The church of easy divorce and girl power is proving to have drawn from the pool of liberal shallow thinkers in the U.S. Think of this….there is a rough correlation between being of Christian faith, and having mainly conservative political views, even on things that are not the main social issues like gay marriage and abortion. I am not taking a position about whether or not these views are necessary to hold simultaneously, I’m just stating the way things were/are. If you rewind 30 years this difference was more pronounced in the churches. Those of politically liberal bent were less likely to attend church on a regular basis. They didn’t change so much, the church did.
What is one thing that can be seen from 30,000 feet that is a common thread across most liberal positions? They involve more emotion…I didn’t say all liberal positions do, nor did I say ONLY emotion on those that do, Im making a qualitative statement that generally there is more emotional thinking with mainly liberal views. Its almost as if by reflex, what feels right is right, and to feel something is to do something….all like that.
No coincidence, feminism is that way too.
Comes the mega church outreach…under the guise of relevance they pitched a new gospel, magnifying a form of love that means tolerance, and diminishing the form of love that would be tough. That I was caught up in that is a little embarrassing but I got out with my mind relatively intact.The church avoids tough subjects that would offend women, but doesn’t consider men in the mix, wait a minute, unless the men are minorities, in which case gender is a coincidence.
I was reading, yesterday, and came across a site that described a whole series of logical fallacies that most of us already know about, but the site was applying these to examples of how people think, in the writers case his back drop was students preparing for an exam. he illustrated emotional reasoning with great panache, and now, of course, I cannot find the site again.
One can see emotional reasoning in action in the case of the killing of the teen in Florida. The recent death of Rodney King set me thinking about what has transpired in the 21 years since we all watched horrified and Reginald Denny was dragge3d from his truck and bludgeoned with a brick to the head. Earlier this week I was reading and article written by a conservative reporter in Minneapolis, who as a guest on a main stream liberal news talk radio program, actually was able to penetrate the emotional veil held up by the host. It was encouraging in the sense that is was a victory for empiricism over emotionalism, a victory we rarely see achieved. The issue was one of race, being the existence of many black on white assaults, some perpetrated by gangs of youths and others individual, that the liberal host had explained away using typical liberal rationalizations. “There were extenuating circumstances”, “It was not racially motivated”, etc. At the end of the program the host made the statement that as difficult as it was going to be, he was going to have to molt out of the old beliefs and form an entirely new view, one that would be uncomfortable.
Is that not very much like feminism vs. the red pill? I’m sure all of us see the similarities between race baiting and gender baiting. But do we see the analogous existence of what I would call male guilt (vs. white guilt). I say not yes, but HELL YES. Why does male guilt seem harder to overcome? And further, is male guilt even more entrenched among white men? To the former I will explain later, to the later I reply, absolutely and easily explained.
Its common among conservative thinkers to say middle aged white men are at a disadvantage, some even use the hyperbole (Is it hyperbole?) of them being endangered. We get this. Between racial issues and gender issues we are fed a steady diet of things to feel guilty about. But on race, we are not as subject to direct input from an intimate partner. The male guilt however often comes with a live in advocate called the wife. Few wives are not at least part time members of team woman. So we face extra pressure to conform to male guilt, beyond the pressure we have to subscribe to white guilt.
The language of the two, the thinking processes that inform the debate, they seem to be quite similar, however, add the coercive nature of the women in our intimate circles, wives, daughters, sisters, and male guilt is the perfect catalyst for a reaction that yields white knights.
No amount of so called male trump card can overcome the societal zeitgeist of white and male guilt. You can see this in the fact that feminist bloggers of the most foul mouthed flavor have no issue with using their real names, while by comparison, the most tame men’s rights writers avoid the use of real names. Why? Because there is real and present danger in doing so.
Even the most logical man will cling doggedly to emotional thinking if fear is his motive. If his wife has manipulated him sufficiently for years to believe that his well being is tied inextricably to her happiness he will ignore evidence and ridicule those bringing it if it defies the narrative imposed by male guilt.
Therefore, the two usually exist in tandem. White guilt and male guilt create some desired emotions for these men, and serve to avoid emotion that are undesired. And the church is right there to reinforce these feelings.