Too traditional to be traditional

I’ve created a new category to tag posts:  Too traditional to be traditional

So far only three posts (aside from this one) are tagged with it, but the thought process is common so I’m sure more are to come:

I’ve probably missed some existing posts that fit into the category. Feel free to let me know in the comments if you have any suggestions.

This entry was posted in Too traditional to be traditional, Traditional Conservatives. Bookmark the permalink.

11 Responses to Too traditional to be traditional

  1. Pingback: Too traditional to be traditional | Reaction Times

  2. Yer says:

    While I don’t have a specific post, much of the season of singleness stuff is cut from the same cloth. While lesser women will be “called to” the carnal pleasures of traditional marriage, the really godly women will be “called to” the ascetic lifestyle of complete freedom in a major metropolitan area.

  3. Anonymous Reader says:

    While lesser women will be “called to” the carnal pleasures of traditional marriage, the really godly women will be “called to” the ascetic lifestyle of complete freedom in a major metropolitan area.

    “Called to”…who’s calling, eh?

    Where’s “caller ID” when it’s really needed?

  4. CK says:

    Too traditional to be biblical

  5. Dalrock says:

    Excellent point Yer.

  6. American says:

    @Yer: In other words, they’re too broken inside to form a life-long relationship with a male which children are born into and raised in. So they settle for “spiritualizing” the situation to cover up their negative condition instead. Males are in no way obligated nor is it desirable for males to enable this false spiritualizing modern women are engaged in nor ever live in a state of codependency to it.

  7. JB Harshaw says:

    RE Too traditional to be traditional

    The question is… which “tradition”? Or who’s “tradition”? Or indeed how is any particular person even defining the words “tradition” and “traditional”?

    Most people when asked to define “tradition/traditional” will reply with some bromide akin to “well, the way things have always been done” or perhaps “the way things were/used to be” — which then in reality just means “the way things were done” in THEIR childhood, youth, younger adult years, and/or what & how their parents or other teachers did things.

    Most things labeled as “traditional” are really anything BUT; in fact they are nearly always (in historical terms) fairly RECENT contrivances (in fact, you will ever hear people tacitly admit that via statements like “we’re trying to establish XYZ as a ‘tradition’ in our [family/group/organization]”). Decisions, behaviors, choices that were made and which others then followed or copied (often in “rote” fashion, in no small part because it is the easiest path), and still others attempt to “hallow” and impose onto others (or impose unquestioned acceptance of such) by slapping the label “traditional” to them. There are a whole HOST of things which are now (at least most commonly) accepted as “the way things OUGHT to be” simply because “back in the day, when I/we did X…”; thus (just as a few examples) we have “traditions” that:

    * All children are to be turned over to “strangers” for their schooling & “education” (and often even openly stated more so to be “socialized”) — strangers that the parents themselves do NOT specifically choose, have likely never met, and probably know absolutely nothing about, have only very vague (and quite probably incorrect) notions about what said strangers are trying to “teach.”

    * A whole host of dating, mating and marital “traditions” — everything from school dances to the ridiculous “diamond engagement ring” to the white wedding dress/tuxedo, and the highly contrived ceremony and vows and so on — the vast majority of which are really just “fads/fashion” (if not commercially marketed nonsense).

    My point here… is that ANY appeal to “tradition” — stated as such, and regardless of whether it is some “liberal” or “conservative” position — is (at best) a very HOLLOW and SHALLOW argument; and (at much worse) is likely an attempt to cover/hide the fact that the person has no more substantial argument to give.

    That DOESN’T mean there ISN’T a more substantial argument — there may or may not be — just that the person isn’t making it (likely is unaware of it, has never bothered to find one, or to even think any of it through).

    It also means that — most likely — if the person attempts to LEAD with the “tradition” argument, anything they come up with later on (as a purportedly more SOLID basis) will have been contrived or selected in a highly biased manner; an after-the-fact rationalization of their previous.

  8. Scott says:

    JB Harshaw–

    Great points, all. I think at this point in human (and specifically Christian history) it is time to start sifting through all of it and try to figure out what the ultimate goals of any tradition were/are. Then compare those traditions (and the goals the represent) to sound Christian doctrine about any particular subject.

    Many ancient traditions are beautiful (aesthetic) AND compatible with the Christian life. But many aren’t.

    The ones you mentioned–especially about courtship (mate selection) are downright disgraceful in this regard.

  9. BillyS says:


    Too many people think the entirety of the history began in the 1950s or later. That makes it even harder to consider the things you note.

  10. Red Pill Latecomer says:

    Police woman hires hit man to kill her ex-husband:

    An NYPD cop was busted by the FBI on Friday in an alleged murder-for-hire plot that targeted her estranged husband, law enforcement sources said Friday.

    Officer Valerie Cincinelli, 34, is accused of using her boyfriend to hire a hit man in the failed scheme, according to a source familiar with the matter.

    Cincinelli, who was hired in 2007, was a domestic-violence officer assigned to the 106th Precinct in Queens when she became involved with a local man she met on the job, a source said. …

    It gets even stranger. A later report says this female cop also wanted a hit on her boyfriend’s 15-year-old daughter (I guess she was jealous of the daughter):

    … Still more shocking was her intended second target, the feds allege: the boyfriend’s 15-year-old daughter. DiRubba has a daughter who is exactly that age, according to records and sources.

    “She’s getting in the way,” a source told The Post of Cincinelli’s twisted alleged motive to kill a young girl.

    Instead of carrying out the twisted plan, the boyfriend wore a wire for the feds, court papers allege. …

Comments are closed.