Tucker Carlson on LGGBDTTTIQQAAP

If you haven’t watched Tucker Carlson’s new show on Fox*, it is worth watching purely for entertainment value.  Carlson has an unmatched ability to get his guests to say the most ridiculous things.  It is truly extraordinary.

Earlier this week Carlson interviewed Stephen Ledrew, formerly the president of Canada’s Liberal Party, regarding Canadian teachers being taught about the “LGGBDTTTIQQAAPP community.”

Well, the tolerance police have a lot of power here in America, in case you haven’t noticed, but they’re even stronger in Canada. Just yesterday Canadian prime minister Justin Trudeau delivered an official apology to gay and transgender Canadians for the past state discrimination against them. But now, teachers in Durham, Ontario, had to attend an inclusiveness training course for the–deep breath here–LGGBDTTTIQQAAPP community, which is apparently a community. That 15-letter acronym, intended to encompass all sexual minorities, may soon be required soon at schools.

Anyone trying to defend the obvious absurdity of LGGBDTTTIQQAAPP is naturally going to need to play a game of motte and bailey.  In the interview, Ledrew does his best to pretend that no one really wants to make LGGBDTTTIQQAAPP part of the culture, as LGBTQ is the acronym everyone currently uses.  As the argument goes, critics like Carlson are the ones being absurd by even bringing the idea of LGGBDTTTIQQAAPP up.  But Carlson knows that Ledrew has a problem;  Ledrew can’t criticize the absurdity of LGGBDTTTIQQAAPP without risking the wrath of the SJWs behind this latest culture war offensive.  Ledrew wants to imply that no one takes LGGBDTTTIQQAAPP seriously, but he simultaneously has to take LGGBDTTTIQQAAPP seriously or he knows he will be cast out of the warren for being insufficiently inclusive. 

Watch as Carlson calmly and effortlessly maneuvers Ledrew from the motte to the bailey, forcing Ledrew to either defend the indefensible or betray the SJW objective.  As so often happens on Carlson’s program, hilarity ensues.

*I was pleasantly surprised at how good Carlson is at his craft, as I have been critical of him in the past.

Advertisements
Posted in Men's Sphere Humor, Motte and Bailey, Social Justice Warriors, Tucker Carlson, You can't make this stuff up | 148 Comments

Disney and the Forces of Evil

Via Breitbart, Disney has premiered their first male princess in Star vs. The Forces of Evil:

As Breitbart noted, the same Disney cartoon featured Disney’s first gay kissing scene on TV back in March.  Note how the supposed purity of romantic love is used to sell the concept.

Posted in Disney, Romantic Love, Social Justice Warriors | 137 Comments

Cross dressing snuck up in our blind spot.

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

–Deut 22:5 KJV

Back in August of 2016 Pastor John Piper published an interview with Rob Smith titled Why Did the Transgender Revolution Catch Us by Surprise?

This week we are talking about transgender, a topic of frequent inquiry from our readers, and to help us, we welcome Rob Smith to the podcast. Rob is a theologian who lectures in systematic theology and ethics at Sydney Missionary and Bible College in Australia. He is also an honorary assistant minister at St Andrew’s Anglican Cathedral in Sydney.

He approaches the topic of the transgender revolution as a biblical theologian, as a historian of the movement, and as a pastor whose own family has been touched by gender dysphoria. It hits close to home for him.

Smith gives a good high level summary of the historic movements that brought us to our current state, including:

  • Feminism and the idea that gender is a social construct
  • Homosexual acceptance
  • The sexual revolution

It is worth reading at the link above.  Overall the explanation is good, but I want to zero in on a massive blind spot for conservative Christians;  feminist envy and rebellion.  Specifically, feminists have worked tirelessly to remove the stigma from women dressing like men.  Feminists have been so successful here that the very idea of a woman “dressing like a man” is foreign to our current thinking.

Deut 22:5 tells us that men dressing like women, and women dressing like men is an abomination to God.  The Bible doesn’t give us a strict dress code for men and women, although Pastor Wilson explains that a literal translation of the verse would prohibit women from wearing combat gear.

Notice the odd construction — “that which pertains to a man.” The Hebrew underneath is keli geber, and should be read as the “gear of a warrior.” Whether we are talking about a man in fishnet stockings, or a woman decked out in full battle regalia, we need to recognize that God finds it loathsome. So should we.

This brings to mind an insult that was already dated when I was a child:

Your mother wears combat boots!

One dictionary of British and American English catch phrases explains that other variants of the same insult included:

Your mother drives a tank!

Your mother eats K rations!

I know as a child that I always assumed the combat boots insult was an accusation that your mother was unfeminine, or manly.  It would be like saying your father wears a dress, or women’s undergarments.  Not surprisingly, according to the dictionary linked above another variant of the insult was:

ah, yer mother wears cotton drawers!

All of these insults most obviously shame the person for having a mother who is unfeminine, or to use a similarly dated phrase, unladylike.  The problem is, for decades we have been taught that there is nothing shameful about a woman dressing like and acting like a man.  This is so much the case that it is really difficult to conceive of what would be considered cross-dressing for a woman in our culture, including modern conservative Christian culture. Which of the following would cause a modern woman to be shamed for being a cross dresser?

