Complementarianism on women in the military.

Biblical complementarity is not fundamentally about what opportunities women must forgo, but what responsibilities men must take up.

Dr. Jason K. Allen, President of Midwestern Baptist Theological Seminary

As I’ve noted before, Complementarians live in a fantasy land where feminist rebellion doesn’t exist.  According to Complementarians, women aren’t coveting the roles of men, men are forcing women to take on their roles by abdicating them.  This is ludicrous, but it is how Complementarians have coped with the feminist rebellion.  The best example of this I’ve seen to date comes from the PCA’s Ad Interim Study Committee on Women in the Military (June 2002):

Through this committee’s study, it has become apparent that the sin of our present circumstances is not that of women who have taken on the role of warrior-defender, but that of brothers, fathers, and husbands who have abandoned their daughters, wives, and mothers to the androgyny and sexual anarchy which has been the seed-bed of this violation of God’s creation order. It is this sin which must come under the discipline of the church.

The report puts to rest any fears that by blaming men for a non existent sin, women who really are sinning will be called to account (emphasis mine):

If the Church Adopts the Language of Duty, Will Not Women Come Under Discipline?

It has been argued that the adoption of any statement by this assembly declaring it the biblical duty of man to defend woman will have the unintended result of placing women of the PCA serving in direct combat military positions under session censure. This charge is groundless, flying in the face of the practice of the church and the teaching of Scripture concerning church discipline. Rather than protecting the women of the PCA, it serves only to cloud the issue, leading gentlemen to fear that, by voting in favor of the man’s duty to defend woman, they may inadvertently place women at the center of battles in the session meetings of their home church.

Oddly, the same report assures us that it is highly unlikely that men will be disciplined either.  This makes sense because if you were to take seriously the claim that men are the ones who are forcing women to sin, aren’t all men guilty?  Men who don’t serve (or don’t serve in combat roles) would be guilty for leaving an empty slot that ostensibly has to be filled by a woman.  Men who do serve on the other hand could also be guilty of not doing so well enough, thus causing women to have no choice but to join and carry the weight the existing men ostensibly are refusing to carry.  The report assures us that it would be absurd to act as if men were really sinning in the way the report claims they are.

Were the assembly to adopt this committee’s recommendations, the fear of the courts of the church being filled with cases of men being excommunicated for their refusal to defend their daughters, mothers, and wives is rather comical. By the assembly’s action, this sin would not somehow be raised above the sins of greed, lust, or envy. Discipline moves to censure, temporary suspension, or excommunication only rarely, and even then, only after preaching, teaching, and pastoral counsel have failed to produce the fruit of repentance, and the offense is so egregious that both the souls of the flock and the honor of Christ are placed in jeopardy.

H/T Nereus

Advertisements
This entry was posted in Complementarian, Feminist Territory Marking, Military, Turning a blind eye, Ugly Feminists, You can't make this stuff up. Bookmark the permalink.

105 Responses to Complementarianism on women in the military.

  1. Charles B says:

    They can’t get it, because it would require altering their view of the nature of wahmen.

  2. Damn Crackers says:

  3. We’ve fallen into Wonderland. The lyrics to Jefferson Airplane’s “White Rabbit.” describe how it feels.

    When the men on the chessboard
    Get up and tell you where to go …
    When logic and proportion
    Have fallen sloppy dead
    And the White Knight is talking backwards
    And the Red Queen’s off with her head …

    It was said just as well by an earlier generation, in “The World Turned Upside Down.”

    Only a large exercise of collective will and social cohesion can stop this slide. I suspect the smart money is betting against us.

  4. Red Pill Latecomer says:

    According to Complementarians, women aren’t coveting the roles of men, men are forcing women to take on their roles by abdicating them.

    Brawny Paper Towels has now released a series of commercials featuring Brawny Women, in all the many roles that men are abdicating: http://fortune.com/2017/03/06/brawny-paper-towel-man-now-woman/

    For the first time, the iconic Brawny paper towel man has been replaced by a woman.

    For the month of March, a woman will grace packaging as a part of Georgia-Pacific’s #StrengthHasNoGender campaign, according to Brawny. But the girl-powered packaging is also a nod to Woman’s History Month.

    “There are women and girls everywhere who exhibit strength and resilience in their lives, and that’s the inspiration behind the Brawny #StrengthHasNoGender campaign,” Frances Morgan, senior brand manager at Georgia-Pacific, told Good Housekeeping.

    From a Complementarian perspective, it appears that men are forcing women to become brawny construction workers:

    And brawny firefighters:

    And even brawny doctors:

    Brawny Paper Towels celebrates women sheroes:

    Because Strength Has No Gender.

    I guess Brawny Paper Towels is shaming men for forcing women to assume these brawny roles.

  5. Jake says:

    This is some kind of document that makes recommendations to the session or assembly? How useless. It seems like if enough people are doing a thing, it’s no longer sin. That is the most effete, weak, useless position i have ever heard of, and they make no appeal to scripture.

    Pca delenda est.

  6. Dalrock says:

    @RPL

    I guess Brawny Paper Towels is shaming men for forcing women to assume these brawny roles.

    Why are our men so cowardly they won’t wear red flannel and pose with their hands on their hips!

  7. Since men are responsible for women’s behavior, we can expect a directive from the PCA any day now affirming male authority.

    :cough: :looks at shoes:

  8. squid_hunt says:

    Fine. Be as strong as you want, just get the kitchen clean while you’re doing it.

  9. Dalrock says:

    @Jake

    This is some kind of document that makes recommendations to the session or assembly?

    My understanding is this is the report that came out of the process Pastor Tim Bayly led that we discussed last week (see Nereus’ comment here). However, I’m not entirely clear on the relationship or the formal rules they were under. But yes, this was the formal recommendation to the PCA assembly on the topic.

  10. Red Pill Latecomer says:

    Actress Lena Headey (Game of Thrones) visits a refugee camp on the island of Lesbos, from where she posts this piece of womyn wisdom: https://www.instagram.com/p/ButNtOMhnGY/

    This was a joyful experience.. Led by the energetic female empowering explosion of enthusiasm Salam (center) and staffed by women from the nearby Moria camp, to see faces that are experiencing joy and and a moment of freedom and space is magnificent. Allowing only women and children, giving them a safe space each day, respite from a life of repetitive sadness . In a place that feels mostly hopeless, you provide space for hope to make roots 🥰💪👊👊👊💗

    Note the icons at the end of her missive: a brawny popeye arm, three power fists, and a heart.

    Salam looks to be male, so I don’t understand how he qualifies as an “energetic female empowering explosion of enthusiasm.” Maybe because the credit must always go toward the female essence?

  11. Lexet Blog says:

    I believe brawny is a P&G brand, no?

  12. Lexet Blog says:

    A defiant, angry pose

  13. Red Pill Latecomer says:

    Lexet Blog: A defiant, angry pose.

    Good catch. I googled and found two Brawny Lumberjacks from past years. Both men have warm, friendly smiles, displaying teeth.

    Not so these Brawny Women. All six women are tight-lipped. Some scowl. Some sneer. No friendly smiles.

  14. Nick Mgtow says:

    “Biblical complementarity is not fundamentally about what opportunities women must forgo, but what responsibilities men must take up”

    That’s so much bending that even chinese gymnastic olympic team is impressed!

  15. av says:

    @Jake @Dalrock

    The report was approved by the General Assembly of the PCA which the is the denomination’s highest governing body. Reports are the opinions of the assembly at that point in time but they aren’t binding actions. Nothing in it prevents a local church from exercising discipline over a female member of the church who volunteers for military service, but it does reflect the overall view of the denomination which is why as far as I know no churches have tried to do that.

  16. feministhater says:

    Biblical complementarity is not fundamentally about what opportunities women must forgo, but what responsibilities men must take up.

    Lol, these dipshits never miss a beat. They have men so overloaded with responsibilities that the men are leaving in droves. Hey, bright idea, let’s place even more responsibility on men and remove even more authority from them whilst making women even more empowered. Yay!

    Where are all the good men?!

    What exactly must men do if women demand to be let into the military, society itself obliges and makes it illegal to not let them in… what exactly? Lay it down. All of it. What must men do? What can men do? What authority do men have to change this?

  17. Nick Mgtow says:

    RedpillLatecomer: Strength has no gender, that’s why men die on the job countless times more than women. When something hard has to be done, it’s up to the men, again.

