men). Just because Europe gave us nothing but had to be taught everything is no reason to look down on others. I do note that none of you can find anything that Europe invented and gave the world. I have because one sister, historian, and our parents taught us to respect others. Did Europe actually produce anything, or did it just take everything from others?

    That you have to act like a weenie shows a very narrow ability to think. Yes, God is laughing at you.🙂

  212. rednig says:

    I agree, well put! But for one point–As my grandmother pointed out, when women burned the bra, they walked away from any rights they had to be women. Now, they’re just a weaker version of men. Feminism has destroyed the woman. It makes asinine demands while lying about equality.

  213. JDG says:

    rednig: 1st, read the Bible. I’ve studied it for decades, often under rabbis.

    I have also for decades. I’ve read completely through the entire Bible several times and studied it in depth. I’ve also taken NT and OT survey courses with the Berean institute. Though not a scholar, I’m no stranger to scripture.

    My church is very strictly Bible, not liberal

    Then why do you support and use feminist arguments? if I’m wrong about this (and I want to be), then show me using the scriptures in context.

    or tainted by men

    Do you tainted by men as a sex or by humans as a whole? I hope your not implying that only men can taint a church.

    and false pride as yours seems to be.

    Based on what exactly, disagreeing with you?

    Next, the house is the woman’s property.

    Says who? You? Although many family courts in the US might agree with you, the Bible does not. If you think so then kindly provide chapter and verse (and not Mat 12:48-50 out of context again).

  214. JDG says:

    Next, Paul taught that in Christ there is male nor female in the eyes of God, Gal 3:28.

    Egalitarians (those deceived by feminism) like to use Gal 3:28 out of context to support their erroneous claims. Lets go back a few verses and see what Paul is talking about.

    Gal 3:23 “Now before faith came, we were held captive under the law, imprisoned until the coming faith would be revealed. 24 So then, the law was our guardian until Christ came, in order that we might be justified by faith. 25 But now that faith has come, we are no longer under a guardian, 26 for in Christ Jesus you are all sons of God, through faith. 27 For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ.”

    Obviously Paul is talking about the promise of the coming faith being revealed. That faith which leads to salvation is for all who are in Christ.

    Gal 3:28 “There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave[g] nor free, there is no male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. 29 And if you are Christ’s, then you are Abraham’s offspring, heirs according to promise.”

    Paul is demonstrating that all who are in Christ are heirs according to promise. He is NOT contradicting himself by telling women they can now teach and have authority over men.

    1 Tim 2:12 – “I do not permit a woman to teach or exercise authority over a man; she is to remain quiet.”

    Nor is he saying they can be leaders in the church. Nor is he commenting on what women can or cannot do outside the church. One NT passage does not nullify another, but rather they work together.

  215. JDG says:

    The man is ultimately in charge. But, a wise man lets his wife have the authority in the house.

    Again your opinion or else provide chapter and verse. As I already quoted the other day, the Bible says she is to submit to her husband IN ALL THINGS. How does the Bible fit with your view?

    Are you doing the budget, the laundry, watching the kids, teaching the kids, the dishes, and all that?

    These things are irrelevant. Different families work different ways and should be based on how the husband chooses to run his family.

    Are you implying that when Paul is laying down the qualifications for Elders (who must be male) that he is doing it wrong?

    1 Tim 3: 4 “He must manage his own household well, with all dignity keeping his children submissive, 5 for if someone does not know how to manage his own household, how will he care for God’s church?”

    Notice that it is the man who must manage his own household. The wife is supposed to be his helpmate, not his part time supervisor in the home.

    Or is she in charge?

    She is in charge ONLY if you choose to DISOBEY the teachings in the Bible.

    In the Bible and in Native America, women run things.

    Assuming your testimony of how things are done in Native America is accurate, what women run in the Bible and what they run in Native America are completely different.

    When outside, man rules because he’s the one who is the shied, the authority. In the house, if we say something is needed, the woman in her support role to the warrior will do it. Discuss things. Romance her. Support her always because she needs you more than you need her.

    All I can add to this is that the Bible has made it clear that the husband is the head (authority) of the woman, inside AND outside of the home.

