Maritime Supremacy

When women first began attending the U.S. Naval Academy in 1976, many observers foolishly asked “What’s the point?”  While progress at times may have seemed imperceptibly slow, the naysayers have been proven wrong.  We now have a steady stream of victories, lead by a new breed of warrior who brought priorities the Navy had previously never dreamed of.  Now, with the U.S. Navy’s newest aircraft carrier, these warriors have finally achieved full freedom of navigation by depriving the enemy of their last last toehold on the open seas:

The new aircraft carrier Gerald R. Ford has all sorts of high-tech gear equipped for 21st century naval warfare. But there is one thing that male sailors will notice is no longer available: Urinals.

“This is designed to give the ship flexibility because there aren’t any berthing areas that are dedicated to one sex or the other,” Operations Specialist 1st Class Kaylea Motsenbocker told Navy Times

…urinals on aircraft carriers may be a thing of the past.

This long fought battle was not without significant cost, as marking all spaces on our warships as feminine came at the cost of both money and less important (war-fighting) priorities:

When he is designing a bathroom, Kaufman says he is required to allot around 1,500 square inches of space for a urinal. A toilet needs more than 3,300 square inches.

For a ship like the Ford, which cost upwards of $13 billion, every inch of space matters tremendously.

“Why would you want the ship to be bigger just for fixtures?” said Kaufman. “You can get twice as many urinals as water closets.”

But the brave social justice warriors who brought us the urinal free warship can’t rest now.  As is the nature of war, each new victory sets the stage for the next battle:

“[A toilet is] by far a less clean environment than a urinal. By far,”…

The only way to ensure men accurately aim into a toilet bowl is to force men to sit down, which is unlikely to happen, said Kaufman.

Moreover, sitting down to pee makes trips to the bathroom take longer.

Kaufman lacks faith in these warriors, but I do not.

Changes in the theater of battle also affect civilian supporters. I have received unofficial confirmation from my sources in the CBMW that their leadership is furious that the men of the U.S. Navy are making brave women sit down to pee in their place:

When will these cowardly men learn to stand up and sit down to pee?

See also: It would be petty to point out how petty it is.

Posted in Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood, Envy, Feminist Territory Marking, Feminists, Men's Sphere Humor, Satire, Social Justice Warriors, Turning a blind eye, Ugly Feminists, Weak men screwing feminism up | 78 Comments

Rollo Tomassi’s new book is now available.

Rollo reached out to me late last week to let me know his latest book The Rational Male – Positive Masculinity is now available.  I picked up a copy on Kindle on Friday afternoon hoping to have time to finish it over the weekend, but so far have only made it through the first 18%.  What I have read so far is very good, including a moving tribute to The Private Man, and chapters on fatherhood from a “red pill” perspective.  Rollo has offered a full breakdown of the contents here.

Rollo writes from a secular perspective, but a solid understanding of the sexual marketplace, the importance of a man’s frame, and the devastation feminists have wreaked on the institution of marriage is just as important for Christians as it is for non Christians.  For a primer on how a Christian husband can approach the topic of Game, see Headship Game.

If you are interested, you can pick up your own copy in either paperback or kindle format.

Edit:  Update from Rollo.

The Rational Male – Positive Masculinity is now the number 1 best seller in Fatherhood, number 2 best seller in Parenting Boys and number 4 best seller in Family Relationships/Fatherhood on Amazon now.

Posted in Game, Linkage, Marriage | 35 Comments

Two additions to the men’s sphere lexicon.

Cane Caldo coined a hilarious term in his comment on Submission with a twist, and denying rebellion.

A concubine is a committed slave who may not leave without her master’s command, and she receives no more providence when that occurs. What Wilson actually sees are tattooed sluts. A slut is an informal whore who loves her work. In the twenty-first century, sluts not only aren’t concubines, they have have legal rights to extract from their johns future pay for past work; a sort of whore pension. That isn’t anything like concubinage. If we fix Wilson’s phrase so that it reflects the real world it read (“…the twenty-first century is characterized by the tattooed slut.”) it makes sense.

