Noah’s Response

I wanted to address Noah’s response to Ham’s behavior.

And Noah began to be an husbandman, and he planted a vineyard: And he drank of the wine, and was drunken; and he was uncovered within his tent. And Ham, the father of Canaan, saw the nakedness of his father, and told his two brethren without. And Shem and Japheth took a garment, and laid it upon both their shoulders, and went backward, and covered the nakedness of their father; and their faces were backward, and they saw not their father’s nakedness. And Noah awoke from his wine, and knew what his younger son had done unto him. And he said, Cursed be Canaan; a servant of servants shall he be unto his brethren. And he said, Blessed be the LORD God of Shem; and Canaan shall be his servant. God shall enlarge Japheth, and he shall dwell in the tents of Shem; and Canaan shall be his servant.
(Gen 9:20-27)

He cursed Ham. How did he do that? Upon what basis would the Old Testament patriarchs bless or curse their progeny? What gave them the right, the authority? In short God honored their words. God gave them authority and he backed up their words. So what? God tells husbands to love their wives as themselves and honor them as the weaker vessel, good deal for the wife. On the other hand the Bible commands wife’s to fear and submit to their husbands, God commands them to do this. Who has God given the authority, the responsibility to? Not the woman.

When a husband abdicates his responsibility he is doing what Adam did, he steps aside and lets the woman chart the course of their souls. He ignores the authority that God gives him to bless his wife and both are going to miss out on God’s blessing for their family, in trade for the feminist dream of equality. Women are buying the lie that it is better to be equal than to be blessed. They are taking matters into their own hands, exactly like Eve did when she decided to make herself “like God”.

As a husband I am absolutely obligated to love my wife, as myself. Would a loving husband allow his wife to follow in the footsteps of Eve? Would a loving husband abdicate his responsibility and meekly follow in the draft of his “powerful” wife. No. Does he buy into the worldly prospect of “equality” and reject what the Bible instructs his wife to do? Does he lead her or poke his toes in the dirt and sheepishly allow her to do what she pleases in the name of “love”? What does leadership look like?

Leadership looks like Noah, he doesn’t hang his head in shame over the exposure of his nakedness, he asserts his authority. He reminds everyone that he is the man God spoke to and that God’s authority flows through HIM. At the end of the day husbands need to realize that they answer to God for how well they love their wives, how obedient they were to God’s voice, we don’t answer to our wives. Ultimately, God is our judge and that is what matters, looking to our wives for affirmation, for approval, for love. That isn’t their job and expecting that from them only causes to make them unhaaaaapy (and us too). Looking to them for something we should only be seeking from God is a sin.

When I screw up I need to deal with God. I need to get straight with Him, my wife is basically my sister in Christ who I’m obligated to love as her husband, she is not my confessor, my accountability partner, my compass to God, or the pure heart of light that should guide all my steps. Treating her as any of those things is not fair to her, it isn’t loving and it isn’t leadership.

My wife used to complain that I pedastalized her as God and I could never understand why she thought that. I get it now. I was forcing her into the place of leadership by constantly abdicating to her judgment. I could never understand how it was possible to lead while being locked in a perpetual pursuit of her feminine approval (as per the feminist prerogative). By doing this I was cutting her off from being blessed by God through a properly delegated husband, one that doesn’t abdicate at the first failure.

Besides hypergamy dictates attraction to a strong man, not a weakling who caves into the feminist culture at the first blush. Noah was a strong man, not a perfect man, but a man who had the authority and the relationship with God to give blessings/cursing and salvation to his family. God instructed Noah in the construction of the ark, how do we think it would have gone if he had listened to the popular culture of HIS day? He and his family would have died with the rest. Noah saved his family because he was a strong man and he had a relationship with God, his wife is barely mentioned.

Something tells me she was glad to have him in her life even though she didn’t receive equal billing.

What is the point of all of this? I think it is our job as husbands to counter the feminist culture, in the world and in our wives. We need to love our wives like Christ loved the Church, and not respond like they are God Himself when the criticize us. Not receive the fruit of the rebellion and validate it as viable and useful behavior. By doing that we are encouraging our wives to rebel and miss the blessing of having a God-fearing husband. I recommend deflecting, ignoring, and dismissing criticism from our wives. We need to prayerfully consider what God might by revealing to us both concerning the criticism and also how to address the rebellion in our wives. That is love.

Military Uniform or Should We Say Costume?