  • Wearing jeans instead of dresses and skirts?  Nope.
  • Wearing boxer shorts?  Nope.
  • Joining the army and driving a tank, eating field rations, and wearing combat boots?  Nope.
  • Dressing up like a lumberjack?  Nope.
  • Wearing a man’s haircut?  Nope.

A woman today who dresses like a man might be chided for her questionable  fashion sense, but she wouldn’t seen as cross dressing.  For a woman to be considered a cross dresser, she would have to go to the greatest extremes.  Not only would she have to make herself look like a man in every way, she would have to actually claim to be a man for us to consider her a cross dresser.

Contrast this with a man who does any of the below.  Is he seen as a cross dresser?

  • Wears women’s underwear?  Yes.
  • Wears women’s dresses or skirts (excluding kilts)?  Yes.
  • Wears women’s shoes?  Yes.

We have in our culture two kinds of clothing/styles:

  1. Clothing and styles everyone can wear.
  2. Clothing and styles men must not wear.

From a practical perspective, it is all but impossible for a woman to cross dress in our culture.  We have great difficulty even conceiving of the idea.  Cross dressing in our culture is something that almost exclusively pertains to men, because a woman cross dressing is simply normal.  From this perspective, we were already half way to accepting cross dressing as far back as the 1980s.  We’ve lived for decades rejecting the idea that something God detests is even possible.  Even worse, we have denied that our perspective on the issue has changed.  We forgot it, and then we forgot that we forgot it.

Conservative Christians are as blind to this as the rest of our culture, if not more so.  Men like Piper have spent a lifetime pretending that women (including conservative Christian women) aren’t in open rebellion.  When after decades of activism women were finally able to push their way into combat roles in the US military, Piper and his colleagues went into fever dream mode, pretending that men were forcing reluctant women to act like men. Piper wrote:

If I were the last man on the planet to think so, I would want the honor of saying no woman should go before me into combat to defend my country. A man who endorses women in combat is not pro-woman; he’s a wimp.

And:

Women may be more courageous than men in any given situation. They may have nobler vision. They may be smarter. That is not the issue. What God has written on our hearts and designed for our survival and our joy is the issue. Manhood puts itself forward between the women and the enemy. That is part of what manhood means. That is who we are by God’s design. The courage of women will show itself in a hundred ways. But when a man is around, he will not exploit that courage to fight the battle where he belongs.

Owen Strachan wrote:

…the call by men for women to fight in their place is the height of cowardice, and worthy of the strongest possible rebuke.

And:

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…

Acknowledging reality was simply too terrifying, so they pretended it wasn’t happening and tried to distract us with cartoonish chivalry.  This kind of absurd denial of what was going on right in front of our faces left us blind to the very idea of cross dressing for half of the population.  Now that we have fully accepted cross dressing for women, the path for doing the same for men is already paved.

Posted in Cartoonish Chivalry, Complementarian, Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood, Denial, Doublethink, Dr. John Piper, Envy, Military, Owen Strachan, Pastor Doug Wilson, Rebellion, Traditional Conservatives, Turning a blind eye, Ugly Feminists | 158 Comments

Cowardly cisgendered men forcing heroic transgendered women to fight in their place.

Back on Oct 30th, the New York Times announced the latest setback for President Trump: Judge Blocks Trump’s Ban on Transgender Troops in Military

The leadership of the complementarian Christian movement was expectedly livid at this ruling.  Here was yet another case of cowardly cisgendered men forcing heroic trans women to serve in their place.  Pastor John Piper, one of the founders of the Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood (CBMW), excoriated the cowardly cis men behind the judge’s ruling:

If I were the last cis man on the planet to think so, I would want the honor of saying no trans woman should go before me into combat to defend my country. A cis man who endorses trans women in combat is not pro-trans woman; he’s a wimp. He should be ashamed. For most of history, in most cultures, he would have been utterly scorned as a coward to promote such an idea…

Piper reinforced this in a separate statement:

The courage of trans women will show itself in a hundred ways. But when a cis man is around, he will not exploit that courage to fight the battle where he belongs.

Joe Carter’s response to the ruling was very similar:

Unfortunately, many cis men will be more than willing to allow trans women in combat if it will lessen their chances of having to defend their country in wartime. One of the harsh realities we face is that American society is filled with cis men who are anti-trans woman cowards.

Denny Burke was concerned that this ruling could one day lead to trans women being drafted:

Perhaps some people believe that trans women ought to be able to volunteer for whatever job they are qualified to do. But what if the draft were reinstituted? Under the right conditions, the draft would be a very real possibility, and that specter of a draft is really clarifying. It’s one thing for trans women to volunteer for combat service. It’s an entirely different matter for them to be drafted into it.

Owen Strachan, former president of the CBMW, responded to the ruling with Trans women in combat: A complementarian perspective:

If cis men will not own this responsibility, then trans women will be forced to take it on….

