Cornelius Van Til argued that unbelieving societies alternate between rationalism and irrationalism, that unbelieving thought displays a rationalist/irrationalist dialectic, which is quite true. But in advanced stages of cultural decay it should be observed that this dialectic turns into an oscillating fan set on high.
Examples are plentiful — in fact, it is hard to find things that aren’t examples — but this morning let us consider some of the erratic standards flowing from feminism. Feminism began by insisting that women could do anything a man could do, and has ended by saying that women can’t do anything that their grandmothers used to do routinely. “I am woman, hear me roar” has turned into “I am needy bucket, hear me whine.”
Feminism demands that we tell ourselves hard truths about the relationship between the sexes, and simultaneously demands that no woman ever be told the truth about anything.
Examples range from the comparatively trivial to the very serious. A standing assumption appears to be that if any woman posts a picture of herself online in some godforsaken getup, a minimum of three of her friends will tell her that she is “gorgeous,” “smokin’ hot,” and so on. This is done for two reasons. The first is the same kind of thinking that drives awards ceremonies in Hollywood. If everyone gets called a genius, then it is just a matter of time before it is everybody’s turn to be called a genius. The second reason this happens is that it is expected. Refusal to do so indicates that you must have a deep-seated antipathy toward women generally.
So we have gotten to the point where misogyny could be defined as telling a woman the truth. The other half of this is that we are up against a culture-wide demand that we call the most manifest and obvious lies “the truth.” If anyone actually tells, you know, the actual truth, they will do their level best to destroy you.
But shouldn’t it be possible to think that for women to have a permanent silvery drip hanging from the bottom of their noses is not as fetching as everybody said it would be? And perhaps someone could think this because he has a higher view of what women were called to be than is currently being promoted? A man can hate feminism because of the vandalism it is perpetrating on feminine glory.
I said examples ranged from the trivial to the serious, but the same principle is driving all of it. Because “the truth” is off limits when it comes to speaking to and about women, we have the minor social evil of women in tight jean muffin tops thinking they’re cute. But we also have the rapidly hardening public dogma that women are suitable for combat roles — something Deuteronomy calls appalling (Dt. 22:5).
Someone might think I am being inconsistent here, because wouldn’t I want to defend the older, more chivalric order, when men deferred to women, and would not “speak the truth” to them, restrained by kinds of courtesies? Yes, I would, and it is not inconsistent. The “false” nature of “manners” — opening a door for a woman, as though she were incapable of it herself — was possible and healthy because the culture as a whole understood the truth about men and women. Because sexual roles were well-defined, the artificial nature of manners was no hypocrisy. But now people are demanding that we retain a hyper-inflamed respect for those same manners against the backdrop of an imbecilic understanding of male and female.
Is the hate & abomination that the good / love / God has toward misordered sexuality mainly in response to the “vandalism it is perpetrating on feminine [& masculine} glory”?
You know, if you really want to help bring about the end of feminism and re-establish the natural order of gender relations in the West, you would support Donald Trump, as he is one of very few public figures who exhibits anything resembling true masculinity. It’s possible that our society is on the verge of a “Fight Club moment,” where emasculated white men decide to swing the pendulum too far the other way, embracing hypermasculine and perhaps even violent behavior in order to reclaim what they’ve spent their entire lives having beaten out of them through fatherlessness, the media, schools,… Read more »
Actually if you wish to really invigorate feminism and send us all fleeing the very idea of patriarchy forever, you should support Donald Trump.
All it would take to end feminism, race baiting, and all the other white male shaming tactics employed by the left would be for white males to show the same in-group preferences that every other “protected class” currently does. Why do you think white men are so susceptible to white guilt? It’s because they know, deep down, that they truly do have the “power” to put an end to all this in a heartbeat.
Biblically speaking, men aren’t supposed to show in-group preferences for one another. They’re supposed to lay down their lives and risk their worldly goods for the women and children. Measuring ethics against “what every other protected class currently does” is the road to perdition. You might win the whole world but lose men’s souls.
You misunderstand. I’m not talking about white men engaging in violence or selfish, idolatrous living. I’m talking about them not allowing themselves to be cowed by evil, manipulative weaklings (like the left) in society. White men standing up for white culture would actually be very good for society as a whole, especially the women and children. It would lead to a higher standard of living and a return to moral sanity. Isn’t that what you want?