    We lived like this for thousands of years,

    That doesn’t make it right.

    as did all matriarchal societies,

    It has already been pointed out repeatedly how counter productive matriarchies are. They are also not in line with how Christians are instructed to live.

    and it worked and it still works

    Again, this is your unsupported opinion, and not a biblical position. Your understanding of “works” doesn’t fit with many here, myself included.

  216. JDG says:

    Submission does not mean slavery.

    I can work with that. Using this terminology, who said women should be slaves (as you appear to be using the term)? Please quote the time of the posting so we can see it.

    Perhaps we could use the term servant.

    Rom 1:1 “Paul, a servant of Christ Jesus, called to be an apostle, set apart for the gospel of God, …”

    Paul doesn’t mind being considered a servant, and neither do I.

    Women are the teachers and can be civil leaders.

    Again this is your unsupported opinion and not supported in the Bible. Just because someone is recorded as doing something in the Bible doesn’t mean they should be doing it, or that exceptions should be the norm.

    The bible notes this without disclaiming a woman’s rights to lead.

    Neither does it affirm a woman’s “right” to lead.

    A religious leader, no. Someone who is a pastor is a religious leader.

    Here we agree.

    A prophet is a leader, and there were a number of female prophets.

    There is no such thing as a female prophet (Judges 4:4 Now Deborah, a prophetess… ) There where/can be prophetesses, but no where are they shown to be leaders of men. Even Deborah only went with Barak at his insistence. Your assumption that a Prophetess is also a leader is unsupported. If I am wrong then please show me chapter and verse rather then more unsupported opinion.

    Also, The OT office of Prophet/Leader is gone. In the NT they never are shown to be in authority like in the OT. And we should remember that if a Prophet is wrong just once, he is a false prophet. There are lots of false Prophets and Prophetesses out there today.

    The word in the Bible is servants for Christ, and is voluntary.

    Depending on the translation, agreed.

    The term for slave to sin means forced, bondage to.

    Disagreed! One can be a willing slave. The terms can and are used interchangeably.

    You really need to learn better skills at languages.

    Granted, but you really should look in the mirror.

  217. JDG says:

    http://rachelheldevans.com/blog/mutuality-women-leaders women leaders in the Bible.

    Believe me I have read more feminist BS posing as Christian teaching then I care to remember. Your pointing out that you fell for feminist deception does not strengthen you position.

    Lydia was vital to the missionary work in her area.

    As were many others not even mentioned.

    She was a leader or Paul would not have noted her.

    Can you support this claim, it sounds foolish to me. Do you actually believe that only leaders are mentioned in the letters written by Paul?

    Jesus noted many women who followed him as important.

    And they were, just not for the reasons you claim.

    You like to twist things to your own meaning, then accuse others of lying. Yet, we all see it.

    Who is we that sees it? So far I’ve seen only you make this claim. Also, I do not twist things to my own meaning. On this very thread others have agreed with me about this and disagreed with you. In addition, there are more than a few Bible scholars and Pastors who agree with the position I take. So how is it “my own meaning?”

  218. Ray Manta says:

    rednig wrote:
    Just because Europe gave us nothing but had to be taught everything is no reason to look down on others.

    I do note that none of you can find anything that Europe invented and gave the world.
    A few off the top of my head:
    Optics: Developed telescopes. Galileo was the first astronomer to make substantial use of them.
    Construction: Sistine chapel
    Physics: Newton’s laws of motion
    Math: Newton and Leibniz simultaneously invented calculus.
    Engineering: Steam engine improvements developed by James Watt (led to the Industrial Revolution).
    Music: Beethoven and Mozart.
    Medicine: Edward Jenner’s method of vaccination against smallpox.

    All of the above mentioned are centuries old.

    In his book Human Accomplishment, Charles Murray has compiled a list of significant figures in various disciplines up to the year 1950. Almost all of them are from males of the white European variety. Jews started making disproportionate contributions around the 19th century, probably because of the liberalization of the surrounding cultures.

  219. PokeSalad says:

    A glimpse of the US Army’s future, perhaps:

    View story at Medium.com

    Note who the German defense minister is.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s