Which gives the lie to Wilson’s sentiment that it’s not progress for women. If twenty-first century women as a group are characterized as tattooed sluts (informal whores), then a clear-eyed observer might call a government enforced whore pension as progress; at least from an economic perspective.

As Zippy observed:

 “Whore pension,” as a succinct and accurate description of alimony granted to a woman who chose to divorce her husband, is a stroke of genius.

While I’m sharing Cane’s brilliant term, I thought I would share another term coined by a M.A. Shaw in his review of Jim Geraghty and Cam Edwards’ book Heavy Lifting: Grow Up, Get a Job, Raise a Family, and Other Manly Advice.  Shaw aptly notes that the term No Fault Divorce makes as much sense as a No Fault Foreclosure:

Good advise for any young man to marry early but what is needed is a companion novel for young women. It has been my observation – as a 63 year old – that it is women that are equally responsible for the decline of the institution of marriage as the Peter Pan mindset. I recall the motto “A woman needs a man like a fish needs a bicycle” as a teen. No fault divorce (makes as much sense as no fault foreclosure) has led to the present situation where nine of ten divorces are initiated by the wife. Combine a fifty percent divorce rate with the family law paradigm of “What’s hers is hers and what’s his is theirs” in the division of community assets does not make marriage a good business plan for any man. The racetrack gives better odds.
Jim and Cam are obviously very lucky to find their wives but not everybody can be lucky. Still the book was an enjoyable and easy read I would recommend it to anyone.

Posted in Cane Caldo, Jim Geraghty, Lexicon, Men's Sphere Humor, Men's Sphere Lexicon | 44 Comments

C.S. Lewis on the erotic necessity of submission.

In response to my last post reader Gaius Marcius was kind enough to point out the C.S. Lewis quote on erotic necessity:

Lewis’s phrase ‘erotic necessity’ is not from That Hideous Strength, but from his Spectator article ‘Equality’ in 1943, which is also included in the essay collection Present Concerns. That Hideous Strength is a dramatic presentation of themes Lewis explored in dozens of essays. In this case the point Lewis makes is that inequality is inevitable, necessary, and erotic. If Wilson couldn’t remember the citation for the actual phrase he quotes, a simple Google search would point him in the right direction.

I found an archive of the essay at the Spectator (emphasis mine):

This last point needs a little plain speaking. Men have so horribly abused their power over women in the past that to wives, of all people, equality is in danger of appearing as an ideal. But Mrs. Naomi Mitchison has laid her finger on the real point. Have as much equality as’ you please—the more the better—in our marriage laws: but at some level consent to inequality, nay, delight in inequality, is an erotic necessity. Mrs. Mitchison speaks of women so fostered on a defiant idea of equality that the mere sensation of the male embrace rouses an undercurrent of resentment. Marriages are thus shipwrecked. This is the tragi-comedy of the modern woman; taught by Freud to consider the act of love the most important thing in life, and then inhibited by feminism from that internal surrender which alone can make it a complete emotional success. Merely for the sake of her own erotic pleasure, to go no further, some degree of obedience and humility seems to be (normally) necessary on the woman’s part.

Lewis erred when he assumed that feminist resentment stems from a history of terrible mistreatment by men.  If Genesis isn’t enough to prove that no mistreatment is required for the condition to occur, the 70+ years of feminism since Lewis wrote the essay should win over any remaining doubters.  The more we have radically reordered our society to appease feminist demands, the greater the clamor of feminist resentment has become.

But Lewis’ observation that women are sexually attracted to men they submit to is extraordinary.  He understood in the 1940s what pickup artists rediscovered fairly recently.