    But yeah, strength has no gender. I wanted to share with you “It sucks that we need the boys” Survivor video, but it’s no longer only after CBS I believe, took it down. It was gaining too much traction.

    It was about and independent feminist complaining that the men, adversaries of the women, always wanted to bargain, and not give them shelter or fire for free.

  18. Mark in Egypt says:

    Men are in the unfortunate position of having to guard themselves from women. Constantly. It used to be that fathers worried more about their sons than their daughters, but that is now the opposite. Allowing women in the military in combat positions, (secretarial roles stateside are fine) is putting all our men in terrible danger. And their is nothing we can do about it.

  19. Red Pill Latecomer says:

    Nick Mgtow: I wanted to share with you “It sucks that we need the boys” Survivor video, but it’s no longer only after CBS I believe, took it down.

    It seems it’s still up in places:

  20. Mark in Egypt says:

    I mistyped. Men use to worry more about their daughters than their sons, not the other way around, as it is now.

  21. Jake says:

    @feministhater

    We’re just have to be so good and wonderful that they won’t want to rebel.

    Pca delenda est

  22. Opus says:

    Wearing red flannel whilst striding among the mighty pine. Now where have I seen that before?

  23. CSI says:

    I was reading through the feminism reddit when I found a reference to this youtube page.
    “This stunt actor wants to end ‘wigging’ – men in wigs taking women’s roles for stunt”

    Nobody in the comments on either reddit or youtube have pointed out seems obvious to me. That a big reason for this isn’t misogny or a shortage of female candidates, but that many of these stunts are simply safer and easier for men (in wigs) to do, due to their greater strength and resilience.

  24. JRob says:

    When is the complementarian policy on mil fem carousel-induced PTSD due to drop?

  25. Joe says:

    “Comments are disabled for this video.”

    No surprise there…

  26. Oscar says:

    @ CSI

    “This stunt actor wants to end ‘wigging’ – men in wigs taking women’s roles for stunt”

  27. Opus says:

    I recall watching a British programme the name of which I regret that I cannot recall and so you will have to take my word for it where one team of men were placed on one island and a group of females placed on another. The men naturally had everything sorted the same day. The women however got lost, ran out of water, went round in circles, started bitching and crying and on the third day the production company intervened to prevent serious injury or worse. I do not wish to suggest that I would have done any better. These shows reveal starkly what happens and very quickly when all the props of male assistance to women pf which Feminism is a variety are removed.

    I much enjoyed indeed became somewhat addicted to the two British series of Survivor from 2001 and 2002. The women were largely useless. In the first series won by a woman she craftily played off the two hunky guys against each other -and she was married which is how she acquired the nickname Charlotte (her name) the Harlot.

  28. Spike says:

    It has been long said about the Catholic Church that, once you go above the rank of village priest, the corruption and rot start to make themselves shown. This isn’t just the RC church. The Police Force, it is said, becomes corrupt as soon as officers no longer need to wear uniforms.

    Not so the Evangelical Church. With Sola Scriptura, they are bold and free to interpret Scripture as it should be interpreted.

    Bold and free that is, right up until they encounter Woman. Then they come up with the piles of manure like the ones you see above.

  29. squid_hunt says:

    @Spike

    I mean…it is literally the oldest trick in the book. If it still works, why would the Devil not go with it?

  30. CSI says:

    @Oscar. Great clip. One of Mel Brook’s best movies. I remember now a story about the original Blade Runner movie. Daryl Hannah’s character is supposed to do a series of back flips. They couldn’t find a female stunt double who could do it, and had to resort to a man in a wig. Nowadays I’d expect they’d just use CGI. I wonder if such tricks in action movies have given people an unrealistic idea of how strong women actually are compared to men?

    @Opus. All factors being equal I’d expect men to do better than women in such challenges. However I’d also expect women from poorer regions on the planet to be able to do okay. That these Western women proved to be so useless at it suggests to me that, rather than being oppressed and downtrodden as feminists claim, they are actually spoiled AF.

  31. Red Pill Latecomer says:

    SAG-AFTRA (the actors union) now have rules that producers must hire a woman stunt double to play a woman, if one is available. Likewise, a colored stunt double to play a colored person, if one is available (i.e., no blackface, brownface, or yellowface).

    Producers are also obligated to make a good faith effort to hire a qualified handicapped actor to play a handicapped part, but I don’t think that’s a requirement yet.

  32. Frank K says:

    I was reading through the feminism reddit when I found a reference to this youtube page.
    “This stunt actor wants to end ‘wigging’ – men in wigs taking women’s roles for stunt”

    In the original Bladerunner movie there is a scene where one of the female replicants, Pris, who was portrayed by Daryl Hannah, performs some challenging flips while fighting Deckerd (Harrison Ford.

    Miss Hannah had a gymnastics background, but she couldn’t perform the stunt, not even close. No problem, we’ll just hire a professional female gymnast. Oops, she can’t do it either. So what did they do? They put a wig on a male gymnast, who had no problem performing the stunts.

    There is some funny footage on the extra DVD in the set, showing both Hannah and the female gymnast crashing and burning while trying to perform the stunt. Then they show the dude performing it without breaking a sweat.

  33. Pingback: Complementarianism on women in the military. | Reaction Times

  34. Opus says:

    A few years ago I was at Sadler’s Wells for a performance of Koanga. The entire chorus and most of the principal roles are Negro – the setting is Florida. The production company had an all black chorus and all the black characters were played by black people (though not necessarily from Florida – though the two principal singers hailed from America). It was a strange experience: for somehow what was supposed to add greater believability seemed to do the opposite. I cannot quite explain why that was my impression. Years earlier I had watched Murder in the Cathedral in a Cathedral – Rochester rather than Canterbury (which is thirty miles to the east) where the true life events took place. Again the veracity did not compel theatrically. Would Star Trek really be better were the roles of Spock and Kirk be played by real astronauts? The film The Day the Earth Stood Still (1961) includes a part for the editor of a newspaper and the role was played by a man who had just retired as Editor of The Daily Express. He was not an actor and his performance is terrible and embarrassingly so. Actors surely are supposed to act – to persuade you through their art.

  35. Oscar says:

    Off Topic (but related): Men have an “unfair advantage” over women in sports. Who knew?!

    https://pjmedia.com/trending/female-athletes-fear-to-criticize-trans-women-in-sport-because-its-not-pc-olympian-says/

    Former British Olympic swimmer Sharron Davies has joined a few lonely voices in taking a stand against biological men competing with biological women in women’s sports, but she said a great many female athletes keep silent for fear of retribution. She also suggested that young women might want to avoid sports because they fear unfair competition.

    On Monday, a Sky News anchor asked Davies about “some speculation that there are more women in sport who would like to come out and talk about this but that they’re concerned about doing so because they will possibly lose sponsorship. Have you had conversations with people who’ve said, ‘I don’t want to put my head above the parapet?'”

    “Yeah, many, to be honest with you, quite a lot of people,” Davies said. “Especially, as you say, people who are competing at the moment. They’re worried that their governing bodies will frown on it; they’re worried that their sponsors will think it’s not PC.”

    There aren’t enough trannies in the world to enforce “trans-acceptance”. They barely make up a fraction of 1% of the population. Just as sodomites rely on non-sodomites to enforce the acceptance of sodomy, and Muslims rely on non-Muslims to enforce Shariah in the West, trannies rely on non-trannies to enforce “trans-acceptance”.

    Davies herself has been branded a “transphobe” merely for pointing out the biological differences between men and women — and why it is unfair for biological men who identify as women to compete against women in sports.

    “Unfortunately, if you’re a transgender woman, you would have spent a fair bit of your life and puberty as a man or as a boy and you would have the male benefits that that would give you and that makes it an unfair playing field for other women, so I think this is just about sport,” Davies said. “I’m certainly not a transphobe.”

    Rather, Davies has studied the biological differences between the sexes.

    “If a young boy goes through puberty, he has increased lung capacity, he has a higher red blood cell count, he has a different skeletal system, a smaller pelvis — which helps certainly on a bike,” the former Olympic swimmer explained.

    But, wait… Who came up with the idea that there are no inherent differences between men and women? Feminists did. In other words; women did. Now, the obvious, logical conclusion to the idea that there are no inherent differences between men and women is whipping around and biting women on the ass – just as many of us warned them it would – and they want men to rescue them from the consequences of their actions.