“It would lead to a higher standard of living and a return to moral sanity.”
Only to the extent that white culture coinsides with Christian culture.
I agree. It was the Western European (i.e. white) Christian tradition that gave us the high standard of living we will soon lose and the moral sanity we have already lost.
Your confusing skin color with the Holy Spirit. Racism is not the answer to racism.
How is what I said racist? You don’t even know what race I am.
You said it was “white” Christian tradition that gave us “high standard of living” and “moral sanity”, You could have just said Christian tradition and left the color off, but your implication was clearly racist, no matter what race you are.
“I’m talking about them not allowing themselves to be cowed by evil, manipulative weaklings (like the left) in society”
The problem being there is a contingent of white men who happen to believe the “evil manipulative weaklings” all share the same gender. Enter feminism and who can blame them?
Call me crazy if you like, but most women are going to be rather resistant to the idea of embracing a bunch of white knights who wish to save Western civilization by removing all power from those they perceive to be “evil and weak,” AKA women, minorities, and leftists.
Amen
“I’m not talking about white men engaging in violence or selfish, idolatrous living…” Hey, you’re the one who brought up Trump.
There is no biblical mandate for men to risk anything for “women and children” as a class.
No, merely for every possible woman or child (or other person) that needs it. But there is not to be an “in group” preference for men, which would run counter to laying down one’s life for anyone other than a man.
Beautiful statement.
Are you kidding me with this? Hey, Dunceworth, did Paul show an in-group preference in Rom. 9:3? Your answer should be no longer than two or three consecutive letters.
Are you similar to Hitler in that you desire to show an in-group presence? Must answer yes or no. Did you stop lynching out-group people yet? Must answer yes or no. Hope that gives you an idea of how bad your logic is. Asking a loaded question and then demanded a straight yes-or-no answer without any context whatsoever is useless for real understanding and discussion. Paul’s entire life shows exactly how meaningful this supposed “in-group preference” was for him – he spent decades putting his life on the line for the Gentiles. The fact that one line in Romans states… Read more »
1. Yes, along with the now sainted Muhammed Ali and every other morally sane person. 2. You seem to be confusing loaded questions with direct ones, which require equally direct answers. Mine was the latter, as was your Hitler question, which is why I could answer it so easily. And lo, I never even had to read Doug’s book on logic. Actually, that might be a boon. You know that being able to spell f-a-l-l-a-c-y doesn’t make you a philosopher, right? And lastly, mea culpa on Paul. I was completely forgetting that his indefatigable ministry had nothing at all to… Read more »
I will also say that your first question, “Are you similar to Hitler in that…” really demonstrates the problem with “conservatives” or whatever you are. You have no idea the difference between manipulation and argumentation. Essentially, you’re weak-kneed.
Why are you afraid of a man whose children and grandchildren clearly honour and respect him?
I’m not sure they do it for the right reasons. Donald Trump’s son has claimed that he’s genetically superior to other people because his parents, especially his father, are genetically superior to other people. He even repeats his father’s ridiculous lie that his mother was an Olympic skier as evidence for that claim.
Making fun of a woman’s menstrual cycle on national tv now resembles true masculinity. I guess Dylan was right… the times – they really are a changin.’
I guess the word “wherever” is a euphemism for vagina?
Please. There was a context to that statement. The implication was there. It’s either naive or disingenuous to logic-chop over the words. He’s a master of “not quite” saying what he clearly wants people to hear, when he needs plausible deniability about it.
You say there was a context. What was it? What was said before or after it to imply what you think he implied?
Not the immediate context of the moment. The context of Donald Trump being someone who has no compunction about being vilely insulting when it suits his purpose. It was only slightly veiled because he has a to be a little more careful now.
OK, so you agree that there was no reason in that moment to believe he was referring to her vagina. The fact that he can be “vilely insulting” lends no additional credence to your theory, unless of course every sentence out of his mouth were a vile insult, in which case you could assume that the next body part he was going to mention wasn’t the ears, nose, or mouth. Since I’m assuming you agree that not EVERY sentence or phrase is an insult, then I think we must conclude that you have no grounds for accusing him of referring… Read more »
Okay, fine. Trump would never insult a woman in vile terms, or maybe he does it every day, but we know he wasn’t doing it THAT time because he used a euphemism that might possibly actually really not have meant that.