Posted in C.S. Lewis, Game, Pastor Doug Wilson, Submission, Ugly Feminists | 73 Comments

Wilson, Lewis, and Pseudo-Christian Pedestalization Game

As I mentioned in my previous post, Pastor Doug Wilson’s reply to critics of his 21 Theses on Submission in Marriage is titled:

And Now a Brief Word for the Wife Beaters

Despite the title referring to wife beaters, the post is a response to all of his critics.  This includes Facebook users who objected to his comments about submission being an “erotic necessity”:

In the other peanut gallery, a discussion broke out on Facebook over my statement that submission was an erotic necessity, running along the “shades of 50 shades!” line. Maybe I had come out in favor of corporal kinky punishment for wives. Who’s to say?

Wilson assures his readers that he had no such thing in mind.  What he was thinking about was a pseudo-Christian (chivalric) pedestalization of women.  The offending phrase, he points out, is a quote from the man he says is his mentor on the subject.  It is from C.S. Lewis in That Hideous Strength. Wilson explains that the book demonstrates a sexual element to submission, and offers as the prime example a scene where Merlin kneels before another man (Ransom):

Life at Belbury is one extended orgy of biting and devouring. In contrast, life at St. Anne’s is a staggering hierarchy of masculinity and femininity running all the way up, and with a sexual element included where appropriate. There is one horrific scene between Wither and Frost which ends with them in a clinch driven by the lust of mutual animosity, each knowing that at some point a devouring must happen. The corresponding scene is between Ransom and Merlin, and ends with Merlin kneeling, rendering honor like a loyal king’s man. “Slowly, ponderously, yet not awkwardly, as though a mountain sank like a wave, he sank on one knee; and still his face was almost on a level with the Director’s.”[1] No devouring at all.

I had to read this several times to make sure I hadn’t missed something, but the quote above, including the part I have bolded, is exactly what Wilson wrote.  I have not read the book, but I’m fairly confident that Lewis wasn’t really pushing a homoerotic ethos with the scene.  I also suspect that Wilson didn’t really have that in mind either, but that he so desperately wanted to invoke the idea of Lancelot submitting to his Lady as Christian chivalrous eroticism he overlooked whom Merlin was kneeling to.

However, I strongly suspect that Wilson is on firmer footing when he suggests that Lewis was selling a form of Christian pedestalization (can I touch you there?) Game:

…the reconciliation between Mark and Jane is profoundly Christian. She has learned the humility of true submission. Her entire life had been driven by the desire not to be taken in, not to be possessed.

But this is not treated by Lewis as Mark Studdock’s standing permission to continue on as an oaf and a coarse rube, barging into her sexually, but now with impunity because she had become “submissive.” No, his frame of mind has been explicitly transformed.

Once she submitted, Wilson explains that Mark learned to stop approaching his wife like a rutting buck, and instead learned to place her on a pedestal.  Wilson quotes Lewis:

“This time at last he thought of his own clumsy importunity. And the thought would not go away. Inch by inch, all the lout and clown and clodhopper in him was revealed to his own reluctant inspection; the coarse, male boor with horny hands and hobnailed shoes and beefsteak jaw, not rushing in—for that can be carried off—but blundering, sauntering, stumping in where great lovers, knights and poets, would have feared to tread . . . How had he dared?”[3]

Forget about that earlier stuff where Wilson describes one man erotically kneeling to another.  This is what he was no doubt really getting at:

How had he dared? His wife, although a sinner, was a very great lady. He, though a very great sinner, was to return as her lord. But it is not the case that humility is required for a wife to assume her station, but pride will do for the husband. Mark now knew better than that.

Based on the specific quote he offers as well as what I can find on Lewis’ life story I think it is likely that Wilson has this part right.  This doesn’t mean that pedestalization is Christian, only that Wilson is likely right when he relates how Lewis got it wrong.  When Lewis wrote Hideous Strength he was a lifelong bachelor, and it would seem that his understanding of the relationship between husband and wife was gleaned from medieval poetry and popular culture (which was itself influenced by the same poetry).