    Sharron Davies has supported the group Fair Play for Women, and she retweeted a video of Alison Heather, professor of physiology at the University of Otago, New Zealand. In the video, Heather explains why males are still at an advantage in sports, even if they undergo hormone therapy to become more female.
    …..
    The former Olympic swimmer also suggested that young girls are moving away from sports because they fear unfair competition.

    When the Sky News anchor asked, “Do you think there’s the potential knock-on effect of young girls not necessarily wanting to take part in some sports?” Davies said, “Yeah, yeah, certainly.”

    She noted that in 17 American states, “young boys are allowed to compete if they identify as women, up to the age of 18 without any chemical intervention whatsoever … so those girls are at a massive disadvantage.”

    “Scholarships in America are being lost at the moment from young girls, which makes it very difficult for them,” Sharron Davies said.

    Despite the biological facts and the disturbing trends, women who criticize the transgender invasion of males into women’s sports have been demonized and ostracized. Tennis great Martina Navratilova found herself cut off from the LGBT sports group Athlete Ally for daring to question the transgender dogma. More chillingly, many transgender activists have launched into tirades against “transphobes,” and one published writer actually endorsed cannibalism. The aspiring cannibal has not been banned on Twitter, but feminists who criticize transgender activism have been.

    NOW, all of a sudden, women care about biological facts?

    Did women care about biological facts when they demanded the “right” to serve in every capacity in the US military?

    Did women care about biological facts when they claimed that fathers are unnecessary?

    Did women care about biological facts when they demanded the “right” to murder their babies in the womb?

    Ladies, you baked this rotten cake. Choke on it.

  36. vfm7916 says:

    Your hatefacts are discriminatory, and therefore cannot be allowed reality, Oscar.

  37. ray says:

    OP, quoted — “It has been argued that the adoption of any statement by this assembly declaring it the biblical duty of man to defend woman . . .”

    There is nothing in the Bible commanding that it is the ‘duty of man to defend woman’. That is just plain old Feminism. Meaning, it is anti-Christian and anti-Christ.

    Neither humans nor angels have authority to ‘declare’ what a biblical duty is. A biblical duty is what is expressed plainly as such in Scripture. Because this duty is not so expressed, it is anathema to the Church, and anyone espousing it is an enemy of the Church.

  38. OKRickety says:

    Dalrock,

    Perhaps you’d be interested in this post from Tim Bayly today: Marriage (1): untended gardens grow weeds

    Quotes of interest: “In order for the wife to submit to her husband, her husband must command her.”

    “Otherwise, this dear precious bride God has given you was taught and exhorted and vowed to obey you, and likely (actually very likely) you failed to take the first days and months to help her to grow in submission.”

    “You refused to husband your wife and she has gone wild.”

    I think he makes some good points, although they often cannot be applied practically. However, in the end, he seems to come down to, surprise, surprise, stating that the wife’s lack of submission is due to the husband’s failure to “command her” and “help her to grow in submission”.

  39. Red Pill Latecomer says:

    I’ve heard that one of Daryl Hannah’s fingers is missing a digit. She wears a prosthetic fingertip. I think it’s from an early accident, from before Blade Runner.

  40. It’s all very much like a giant masquerade party. Everyone is pretending to be something else. A character or caricature.
    The party does eventually come to an end though.
    And the truth comes out.

    It comes out in K-12 education and extra-curricular activities, on the college campus, in the military, etc.
    No matter how many pro-female non-profits receive millions of taxpayer funded government grants.
    No matter how many press-releases, fem-correct, pro-woman and anti-male articles are written.
    No matter how many social media girlpower commercials and events are run.

    The brutal truth always comes out in the end.
    Reality, it seems, just does not care.

  41. Jack Russell says:

    Red Pill Latecomer said. “Not so these Brawny Women. All six women are tight-lipped. Some scowl. Some sneer. No friendly smiles
    .” Also called the Perma Scowl. I call it the Feminist Frown. Common to western women. Never seen it mentioned before so if you want to copyright it Dal go ahead. You can say you heard it here first. Wonder how these Fembots will survive when society collapses. They are strong and don’t need a man. This will be a great opportunity to prove it.

  42. Mr. XLoveli at foetos.wordpress.com says:

    The church is at the mercy of modern forces which are vast, relentless and cold … very cold. In order to oppose them successfully, it would have to modify its doctrines, thus abandoning Scripture in the very act.

    *spreads hands* On the other hand, it could subvert the forces opposing if a Great Awakening happened today. It’s not out of the question.

  43. Cane Caldo says:

    @Opus

    I recall watching a British programme the name of which I regret that I cannot recall and so you will have to take my word for it where one team of men were placed on one island and a group of females placed on another.

    Bear Gryll’s “The Island”?

  44. Nick Mgtow says:

    Thank you RedpillLatecomer!

    Cane Caldo, that was a hollandish , nederlandish game. Return of Kings wrote about it:
    THIS ACCIDENTAL EXPERIMENT SHOWS THE SUPERIORITY OF PATRIARCHY

  45. Opus says:

    @Cane Caldo

    Not Bear Grylls, I am sure, as I have never seen him on T.V. Perhaps Shipwrecked. Either way I like CSI’s suggestion that third world females might be more competent than those from the first world.

    Thinking further as to non-actors being hopeless in acting roles where by reason of their day-job one might expect competence, actors doing better, overnight I came to an exception to the rule. Conductors: Whereas the great actor Oscar Werner is Razzie-terrible as such in Interlude as is Alan Badel – an actor whom like Jack Nicholson I could happily hear recite the telephone directory – in Magic Fire, both Dudley Moore as one might expect in Unfaithfully Yours and Erich Wolfgang Korngold also in Magic Fire are superb. It is a pity that the Charlton Heston flick Counterpoint where he plays a conductor is presently embroiled in copyright problems as I would love to see it again to see whether Heston makes a decent fist of the conducting – my fifty-year-old memory of the movie recalls not. Of course, both Moore and Korngold are miming to their own playback but even so.

  46. hawkenable says:

    @Opus

    It was Bear Gryll’s “The Island”. We watched through the first couple of seasons relatively recently, and the first season is exactly what you described. I believe it’s still airing as of this year, though the show is moving away from the man v.s women theme and splitting groups by different criteria (e.g. income, age. etc.).

  47. hawkenable says:

    By the way, here’s a short video from the first season:

  48. Daniel says:

    The older island show where the men on one island thrived, while the women floundered was the Dutch version of Survivor (Expeditie Robinson) back in 2002, as described here: http://www.returnofkings.com/32053/this-accidental-experiment-shows-the-superiority-of-patriarchy

  49. Lost Patrol says:

    The sin is not in women doing what they want to do, it is in men abandoning their women to do what those women want to do.

    Except that a man mustn’t tell a woman what to do or not in so many words, he is to be upstanding in his personal virtue and behavior such that she will not want to do what she wants to do.

    Failing this, it is important to re-categorize the issue as “direct combat military positions”. This will free up tens of thousands of military positions for women that men don’t have to convince them not to take.

    Now the final frontier can be reduced to merely keeping women out of a few select military occupational specialties, for their own protection. Good luck. Whoops, too late.

    Fall back, regroup, reassess. Uh, issue another document? Now what?

    Look, we kept them out of uniform for decades, then we kept them from jobs with “direct combat”TM for decades. We all know these sorts of things are inevitable but we did substantially delay it, and we still don’t openly approve of it, mostly, unless it’s our own daughter-in-law or something, so TradCon bona fides intact.

    Next issue.

  50. MK Riker says:

    Since that document is from 2002, you might want to check out Tim Bayly ‘doubling down’ on the man-to-blame-for-women’s-decisions on his forum post from yesterday here:

    https://sanity.warhornmedia.com/t/women-registering-for-the-draft/645/67

    Here’s the context from Neuerus:

    But the “use of women as military combatants” does not deal with the question of women who volunteered to become military combatants, and sued to be given access to all combat arms branches of the military. Who is at fault there, Mr. Bayly?

    And his answer:

    Good question. The entire way up the line from enlistment to basic to deployment, this woman you say “volunteered” is under the authority of man and men. She has a pastor, elders, husband, father, brother, commander in chief, DOD staff, enlistment officer, basic training instructor, and on it goes–every last one of whom has, whether passively or actively, approved her wearing the uniform of a man and violating God’s Order of Creation. Every last one of those men sinned against that woman and against God.