At times I just look at feminism and shake my head. I wonder what they are thinking and whether they have the ability to do anything that doesn’t affirm their position as the most important thing on the planet, everything revolves around them. Consider this, 2 women at Fairchild Airforce Base decided it would be a good idea to dress in BDU’s (Battle Dress Uniform) and get photographed breastfeeding their 3 children (one has twins). I’m all for breastfeeding, that’s great, do you have to get a medal for it though? Do you have to wear a uniform designed for combat, designed to identify you as a combatant on the field of battle and convert it into little more than a prop for a “breastfeeding campaign”?

Do we have to get our noses rubbed in this, stuff, any more directly before the full effect of the completely androgynous “female” hits home? Why not breastfeed your children in a Level A hazmat suit? Why not do it at a location like Fukushima? Just whip that old boob out there and ‘gitter done in front of the camera. Of course we can still pretend that the ridiculous cognitive dissonance involved is really just sensationalism and is not trying effect social change, right? The visual being expressed here has a lot less to do with breastfeeding in my opinion and a lot more with the paradigm shift that feminist want this country to undergo. Young mothers in battle, medals for the suckling and medals for the killing, the hand that rocks the cradle rolls the M1 Abrams.

Far from needing protection, these superwomen are to be lauded for their independence on all fronts (never mind when they have to deploy). These are the bleeding edge red-fem poster women and they seem pretty proud of themselves.

I’m wondering if Jr-ette will be drawing combat pay if mommy carries her into a fire-fight at feeding time. What’s that you say? Mothers won’t be required to deploy in combat roles? Who is going to stop them? I can see the law-suits happening now.

Also, note the complete lack of comprehension in the comment section on the first article, we’ve come a long way baby!

Work, Provision from God or Means to Rebel?

I’ve been spending too much time at Christian Forums again. It does help me start to formulate and crystallize my thoughts. One I had today was how people approach their profession, I think most guys have been raised to be “providers” and that their job is a way to meet the needs of their dependents. The result of this upbringing is you have men that have been trained and disciplined in the ideal of self-sacrifice as entry into manhood and creating a valid foundation for an important societal building block, the family. Without that sacrifice the family is wrecked, no husband submitting himself to God and seeking God’s provision, no wife being thankful for God’s provision though her husband and no appreciation of her husbands sacrifice on her behalf. Having ejected this ideal there is not much left to build a marriage upon.

A man used to press himself to the service of society to EARN a family. The purpose of his labor was to support his family and his nation. It was sacrificial while also being rightfully thankful to God for His provision. (Of course this is the ideal, many men are greedy and self-seeking).

In contrast, why does a modern woman want to work outside of the home? Self-fulfillment? I’ve seen lots of that. How about freedom? Such as “I don’t want to depend on my husband financially, I don’t trust God to provide for me and I want to have the means to make my own decisions.” So the purpose of her work is entirely different than the purpose of man’s work. Her purpose generally starts off being selfish, this is the goal, not the failure to meet that ideal.

If I refuse to be dependent on God I’m a rebel, if He provides me a job and I refuse it I’m forgoing His provision for me. How is it different when a woman spurns God’s  source of her provision through her husbands job? Is she less a rebel? Is her cry for independence suddenly to be lauded by virtue of her plumbing? The feminist says so.

It shouldn’t cause us to wonder when the glue of man’s sacrificial labor for the family and society is eroded by the solvent of women’s selfish labor, nor should it cause astonishment when both the family and society crumble as a result.

Jane Eyre, Prophetess of Evangelical Feminism?

How deep does the rabbit hole of female moral superiority go? At least as far back as 1847 when Charlotte Bronte penned the semi-biographical character of Jayne Eyre, here we see an 18 y.o. Jane badgering her middle-aged employer during the first conversation:

E: “Repentance is said to be its cure, sir.” (Eyre the teenager)

R: “It is not its cure.  Reformation may be its cure; and I could reform—I have strength yet for that—if—but where is the use of thinking of it, hampered, burdened, cursed as I am?  Besides, since happiness is irrevocably denied me, I have a right to get pleasure out of life: and I will get it, cost what it may.” (Rochester, the employer)

E: “Then you will degenerate still more, sir.”

R: “Possibly: yet why should I, if I can get sweet, fresh pleasure?  And I may get it as sweet and fresh as the wild honey the bee gathers on the moor.”

E: “It will sting—it will taste bitter, sir.”