And in another statement Strachan reinforced this concern:

…the call by cis men for trans women to fight in their place is the height of cowardice, and worthy of the strongest possible rebuke.

Posted in Complementarian, Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood, Denial, Dr. Denny Burk, Dr. John Piper, Military, Satire, Turning a blind eye, Weak men screwing feminism up | 99 Comments

It tastes better that way.

The other day I pointed out that part of the benefit of DIY is the feeling of mastery that comes with it.  There is a related benefit, and that is the enjoyment that comes from practicing traditional sex roles.  When your wife cooks something for you, it tastes better.  This is true even if what she cooks is imperfect;  it is an expression of service and love.  Likewise, my wife had wanted a new chest of drawers for a a good while.  After urging her for years to pick out one that she liked and buy it, I finally broke down and made her one.

I could have knocked out a bare bones pine chest of drawers and she would have loved it.  But I wouldn’t have loved it, as I would always know I could have done better.  So I made her as nice a piece as I could out of cedar.  It isn’t perfect, but she prizes it more than if I had spent a few grand to buy her the best chest of drawers I could find.  It tastes better because her man made it for her*.

There is a profound beauty in the pleasure we can give to one another as men and women, but our culture despises this very beauty.  Feminism is founded on avoiding two virtues the ugly feminist can’t stand, feelings gratitude and love:

1.  Feelings of gratitude toward men. 

This is the sentiment behind the slogan:

I don’t want to have to depend on a man to…

This twisted feeling is so prevalent that we don’t even notice it.  It feels normal to us that a woman would order her life around never depending on a man (or men), and therefore never risking feeling grateful to a man**.  This is why every unit of our armed forces must be open to women.  The number of women who supposedly benefit from opening up special forces or submarines is so minuscule it isn’t even a rounding error.  But once women are in all units of the armed forces, never again will women suffer the indignity of feeling grateful to men for protecting them.  Never again will they hear the unbearable words Thanks to the men who sacrificed so much for us without feminists chiming in “and women too!”  This is why no unit can be left untouched, even the most elite ones.

2.  Acts of service to others.

Ugly feminists likewise can’t stand the idea of serving others, especially if these acts of service come out of (and/or evoke) a feeling of love for others.  They are so obsessed with not showing Christian love that they make it a priority not to serve their own families.  Cooking, cleaning, and caring for their own husbands and children is a concept which is repulsive to them.  Acts of service to others are in their twisted minds traps to be avoided, and many go so far as to order their entire lives around avoiding showing love to others, especially their families.  These women are so gripped by miserliness they have made it a priority not to show love to their own children.  When they find themselves unable to avoid an act of service and love to their families altogether, they first steel their hearts with resentment, turning their hearts to stone to avoid the feelings of selfless love they live in constant terror of developing.

Even worse, our society is so thoroughly feminist that the values of the ugly feminist have seeped into every nook and cranny of our culture.  This is most easily spotted with the venom directed at women who break the ultimate taboo: women who dare to not only bake for their men, but who do so out of a genuine desire to serve.  Baking for men is in our culture seen as the ultimate trap, one that every woman, even conservative Christian women, needs to be ever vigilant to avoid.  It is the absolute opposite of the strong empowered woman.  Sure, serve your man (if you must!), but beware the trap of baking out of a desire to please your man!  The warnings are everywhere.  Even Pastor Doug Wilson explains that the very idea offends his modern sensibilities in Unleashing Your Inner Fundamentalist:

A fundamentalist woman in a sun bonnet and a gingham dress, who gets a wicker basket to go pick blueberries, so she can bake her man a pie, with a golden crust, the kind he likes, may be a little bit hokey for your tastes, and certainly for mine. But at least she is trying to achieve an effect that the Bible says women should strive for — she wants to be modest and discrete. She is not trying to achieve an effect that the Bible never urges women to strive for, as in “edgy.” Or “provocative, but not too skanky for an evangelical.” She may be playing the instrument badly, but at least she is playing the right one.

The blockquote formatting makes italics in the original harder to spot, but notice the sneering emphasis on pie:  “so she can bake her man a pie, with a golden crust, the kind he likes…”.

And yet, despite the fact that this ugliness thoroughly pervades our culture, the beautiful truth is that nothing is stopping women who want to bless their men from rejecting this twisted sentiment.  Likewise, nothing is stopping men from blessing our women in similar ways.

 

*There is a caveat to this.  If giving her flowers would result in resentment instead of gratitude, giving her something much more meaningful will be even worse.

**Imagine a man obsessed with ordering his life so that he never had to depend on a woman, never had to suffer feelings of gratitude for women.  We would instantly spot this bitterness for the twisted sentiment that it is.  Yet in women this strikes us as perfectly normal, and even a good thing.  We don’t worry when a woman is gripped by this twisted sentiment, but instead when she is not gripped by it.

Posted in Beautiful truth, Military, Miserliness, Pastor Doug Wilson, Rebellion, Traditional Conservatives, Ugly Feminists | 392 Comments