    Now in what way does that statement leave the woman guiltless? If each of these men sinned by allowing this woman to volunteer, she sinned also. The action was not just sin on the part of the compliant and complicit men, but also on the part of the woman herself. How or where does assigning the major blame to man deny woman’s moral agency?

    This is the disconnect with the men who inhabit the manosphere. As it is inherent to the nature of woman to help, it is inherent to the nature of man to lead. If a woman helps sinfully, it is her pastor, elders, husband, father, brother, commander in chief, DOD staff, enlistment officer, and basic training instructor’s duty to stop her. Every one of them sinned against her by not telling her “no” and stopping her.

    Would they have been successful? We’ll never know because they didn’t fulfill their male duty.

    The problem in the world today isn’t the rebellion of woman, but the infinite number of men who “listen to the voice of woman” and follow her lead. Yes, God cursed Eve, but the entire race of Adam was ruined because of Adam’s sin—not Eve’s.

    Dalrock never stops whining about women when man is the problem. Always has been and always will be—First Adam.

    Just as man is also the solution—Second Adam.

    Men who occupy the bitter manosphere haven’t yet learned the fundamental truth about sex known by every boy in Colonial America whose first primer lesson was “In Adam’s Fall, we sinned all.”

    With few exceptions, the Epistles of the New Testament address men. And even in the places where women are mentioned, it is men who are told how to lead and govern those women. Then, in those rare cases where women are addressed directly, they are commanded to submit. Even when women are addressed directly concerning leadership (Titus 2), they are commanded to teach women to submit.

    When we wrote what became the AISCOWIM Majority Report, we were men speaking to an assembly of men. No woman wrote. No woman spoke. Every person who opposed our report was a man. Every member of our committee who mocked and laughed at us and obstructed our work by lies and manipulations and devious parliamentary tactics was a man. Every one of those men was an officer, many both military and church officers.

    And hey, what do you know: like the entire New Testament Epistles, the Majority Report addressed men!

    If this sick world we inhabit filled with rebellious women under weak and conniving and fearful and lustful and bitter and whining men is to be healed, it will not be due to taking women into the village square, locking them in stocks, hiding behind trees, and throwing trash talk at them while the children look on.

    It will be because pastors, elders, husbands, fathers, brothers, commanders in chief, DOD staff, enlistment officers, annd basic training instructors all do as the general on our committee did: firmly declare that his job comes after obedience to the Lord, and so he will risk his job for the sake of protecting women by signing the majority report.

    Publicly. With his own name.

    I have a Navy Captain in our congregation who did the same. He said “no” to other men’s abuse of women, allowing them to serve in harm’s way in the Navy, by resigning his commission. Ask these men whom they fault for the women who are on ships and targeting airstrikes and flying helicopters and doing recon?

    Of course they will say the women are wrong and should be told “no.” But being Christian men who are both Armed Forces officers and church officers holding Biblical commitments on leadership and Biblical sexuality, they will principally fault all the men who put the women in harm’s way.

    Love,

  51. MK Riker says:

    I really don’t understand how he can contemplate let alone write that a brother who’s sister chooses to join the military has ” sinned against that woman and against God.”

    What authority does he think a brother have over his adult sister? Husbands don’t even have this kind of authority over their wives…

    It reminds me of Rollo’s old books / new books theory, in that they want to use the responsibility from the old books (patriarchy) to blame man, but when pressed on what requisite authority/power man have it’s just crickets (new books).

    I wrote a twitter thread on it yesterday (re: husbands/wives) and he commented that husbands have only the same “tool” pastors/elders have which is “moral suasion.”

    I then responded that elders/pastors seem to actually have more tools than the husband as they can also:
    *Publicly Censure
    *Forbid from Sacraments
    *Excommunicate

    So then he conceded that Husbands can censure too, in front of children… and then that thread became the inspiration for the post he wrote that was linked up above:

    https://warhornmedia.com/2019/03/07/marriage-1-untended-gardens-grow-weeds/

    In which he just goes back to severely limiting what authority/power husbands might have while continually blaming them for any rebelliousness of their husbands.

    It’s the christian version of the two books. Husbands have the responsibility that patriarchy demanded, with the lack of authority egalitarianism now demands.

  52. Charles B says:

    >in order for the wife to submit, the husband must command her.

    No. No, no, no, no, no.

    In order to obey, one must receive an order. Anyone can submit to God without receiving direct revelation. Submission is an act undertaken by the subject by definition. I can submit myself to the will of God from his word alone, without actually getting a Damascene moment in order to submit. Submission specifically does not require precipitation, anyone can simply abide by the word of another without ever being commanded.

    Heck, if Bayly were correct, then God would have done women ill by requiring them, at the hazard of salvation, to do something that was not in their power alone to accomplish. How could anyone’s soul be subject to the actions of another?

    Any of these women that “weak” men complain of can submit to their husbands without a word from said man. All they have to do is do what he wants, and *put aside their own will.* That is the essence of submission, the subject in question voluntarily choosing the will of another instead of their own.

  53. Charles B says:

    And rebuked sons smoke dope too. What then?

  54. Dave says:

    Jim Donald points out that up through the Crimean War, all military roles were “direct combat”. The men who provided logistics and the women who provided nursing services by day and sexual services by night were “camp followers”, not soldiers, and held no rank in the military hierarchy.

  55. goFigure says:

    @MK Riker
    Love this “ it is her pastor, elders, husband, father, brother, commander in chief, DOD staff, enlistment officer, and basic training instructor’s duty to stop her.

    And who is the head of all these men? Who leads them? Who has the authority? Non other than one Jesus Christ. So it seems to me that every time a woman sins, it is because Christ has sinned.
    I don’t know why Christ can’t figure it out. /s

    This is the problem with the idea of Federal Headship. With this concept, Christ ends up being the cause of all sin. Maybe these so called Christian need to go back and rethink this.

  56. thedeti says:

    refugee camp on the island of Lesbos, from where she posts this piece of womyn wisdom:

    How apropos. The word “lesbian” is derived from Lesbos. Not sure how, but that’s the word’s etymology.

  57. thedeti says:

    Remember that Joseph Bayly, Tim’s son, is the same one who said last week in the comments on the Dalrock hit piece at Warhorn:

    “Nothing less than “Everything in the world that is wrong is the fault of women” will suffice to silence criticism of such men.”

    This is interesting, because complementarians’ view seems to be

    Everything in the world that is wrong is the fault of men. If men would just step up and man up, women wouldn’t have to.

    Broken homes are men’s fault, because they’re abandoning their wives and children.

    Divorces are men’s fault, because they’re either cheating on their wives, or just plain not being nice.

    Poverty is men’s fault, because they’re not working hard enough and sharing their money with women.

    Crime is men’s fault, because men commit most of it and other men aren’t stopping bad men from committing it.

    Promiscuity is men’s fault, because they’re the ones tricking and duping women into having sex with them.

    Sexual harassment is men’s fault because men want sex.

    Joblessness is men’s fault because businesses operated by men aren’t hiring enough women.

    Families not going to church is men’s fault because women will follow a man who is leading, and men aren’t leading.

  58. goFigure says:

    It would be interesting to see Pastor Bayly write out a lengthy post explaining how he has repented and changed sense he sinned when his female congregant joined the military. To further explain how Christ has taught him how to better lead his congregation so that the females there no longer sin in this manner; or any other manner.

    In fact it would be great for him to take full responsibility for all the sin of every female in his congregation as he has just explained it is his fault that has caused all their sins.

    He really needs to ‘Man Up’.

  59. AnonS says:

    The nature of man is to lead > but we must continually yell at them for either not leading properly or being too dominating, the bad behavior of the women will reveal if they are doing it wrong.

    The nature of women is to help > we must warn them not to be overly submissive (doormat).

    Eve was trying to help by eating the fruit, it had nothing to be with being deceived and rebellion!

  60. thedeti says:

    Or put more succinctly, Warhorn’s and PCA’s view seems to be

    Everything in the world that is wrong is the fault of men.

    It couldn’t be that women are causing and contributing to broken homes by driving their children’s fathers away, kicking them out of their homes and out of their children’s lives, and generally allowing their unhaaaaaaappiness to control them.

    It couldn’t be that women are causing divorces by choosing dirtbags and thugs to have sex with/sire their children. It couldn’t be that women are causing divorces by riding the carousel, delaying marriage just as long as possible, and then marrying men they’re not attracted to and cannot/will not pair bond with.