R: “How do you know?—you never tried it.  How very serious—how very solemn you look: and you are as ignorant of the matter as this cameo head” (taking one from the mantelpiece).  “You have no right to preach to me, you neophyte, that have not passed the porch of life, and are absolutely unacquainted with its mysteries.”

E: “I only remind you of your own words, sir: you said error brought remorse, and you pronounced remorse the poison of existence.”

R: “And who talks of error now?  I scarcely think the notion that flittered across my brain was an error.  I believe it was an inspiration rather than a temptation: it was very genial, very soothing—I know that.  Here it comes again!  It is no devil, I assure you; or if it be, it has put on the robes of an angel of light.  I think I must admit so fair a guest when it asks entrance to my heart.”

E: “Distrust it, sir; it is not a true angel.”

R: “Once more, how do you know?  By what instinct do you pretend to distinguish between a fallen seraph of the abyss and a messenger from the eternal throne—between a guide and a seducer?”

E:I judged by your countenance, sir, which was troubled when you said the suggestion had returned upon you.  I feel sure it will work you more misery if you listen to it.”

There we have it, a female teenager is what every man needs to have complete spiritual discernment! The pretension of the author here is immense:

Rebuke not an elder, but intreat him as a father; and the younger men as brethren;
(1Ti 5:1)

And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church.
(1Co 14:35)

But this is the kind of nonsense lapped up by the typical evangelical feminist who I have often seen declare that no man is morally complete until they have a “better half” to guide their way. Again, men are vile and evil women are good.

Anyone have an instance that predates “Jane Eyre” that I’m not thinking of?

Nothing much to do with Empathy-Gender Difference Deniers

I can’t write about empathy all the time. If I try and relate every social pathology to empathy I’m going to sound like a fool, and while I still submit that under the right scrutiny, there can almost always be found some empathy cause and effect in relational dysfunction, be it marriage/intimate partner, or general gender (male/female non intimates) relations, finding it is too tedious to keep my attention, let alone a reader’s.

Women, in more than quorum numbers, deny differences between the genders. A few men go along with that to earn the ladies approval, nothing more. Women distract and dissemble about gender differences, the process painfully obvious.

How does it work to discredit something by discrediting its source? What I mean by that is one of the most common themes among difference deniers is that the differences are learned, not organic…, ok, didn’t you just say THE DIFFERENCES!? Think about the FEELINGS evoked by this appeal, not its basis or lack of basis in reason.

Why the denial? What is the motive? What is the end game? It appears that no one wants to be women anymore. Men, pressured for decades now to get in touch with the feminine side, haven’t made as much progress as those pressuring them would like, hence the number of divorces over emotional neglect. (missing the whole idea that if there IS a feminine side to get in touch with, isn’t that a difference?) And women vehemently , angrily deny any propensity to process things through emotions more than men do. The denials obfuscate. They do so by denying BEING more emotional, saying they know lots of men who get more emotional than they do, their husband cries, so forth. It was never the point that a gender IS more emotional, meaning feels emotions more than the other, it was the point that the reasoning one gender does weighs emotion more heavily than the other gender, generally.

Back to empathy for a minute; allow that I use “empathy” as a sort of catch all for the emotional cumulonimbus following most women around holding tornadic unresolved emotions (that in Spanish the word for storm is “tormente” fits this illustration perfectly), The gender deniers tools for obfuscation work best on those who process information emotionally. From thought to thought, critical logical extension is not needed, only that one FEELING flows naturally to the next, usually ramping up the emotional intensity as it goes. I assert that its still an empathy quest at root, but tedious to illustrate. Just imagine Journey singing “Only the Young” when thinking empathy quest, not sure how that helps but its a cool song.

If there are no differences in the process by which genders reason, why there hell do all the books, all the counseling and such even exist? Why is there acrimony and failure to communicate? How can gaps be bridged when the gap’s existence is denied?

Shattering the stranglehold that is the tormente of female reason is a man’s job. About half of us men however have tried to seed the clouds above our own heads so we can enter our own private emotional hell in order to relate better to the opposite gender.

A celebration of logic, clinical and dry, is needed, a renaissance of reason by way of consensus on modality of communication is imperative. We cannot at once pander to women’s insecurity about being female, and maintain that about men that facilitated the very creation of the tangible parts of our civilization.

(after rereading my post and seeing how disjointed it flows, I’m swabbing my inner cheek for a chromosomal test, but posting it anyway)