Lewis, despite his genius, seems to have internalized the pedestalization in his otherwise insightful study of Courtly Love.  Eleven years after publishing That Hideous Strength, Lewis married a divorced single mother of two named Joy Davidman, in a romance that can best be described as a men’s sphere cliché.   Like Eat Pray Love and How Stella Got Her Grove back, it involves a marriage for the purpose of securing a visa.  From Infogalactic:

In 1956, Davidman’s visitor’s visa was not renewed by the Home Office, requiring that Davidman and her sons return to America. Lewis agreed to enter into a civil marriage contract with her so that she could continue to live in the UK, telling a friend that “the marriage was a pure matter of friendship and expediency.” The civil marriage took place at the register office, 42 St Giles’, Oxford, on 23 April 1956.[29][30]

The couple continued to live separately after the civil marriage.

Eventually Lewis discovered that he felt romantic love for her, and they decided to marry again (for real this time):

The relationship between Davidman and C. S. Lewis had developed to the point that they sought a Christian marriage. This was not straightforward in the Church of England at the time because she was divorced, but a friend and Anglican priest, Reverend Peter Bide,[33] performed the ceremony at Davidman’s hospital bed on 21 March 1957.[34] The marriage did not win wide approval among Lewis’s social circle, and some of his friends and colleagues avoided the new couple.

As the New York Times explains, part of the reason Lewis’ friends did not approve was Davidman’s lack of a submissive spirit:

The homely American, disliked by Lewis’s friends for her Hebraism and her pushiness

But no doubt at least some of his friends must also have been troubled by the impropriety of their relationship, which began with then married Davidman leaving her family in a bid to seduce Lewis*:

With their marriage in trouble, Davidman and Gresham together read Lewis’s Christian apologetics, and were converted. They joined a Presbyterian church, and she began corresponding with Lewis — even as, oddly, she and her husband dabbled in Scientology.

Through their letters, Davidman fell in love with Lewis, although at first he did not seem to reciprocate. Still, in 1952, she set sail for England, leaving behind her husband and sons, making no secret of her intentions.

As the Infogalactic article notes, Davidman was staying in Lewis’ home when her husband wrote her asking for a divorce:

After several lunch meetings and walks accompanying Davidman and his brother, Warren Lewis wrote in his diary that “a rapid friendship” had developed between his younger brother and Davidman, whom he described as “a Christian convert of Jewish race, medium height, good figure, horn rimmed specs, quite extraordinarily uninhibited.” She spent Christmas and a fortnight at The Kilns with the brothers and by this time was said to have fallen in love with C. S. Lewis, but he seemed to be oblivious to her feelings.[19]

She returned home in January 1953, having received a letter from Gresham that he and her cousin were having an affair and he wanted a divorce.

Wilson claims that Lewis was anchored in a much older (Christian) tradition, one wiser than modern men can understand:

And so I get a big kick out of moderns—we who do not even know which bathroom to use—learnedly discussing how Lewis was limited by the perspective of his times. Look. Lewis was an old Western man, standing on the other side of a vast chasm that separated him from his times. His erstwhile critics, meantime, have only managed to get about 20 millimeters away from the spirit of their times.

But the reality is that Lewis was painfully modern in this regard.  If anything Lewis was ahead of his time.  The circumstances leading up to his marriage would have made for an episode of the Jerry Springer Show.  The real chasm happened in the eleventh century, as Lewis himself explains in The Allegory of Love:

French poets, in the eleventh century, discovered or invented, or were the first to express, that romantic species of passion which English poets were still writing about in the nineteenth. They effected a change which has left no corner of our ethics, our imagination, or our daily life untouched, and they erected impassable barriers between us and the classical past or the Oriental present. Compared with this revolution the Renaissance is a mere ripple on the surface of literature.

This chasm is so great that nearly everyone today believes as Wilson does, that the morally twisted chivalric tradition of Courtly Love represents Christian values and teaching on marriage and sexual morality.  Even Milton made this same mistake.

*A Christianity Today post claims in her defense that when then married Davidman announced she was going to England to seduce Lewis, she was merely making a joke.

Posted in C.S. Lewis, Chivalry, Courtly Love, Game, Headship, Romantic Love, Serial Monogamy, Submission, Traditional Conservatives, Wife worship | 122 Comments