    It couldn’t be that women are causing poverty due to their own poor choices.

    It couldn’t be that women are causing and contributing to societal changes and shifts resulting in more crime, which is directly related to human (including women) degeneracy and moral decay. It isn’t just men acting in degenerate, reprobate, immoral ways.

    It couldn’t be that women are promiscuous. It couldn’t be that women WANT to be promiscuous. It couldn’t be that women are promiscuous because they can be, society allows it, and it’s what they want.

    It couldn’t be that society allows female promiscuity because women agitated for decades for loosening societal restraints on their freedom, independence, and sexuality, all for the specific purpose of enabling women en masse to avoid marriage and dependence on average “boring” guys so they can have a shot at the hot guys – if not for commitment, then for some fun sex. And our society is this way because women want it this way. They like it this way.

    It couldn’t be that sexual harassment is so meaningless a word now because women are crying “wolf” every time some unattractive average guy says “hi” to them at work.

    It couldn’t be that women are contributing to joblessness because many women hold jobs men could have, many women don’t work as hard as men, aren’t as good at the same job as men are, lots of women quit because “don’t like it” or “don’t wanna work THAT hard”, and men have to fix their job screwups and generally do work that women can’t or won’t do.

    It couldn’t be that families not going to church is a result of women outright refusing to follow their husbands’ leads on where to attend and when. It couldn’t be women’s rebellion.

    No. Just couldn’t be that women are contributing anything to overall societal decline. Nope. Not at all.

  61. OKRickety says:

    Charles B: “In order to obey, one must receive an order.”

    Excellent point. I knew there was something wrong with Bayly’s statement, but I couldn’t put my finger on it.

    Charles B: “Submission is an act undertaken by the subject by definition.”

    That is one definition, one based on action. I think the following definition for submission is the more relevant one for Christians:

    “the fact of accepting the will or authority of another person”

    I see this as an attitude of submission, that is, being willing and ready to obey the will or authority of those in a position of authority over them.

    Returning to Bayly’s statement “in order for the wife to submit, the husband must command her“, he is choosing to ignore that, whether or not the husband commands his wife, the wife already has an order (command) from God to submit to her husband. That is, it is poor logic on Bayly’s part to suppose that the wife’s submission is dependent on her husband giving her commands. A wife’s rebellion is already sin against God, regardless of the husband’s behavior. (Note: I think this fits extremely well with 1 Peter 3:1-2.)

  62. thedeti says:

    Have you all seen Warhorn’s “Into the Manosphere Part 2” where the Warhorn guys explain Part 1 and why “Dalrock is poison”?

    https://warhornmedia.com/2019/03/05/gluttons-for-punishment-manosphere-2/

  63. Novaseeker says:

    No. Just couldn’t be that women are contributing anything to overall societal decline. Nope. Not at all.

    Well, the issue is it’s one of those arguments that isn’t solvable. They may agree that women are doing all the things you list, but they insist that in each and every case it’s because some man somewhere, or men in total, have abdicated their role somehow, which has led to women acting out on their own desires in disordered ways. The idea is that if men had not somehow abdicated some vague and ill-defined role, women would not have acted this way. It becomes a chicken and egg problem, and it eventually lands on back where it starts — arguing about Genesis 3. It all starts and ends there in terms of the worldview on this issue, which is why “arguments” about it generally get nowhere. In their eyes, the entire world and what happens in it is due to the choices of men — including women’s own choices — men are ultimately the cause. That’s not an argument (because the causality is very shaky and usually refers to some kind of vague, ill-defined authority that is neither socially nor legally supported), it’s a worldview, and worldviews are philosophical and hard to dislodge by means of argument.

  64. Dalrock says:

    @MK Riker (quoting Bayly)

    Good question. The entire way up the line from enlistment to basic to deployment, this woman you say “volunteered” is under the authority of man and men. She has a pastor, elders, husband, father, brother, commander in chief, DOD staff, enlistment officer, basic training instructor, and on it goes–every last one of whom has, whether passively or actively, approved her wearing the uniform of a man and violating God’s Order of Creation. Every last one of those men sinned against that woman and against God.

    Now in what way does that statement leave the woman guiltless? If each of these men sinned by allowing this woman to volunteer, she sinned also. The action was not just sin on the part of the compliant and complicit men, but also on the part of the woman herself. How or where does assigning the major blame to man deny woman’s moral agency?

    This is the shell game. He claims changing the subject to men doesn’t prevent holding women accountable. Yet the very PCA report assured everyone that PCA women wouldn’t face discipline. Likewise, Bayly has written about his own response as a pastor when a woman in his congregation decided to go into the Navy:

    That said, at the same time as I was writing, a student at IU decided to go into the Navy as an officer responsible for nuclear reactors. I loved her and told her she should not do so. We’re still friends and she’s always known I think she was not obeying God in this. Full stop.

    This is just one of many, many examples of my fulfilling my responsibility as husband, father, and pastor to say “no” to women, and rebuke them.

    Notice that he states she was disobeying God, and her told her so. Yet beyond expressing his opinion, he (as the man in authority) didn’t do anything further. In fact, he tells us in a separate post that he is proud of her and supports her work (although it is possible he is talking about a different woman who coincidentally also became a naval officer):

    We have a bunch of men in our congregation who are in the military and one officer in the Navy from our congregation who is a woman. We tried to discourage most of these men (and certainly the woman) from enlisting, but they chose to proceed and we’re proud of them and support their work, praying for them when they are deployed and loving them when they get home.

  65. thedeti says:

    if men had not somehow abdicated some vague and ill-defined role, women would not have acted this way.

    In their eyes, the entire world and what happens in it is due to the choices of men — including women’s own choices — men are ultimately the cause.

    Yet complementarians, especially the Bayly/Warhorn crowd, claim at the same time women have agency.

    You can’t simultaneously argue “men abdicated their roles and that’s why women act like they do” and “women have agency”. The two positions are directly contradictory. You have to pick one. You can’t have both.

    If women are sinning because men (fathers, brothers, sex partners, boyfriends, husbands, whoever) aren’t leading/teaching/restraining/managing/parenting/husbanding them properly , then women have no agency. They cannot have any agency. It’s an impossibility. There is no other logical conclusion. The argument “everything is the fault of men” means women have no agency and are not responsible, nor can they be responsible, for anything they do. They don’t seem to realize this directly supports and gives credence to the “women are the most responsible teenagers in the house” and “women are children” claims the more strident corners of the manosphere make.

  66. Sharkly says:

    https://tsarizm.com/news/eastern-europe/2019/03/08/putin-thanks-women-for-taking-care-of-the-home-and-staying-beautiful-on-international-womens-day/

    Putin knows how to celebrate “women’s day”!

    When I was little, I asked my father why there was Father’s Day, and Mother’s Day, but never Children’s Day. My Father responded that: “Everyday is Kids day! y’all play most all of the day while we adults are working to make that possible”.

    Anyhow, Considering how irresponsible women now are, … Everyday is Women’s day!
    We need a solemnly honored ‘Men’s Day’ to celebrate the men who work so that women can now be afforded to live like children. And not just more “man-up” Father’s Day cuckery.

  67. Sharkly says:

    If International Women’s Day is a global Shit-Test, Putin passed it with flying Colors.

  68. thedeti says:

    insist that in each and every case it’s because some man somewhere, or men in total, have abdicated their role somehow, which has led to women acting out on their own desires in disordered ways.

    I have noticed this before. This lines up with feminists’ argument on the sex rev and what caused it. The sexual revolution of the 1960s (and the one before in in the 1920s) were not because women wanted freedom and independence from icky boring beta guys. No, it’s because those men were coming home from war, and in many cases desperately wanted to either (1) not marry and have sex without getting married; or (2) divorce their wives. No fault divorce was SOLELY a result of men wanting to get out of their marriages without having to prove fault. Not about women wanting out – no, just men. Men were the evil dastardly ones who wanted to end their loveless, sexless, humdrum marriages and leave their hapless frumps high and dry.

    The sex rev was not because women want to have sex. No, it’s Hugh Hefner’s fault. The sex rev of the 1960s was not a result of women wanting sex and independence. No, it was because of men looking at pictures of women’s breasts. It was because men were reading about “the playboy lifestyle” of fun, casual sex, carefree life, avoiding marriage and fatherhood until at least 25 and possibly 30 and beyond. It was because women were seeing men, including a lot of married men, bemoaning their predicaments and wanting to throw off the shackles of matrimony and domestic life, or never wanting to don those shackles at all.

    So, the argument goes, women said “well, harrumph. If men get to do it, then I get to do it too. Men started this. It’s MEN’s fault that women are out there sleeping around and avoiding marriage. Men decided THEY wanted this FIRST. It’s not Betty Friedan’s fault. It’s not Gloria Steinem’s fault. It’s Hugh Hefner’s fault. It’s Bob Guccione’s fault. It’s Larry Flynt’s fault.”

  69. goFigure says:

    Since I am the pastor/minister in our congregation do I have to repent twice for every time my wife sins? Once because I am her husband, the second time because I am her spiritual leader.

    I wonder how excited she will be when I get home today and tell her that I am responsible for all of her sins, she is now has a free pass.

  70. white says:

    Joseph Bayly: “The sympathy we have for men who have lost their positions, homes, wives and children because of feminism is real. And you can see it on our faces and hear it in our voices.”

    FACES AND VOICES LOLLOLOLL

  71. Novaseeker says:

    If women are sinning because men (fathers, brothers, sex partners, boyfriends, husbands, whoever) aren’t leading/teaching/restraining/managing/parenting/husbanding them properly , then women have no agency. They cannot have any agency. It’s an impossibility. There is no other logical conclusion. The argument “everything is the fault of men” means women have no agency and are not responsible, nor can they be responsible, for anything they do. They don’t seem to realize this directly supports and gives credence to the “women are the most responsible teenagers in the house” and “women are children” claims the more strident corners of the manosphere make.

    My reading of them is that they seem to think that they can “split the baby” by saying that women do have agency, but that their agency is somehow contained in or ultimately conditioned by the more weighty male agency. In other words, that women’s agency is exercised in a way that is constrained/conditioned by men’s agency such that men’s exercise of their agency creates the realm of possible exercises of female agency … which gets them to claim that ultimately it is the exercise of male agency that is determinative, because it sets the parameters within which women can exercise their agency. Again, this comes from their reading of Gen 3 (if Adam were exercising his agency properly to supervise Eve her agency to sin would have been constrained by his exercise of agency, so he bears responsibility for her exercise of agency). It sees female agency as being conditioned/limited/determined by the preceding exercise of male agency, and so dependent on it.

    Of course, this means it is a lesser degree of agency than male agency — it is dependent/contingent on male agency’s exercise, in a way that, in their view, male agency’s exercise is not conditioned on female agency’s exercise.

    Again, this is not provable, so it isn’t an argument — it’s a worldview that is trying to solve a supposed “chicken and egg” problem by seeing male agency as being “prior to” female agency, and cutting the responsibility/causality chain at the exercise of male agency by fiat because it meshes with the worldview.

    More supportable by evidence is that both men’s and women’s agency is conditioned by any number of constraints, including the exercise of agency by the opposite sex. However, that perspective, which seems obvious from a cursory observation of reality, doesn’t lead one to the desired conclusion that men are ultimately responsible for women’s sins (i.e., sinful exercise of female agency), which is the conclusion they want in order to match their worldview.

  72. Jack Russell says:

    So it is now men’s fault for not marrying. Nothing to do with carousel riding, his-fault divorce.
    Former Jr. Canadian finance minister has a blog called TheGreaterFool.ca. His latest item is about a guy who just got divorced and cleaned out by his ex. This guy (Paul) just bought a house and put his soon to be wife(single mother) on the title before they get married. He said her name is on the title because they have a “trusting relationship”. This guy is a simp. My comment is #59. Lot of good red pill comments on this. The pic is hilarious.
    https://www.greaterfool.ca/2019/03/07/saving-pr/#comments

  73. Sharkly says:

    I have a Navy Captain in our congregation who did the same. He said “no” to other men’s abuse of women, allowing them to serve in harm’s way in the Navy, by resigning his commission.

    So, Man-up and take charge by resigning your position of leadership.

    LOL Cunt-worshipping fools!
    His resignation resulted in another goddess being forcibly pressed into leadership against her will. SMH

    I don’t know whether to even attempt to argue with the ignorant fools at Whorehorn Media, or whether it is just wiser to call them out publicly as mentally retarded, and let their own impotent lack of effect, condemn themselves.
    The gates of hell will not prevail against Christ’s church. These foolish hireling losers have been getting beat by the satanic culture every single day of their false teaching “ministries”. The Baylys and their Whorehorn Media manginas are the spiritual version of the New Jersey Generals. They continually cower and lose to Feminism to earn their paycheck.

  74. ray says:

    At least the East is still traditional!

    https://www.breitbart.com/faith/2019/03/08/dalai-lama-says-women-empathize-and-men-kill/

    Oops. Dilly Llama.

    That’s ok though. At least in the West, we have the conservative, take-charge Trump Administration to push back against the New Woman Order!

    https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2019/03/08/melania-trump-mike-pompeo-honor-international-women-symbols-of-courage/

    Oops.

    Never mind.

  75. thedeti says:

    Nova:

    So, women have agency, but that agency is wholly contained within and dependent upon men’s agency.

    Women have agency; but men have more agency.

    As i think about it this fits with most evangelicals’ and reformed protestant and fundie viewpoints that a woman is always under a man’s authority, and is always the responsibility of man: First her father (and if not him, then uncles, older brothers, or other older men in the family), then her husband, and then her son(s) in her old age.

  76. Novaseeker says:

    So, women have agency, but that agency is wholly contained within and dependent upon men’s agency.

    Women have agency; but men have more agency.

    As i think about it this fits with most evangelicals’ and reformed protestant and fundie viewpoints that a woman is always under a man’s authority, and is always the responsibility of man: First her father (and if not him, then uncles, older brothers, or other older men in the family), then her husband, and then her son(s) in her old age.

    It’s how I read them at least, yes. Women have technical agency, but it is always primarily conditioned by the exercise of male agency (including any decision by men not to act). This way they can say that women both have agency and that men are always responsible (either some specific man or men as a whole) for the exercise of that energy — they get to split the baby, keep the blame firmly on men, while still paying lip service to women’s agency. In effect, women’s agency, in this view, is both limited (conditioned by men’s agency) and ultimately not responsibility-generating (men are responsible for it, because their agency conditions the possibilities for women to exercise agency in sinful ways). Women are never actually free, in this view, morally in an existential sense — only men are. Women’s moral freedom is always a result of men’s agency and whether/how it restricts the exercise of women’s agency (i.e., restricts it to non-sinful exercise) or not (leading to women exercising agency in a sinful way, because a man/men in general failed to restrict/limit/channel it properly). End result: men are always to blame, period.

  77. Lost Patrol says:

    Novaseeker is right about the “worldview” concept.

    Pastor Bayly is holding strong frame with his and it colors all that he sees and hears. I’m holding strong frame with mine as well. So he and I don’t see or hear the same things even when witnessing the same events.

    Every one of them sinned against her by not telling her “no” and stopping her.

    “Stopping her”. This is illegal in Pastor Bayly’s country and subject to penalties up to and including incarceration.

    Dalrock never stops whining about women when man is the problem.

    I’ve never actually seen an instance of Dalrock whining about women. That’s my job.

    It will be because pastors, elders, husbands, fathers, brothers, commanders in chief, DOD staff, enlistment officers, annd basic training instructors all do as the general on our committee did: firmly declare that his job comes after obedience to the Lord, and so he will risk his job for the sake of protecting women by signing the majority report.

    Publicly. With his own name.

    I don’t know what he may be doing as a job currently, but the only general I see on the report is Bentley Rayburn, who retired from the Air Force in 2006. Certainly his AF job was not at stake more than 10 years later.

    http://baylyblog.com/blog/2011/10/what-about-women-combat

    I have a Navy Captain in our congregation who did the same. He said “no” to other men’s abuse of women, allowing them to serve in harm’s way in the Navy, by resigning his commission.

    This statement is highly dubious in my experience. I don’t know when the last Navy Captain, or any US military officer at that level “resigned his commission” over any issue at all. That just does not happen much, historically speaking. What he probably did was submit his retirement papers and collect his pension. This act is separated by intergalactic light years from resigning ones commission. Though maybe he really did… I wasn’t there.

    Love,

    I don’t even believe he really means that.

    Worldviews.

  78. gdgm+ says:

    Novaseeker @ 2:29 PM

    Women have technical agency, but it is always primarily conditioned by the exercise of male agency.

    Good Lord — THAT’S IT!!

    It still seems that the complementarians are deep in their bubble of ‘Churchian Feminist Sentimentality’ (for lack of a better term). Deti is insisting on logic, but their argument is based on _feelings_. And doesn’t it seem odd (condescending, creepy, smarmy) that Pastor Bayly ends his general notes by using the word “Love”, when discussing non-personal and doctrinal subjects?

  79. feministhater says:

    Dalrock never stops whining about women when man is the problem. Always has been and always will be—First Adam.

    No more point in even trying with these people. That’s all you need to know. Everything is your fault. The end. They will never, ever consider that women are moral agents themselves.

    Walk away.

  80. feministhater says:

    Oh, just remember, you’re abusing women when you stop them from doing something and now you’re abusing women because you ‘let’ them join the military. Haha! Wow! There really is no walking this back. He’s given women a license to do anything they please because men are always to blame, each and every single time. No joke. Bayly just said that every sin women commit is the fault of men.

  81. OKRickety says:

    “He (Bayly) claims changing the subject to men doesn’t prevent holding women accountable. Yet the very PCA report assured everyone that PCA women wouldn’t face discipline.”

    And he says, in effect, that he didn’t have enough clout to overcome the majority of feminists in the group that created the report. I wonder if he’s repented for that?

  82. 7817 says:

    Dalrock’s dissection of the PCA report appears to have been the inspiration for “Good Faith” Alberson and his 2 fellow gammas to do their 2 hours of screeching about Dalrock on their podcasts.

    Gluttons for Punishment is an apt title for the episode. It is one of the most cringe inducing things I have ever listened to. The lack of self awareness is incredible.

    It is a tour de force of the gamma personality, if anyone doesn’t understand it yet. Extended listening is almost physically painful.

  83. OKRickety says:

    Re. the link to Putin’s Women’s Day activities

    Well, I think several of the women in the photo and videos on the link were reasonably attractive. They certainly weren’t land-whales, anyway, but I expect they were hand-picked, for a reason.

    In the comments there, Michael responded to Putin’s statement ‘In Russia, men “who wish to commit suicide look at you (Russian women) and want to live again”.’ with this:

    “In America, men who are enjoying life look at American women and wish to commit suicide.”

  84. Marquess of Abandon says:

    The nature of women is to help

    “Here, eat some of this, Darling.”

    Disrupting women’s ability to recognize, repudiate and repent for their sins is profoundly evil. Their sin. Not yours. Mmmhuh, talk to the hand, mansplainer!

    To do so in a attempt to help them is so imbecilic it wraps around to mephistophilian genius.

  85. Anonymous Reader says:

    Isn’t the real shell game Bayly is running all about deflecting away from the claim that the reason women have been volunteering for the military is because not enough men have stepped up? Since that claim doesn’t even pass the basic laugh test, it is obvious why he would be eager to distract away from it. Because there is zero evidence for this mythical “shortage” of men volunteering for military service.

    There is zero evidence. The claim is false. Bayly either did not bother to do any basic search-engine research in 2002, in which case he was ignorant; or he did research and didn’t care about the facts, in which case he was lying.

    All this smoke about “mah Federal Headship” is just a distraction.

    Pastor Bayly of Bloomington, Illinois is either very ignorant, or a liar. Either way he has not shown any indication he is willing to walk back his libel of American men.

    He bears false witness, and changes the subject to hide his lies. His son and employees share in the lies. What does their church religion teach about lying?

    These are facts. Bayly isn’t very good with facts. Perhaps that’s why he emotes so much.

    PS: Bayly sure does manage to work his hurt feelings from 2002 into just about every response. He should learn to come to terms with hurt fee-fees. That’s what adult men do.

  86. Scott says:

    Officers resign their commission when they have come against a situation where a 15-6 is pointing to a court martial and they still have time to save face.

  87. Scott says:

    The last resignation like that I saw was a fellow psychologist who was binge drinking for a week at a time and not coming into the clinic. I was her acting first line supervisor and had to be a witness to her resignation. We basically forced her to do it. She incurred a huge ADSO related debt for her PhD and had to pay it all back.

  88. Scott says:

    Ideally, officers have a moral obligation to decide where the line is that they would not cross, or resign their commission over a constitutional issue. I knew where mine was, but most people in the military don’t think much about stuff like that.

  89. Novaseeker says:

    Isn’t the real shell game Bayly is running all about deflecting away from the claim that the reason women have been volunteering for the military is because not enough men have stepped up? Since that claim doesn’t even pass the basic laugh test, it is obvious why he would be eager to distract away from it. Because there is zero evidence for this mythical “shortage” of men volunteering for military service.

    I don’t think he is saying that in fact. I think he is saying that men as a collective “allowed” this by means of not exercising their moral agency to forbid it. That is “not stepping up” in their view. Now, he may express that deceitfully by means of suggesting (erroneously as you point out) that men are not signing up and therefore forcing women to do so, but that is just a ruse, imo — that is a way of expressing the underlying idea (men not stepping up) in a way that has emotional appeal viscerally to conservative Protestant Christians. The message appeals because everyone has been set up already to agree that any action by women is conditioned by a prior male one. The temporal facts aren’t important to him and his targets … the overarching narrative is, and they just move the causality horizon back one step behind where women make the decisions we are talking about here, and then assess the “ultimate” blame on men.

  90. Warthog says:

    Bayly has set up a conundrum.

    One the one hand, men are forcing women to serve in the military by not volunteering in sufficient numbers (so he says).

    One the other hand, he praises officers who resigned their commission rather than sin by putting women in combat.

    But, doesn’t resigning contribute to the lack of men willing to serve in combat, forcing women to do it?

    Bayly emotes. He doesn’t have a leg to stand on and cannot reason his way out of a paper bag.

  91. feministhater says:

    And he says, in effect, that he didn’t have enough clout to overcome the majority of feminists in the group that created the report.

    By his own reasoning, he’s still responsible for that report. He cannot scapegoat. He made them do it by either forcing them or by not forcing them. He’s still to blame.

    He’s created a perfect solution for female sin.. one that force feeds men that blame instead.

  92. feeriker says:

    Bayly sure does manage to work his hurt feelings from 2002 into just about every response. He should learn to come to terms with hurt fee-fees. That’s what adult men do.

    By what evidence are we to conclude that Bayly is an adult male? Similarly, by what evidence to date are we to conclude that he is a Christ follower?

  93. King Alfred says:

    Using Bayly’s logic, we must unavoidably conclude that all those never married or divorced men who sit in their basements looking at pornography all day while living on welfare are doing so only because women are failing to step up to the altar and marry them while vacating high-paying jobs they can take over to support families. The agency of these men is clearly constrained by careerism, carousel riding, and “looksism” among women, forcing them to bravely explore the dark regions of the internet and find solace in the bosoms of women with names like Cookie, Muffin, and Bubbles. And they are destined to remain in this predicament until women (supermodels with large fortunes, of course) find the courage to “woman up” and commit to lifelong marriage with these fine specimens of manhood.

  94. BillyS says:

    Your sarcasm would go completely over their heads King Alfred, unfortunately.

  95. King Alfred says:

    Unfortunately, yes. I haven’t recovered socially from the last time I spoke with a few church folks who were wringing their hands over the scourge of pornography, to which I replied that pornography is now the ONLY thing women do today that is actually designed to appeal to men. I mentioned that they needed to address that fact in any attempt to cure the problem of pornography. Instant nuclear firestorm.

  96. King Alfred says:

    It is also dangerous to note in public that while pornography is undeniably bad, women’s education and careers are responsible for the destruction of more marriages and families than pornography can claim.

    There are many issues vital to our salvation and the survival of our society that cannot be discussed in church.

  97. Anonymous Reader says:

    Novaseeker
    I think he is saying that men as a collective “allowed” this by means of not exercising their moral agency to forbid it. That is “not stepping up” in their view. Now, he may express that deceitfully by means of suggesting (erroneously as you point out) that men are not signing up and therefore forcing women to do so, but that is just a ruse, imo — that is a way of expressing the underlying idea (men not stepping up) in a way that has emotional appeal viscerally to conservative Protestant Christians. The message appeals because everyone has been set up already to agree that any action by women is conditioned by a prior male one.

    Here is the language from the 2002 resolution:

    Through this committee’s study, it has become apparent that the sin of our present circumstances is not that of women who have taken on the role of warrior-defender, but that of brothers, fathers, and husbands who have abandoned their daughters, wives, and mothers to the androgyny and sexual anarchy which has been the seed-bed of this violation of God’s creation order. It is this sin which must come under the discipline of the church.

    This is a bit complicated for a mid high student to diagram, but Advanced Placement high schoolers should be able to wind through subject – object – predicate – etc. It boils down to “all men have abandoned all women” therefore women must step up to serve in the military.

    Testable claim that can be tested, has been tested, is false. Therefore Bayly and the other signers either lied about the “study” done or about their libel of all American men. Either way they lie.

    Either way, Tim Bayly and all the other PCA churchmen who signed this feminist libel are liars and should not be trusted by any man until they walk back their lies.

    Bonus: Susan Brownmiller in her 1970’s radical feminist tract Against our Will: Men, Women and Rape proclaimed this thesis:

    Rape is “a conscious process of intimidation by which all men keep all women in a state of fear.”

    Abstractly the form is this:
    “All men do [bad thing] affecting all women, therefore MEN BAD!”

    Note that shorn of all the excess verbiage, the 2002 PCA thesis is of the same form, with the same conclusion. Once again we see that “Traditional” “Conservative” churchmen of the modern year are a whole lot like 1970’s RadFems. They are “conserving” radical feminism of the 1970’s, in form (“MEN BAD!”) and in substance (“ALL MEN’S FAULT!”).

    Yeah, I agree that it is an emotional position, and White Knights gonna white knight for poor, helpless wimmenz. That means none of these men like Bayly can be reasoned out of it, but they can and should have noses rubbed in their lies, just like house training a puppy, because otherwise they can not learn. Although I doubt any of the aging Boomers who are typically in charge of churches are capable of learning, for the simple reason that you cannot fill a cup that is already full.

    The cup must be empty. The man must be humble enough to admit there’s something he doesn’t know. I don’t see that. I see a lot of arrogance…goes well with the ignorance.

  98. Novaseeker says:

    Testable claim that can be tested, has been tested, is false. Therefore Bayly and the other signers either lied about the “study” done or about their libel of all American men. Either way they lie.

    Sure, but their response will simply be: “the fact that women feel like signing up is in itself the fault of men for allowing women to become androgynous, etc.”. It’s a worldview that women’s behavior is always conditioned by men’s agency. That’s why they are so resistant — it’s a worldview you are dealing with, a reading of Genesis 3 that colors their entire worldview of men, women, and who is responsible for the behavior of each (their worldview is: men are ultimately responsible for the behavior of both … women have free will, but that freewill is either constrained properly by men or it isn’t, and so in their worldview men are ultimately responsible for how women exercise their free will). In their eyes, therefore, the fact that women are pressing to join the military and be put in combat roles and so on is irrelevant as to who is ultimately responsible — in their worldview, men are always ultimately responsible as a matter of universal law.

    You can’t reason with that at all, because it’s a dogmatic view based on their interpretation of Genesis 3. This is why it’s so pervasive in conservative Protestantism — they all seem to share the same interpretation of Genesis 3, which forms the basis for a dogmatic worldview about men’s overarching responsibility, in an individual and collective sense, for women’s behavior. Women are admitted to have agency and some degree of responsibility, but it’s akin to the difference between a parent and a child — the child has free will and responsibility, but the parent has ultimate responsibility (at least up to a certain age). They see men/women the same way, as a dogmatic matter, so pointing out the fact that women are the ones in fact pressing to join the military and serve in combat roles won’t change their view one iota.

  99. Anonymous Reader says:

    Sure, but their response will simply be: “the fact that women feel like signing up is in itself the fault of men for allowing women to become androgynous, etc.”.

    I understand their emotional and theological worldview. I’m not expending time on how to parse words from the Bible. I’m pointing to a testable claim.

    The testable claim is that because men are not signing up in sufficient numbers, women must pick up the slack. Testable and false. Therefore a lie. Never mind Genesis 3, look at the literal words in the resolution tested against reality. Those men lied. They are liars.

    What else have they lied about?

    That’s my bottom line. I don’t like liars.

  100. feeriker says:

    There are many issues vital to our salvation and the survival of our society that cannot be discussed in church.

    Imagine the meltdown if you were to come right and ask “church leadership:” “If we are unable to even discuss, let alone find a Scripture-based solution to the worldly ills that are tearing the church apart at the seams, can you then enlighten me as to exactly why this gathering of supposedly born-again souls continues to exist?”

  101. feeriker says:

    There are many issues vital to our salvation and the survival of our society that cannot be discussed in church.

    Imagine the meltdown if you were to come right and ask “church leadership:” “If we are unable to even discuss, let alone find a Scripture-based solution to the worldly ills that are tearing the church apart at the seams, can you then enlighten me as to exactly why this gathering of supposedly born-again souls continues to exist?”

  102. Warthog says:

    “Women are admitted to have agency and some degree of responsibility, but it’s akin to the difference between a parent and a child — the child has free will and responsibility, but the parent has ultimate responsibility (at least up to a certain age). They see men/women the same way, as a dogmatic matter, so pointing out the fact that women are the ones in fact pressing to join the military and serve in combat roles won’t change their view one iota.”

    Well, yes, I see it that way. A woman is like an adult child in many ways.

    However, women need to be held responsible for their own decisions. Maybe I’m wrong, but I don’t think Dalrock denies that a husband/father has responsibility for his family. The point that Dalrock harps on is that the church refuses to hold women responsible for their own actions. You cannot punish a woman for her sins or her crimes. A husband cannot punish his wife.

    There is a difference between responsibility and fault.

    Eve ate the fruit, directly against Adam’s command, while Adam was not there. Was that Adam’s fault? No, not at all.

    If Adam had not decided to join her in eating the fruit, I expect God would have instructed Adam on how to punish the woman and the serpent, as both of them were his responsibility. But Adam would not have been punished for the actions of the woman or the serpent. He was punished for his own actions.

    Adam was responsible to correct the sin of his wife and the serpent. That doesn’t mean he was at fault for their actions.

    The problem with Wilson and Bayly and others to the left of them is that they hold the men responsible for women’s sins, as if they are at FAULT for them. And they deny the husband any authority to correct or punish the sins of the woman he is married to.

    It’s important not to throw the baby out with the bathwater. Husbands are responsible for their families, but responsibility does not imply that a man is guilty for the sins of his wife. It implies that he has the duty to punish/correct her. In a nation and church that deny the husband any authority to correct or punish his wife, it is ridiculous to hold him responsible for her actions.

  103. Jesus Rodriguez de la Torre says:

    While I do believe that the fault of female rebellion does lie with men (the 14th amendment being a grave error), the solution I see the Bible give for rebellious wives is one that complementarians and even Dalrock would not likely endorse. I t may be found in several places, such as the opening chapter of Esther, Song 5 and various Proverbs. In the current atmosphere, this would be MGTOW for 90% of western women before marriage and a refusal to provide either company or money to a rebellious wife afterwards. I have done exactly this in my marriage 17 years ago with excellent result. Jesus Christ would not bless the Syrophonecian woman until she accepted being called a female dog Mark 7:28. Now translate that word faithfully, Christ called a woman begging for help a female dog. Let that sink in. It was only after she demonstrated submission that she was blessed.
    Personally there has always been a huge gun that both my wife and I have been able to point at each other whenever either of us have “gone off the rails”. We threaten the other party with asking God to judge between us. This may seem an odd thing, but we both deeply fear God, and even the threat that our partner would complain to God about us stops us immediately. The biggest problem with teaching that men are always responsible is the removal of the fear of God from the wife. There was a time women feared God, but now they are constantly told nothing is ultimately their fault. This is a great error. Women should once again cover their heads in Church and pastors should once again refuse them entrance until by doing so they openly display they are under the authority of men. When I used to respond to Bayly’s blogs some years ago I made my head covering, wife shunning message quite clear and some were at least partially receptive to it. Warhorn is not Bayly, and I never read Bayly respond in such disgusting terms even when he disagreed with me as was used of Dalrock.
    We should not return evil for evil in response to Warhorn. We should speak clearly and call a lie a lie, a smear a smear; but not go to the mud.

  104. Pingback: Charlize Theron has us trapped. | Dalrock

  105. That isn’t the traditional view. Islam has stayed traditional in this sense.

Please see the comment policy linked from the top menu.

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 )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google 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 )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.