That’s what his famous “Some people are saying …” quotes are all about. Like Ted Cruz not being eligible.
And I’ll go ahead and say it — Hi Ilion! Nice to see ya!
Exactly. Anyone who is confused about what he was trying to imply is either really naive or really blinded by not wanting to see the obvious. That’s why I thought the comment about the judge’s Mexican heritage was a really uncharacteristic slip for him. He could have said something about the judge’s membership in La Raza, which would have had the same effect of successfully pulling the race card while still maintaining plausible deniability that he was being, as Paul Ryan noted, textbook racist. (The judge isn’t actually a member of La Raza, but is in a local lawyer’s group… Read more »
Probably. Possibly uterus. My bet is that he couldnt come up with a TV safe word for vagina on the spot, so he just said “wherever.” If that was his only faux pas I’d let it slide. But it’s not.
But it’s pure conjecture, as I was telling Dunsworth. You have no reason whatsoever to believe that’s what he was referring to. What ever happened to innocent until proven guilty?
But it’s pure conjecture, as I was telling Dunsworth. You have no reason whatsoever to believe that’s what he was referring to. What ever happened to innocent until proven guilty? You’ve never had a 8 year old shouting “Holy Ship!” here, there and everywhere to the raucous laughter of his friends and then get all coy and smug when you call him out on it, have you? “NO, I didn’t mean THAT, … I PROMISE, it’s REALLY TRUE!. I just like ships, that’s all. I’d like to go on a trip sometime and [snicker] take a really big SHIP –… Read more »
Innocent until proven guilty before the law. I’m not trying to throw him in jail. I’m trying to determine if he’s a good man. Its pure conjecture only in the most elementary sense. Its the kind of thing he would say, consistent with past and subsequent statements. It makes perfect sense in the context. And it is characteristic of the way he expresses himself. It is conjecture. But it is not unsupported. The same guy who said Hillary was in the back getting “schlonged” said Megyn Kelly had “blood coming out of her wherever.” Neither of these statements resembles true… Read more »
Trump is just playing a caricature of masculinity that many take that way because our society has been de-masculinized for so long they have a hard time recognizing the real thing.
Right, and then they attack it by calling it a caricature.
“He is one of very few public figures who exhibits anything resembling true masculinity.”
I do believe Ben is serious here. Hmm.
Consider Jesus, the real picture of true masculinity. As best I can tell, the Venn diagram has no overlap between him and Trump.
Challenging the establishment is just the first and easiest overlap to name. Speaking uncomfortable truths would be another. Being hated by those in power would be a third. Confounding people on all sides would be a fourth. I could go on…
Your comment may have garnered 6 “likes” because it sells well to the “cannot in good conscience vote for Trump” crowd, but it is false.
Those similarities are superficial, not actual. You might as well say, “They both had ten fingers.”
Not sure why we need to discuss how many “likes” we get. Who cares?
Gotcha. When the goalposts move, you were right to begin with.
Not to quibble, but superficial vs. actual is a false dichotomy. All superficial things are actualities. Now, potential vs. actual, hypothetical vs. actual, imaginary vs. actual, or superficial vs. significant, these are true dichotomies that must be reckoned with. And have you thanked the Lord lately that Jesus had ten fingers? Maybe that is not as superficial as you think. I have heard that ‘what is not assumed is not redeemed’ or something like that. What if Jesus only had nine fingers? Then we of all men would most to be pitied. The number of likes your comment garnered are… Read more »
Yeah, Trump is the first one to come to mind when it comes to “being like Jesus” [sarcasm]
Maybe its the “no need for forgiveness’ thing.
When “being like Jesus” is defined narrowly enough, no one fits. [not sarcasm]
When it’s too broadly defined, it’s meaningless.
Agreed. Can we also agree, especially in light of the frequent reminders on this blog that incisive speech and an unwillingness to kowtow to the PC police do not make one un-Jesus-like, that perhaps the original comment about there being no overlap in the Venn diagrams was an overstatement? That strikes me as an easy thing about which to agree, but this political season being what it is, perhaps it is not. Moreover, I recognize the truth that “without faith it is impossible to please God”, and so in that most important of senses Trump is nothing like Jesus. But… Read more »
I think he does have faith.
Brilliant. :P
How about Samson? God loved Samson and Trump was a piker in comparison?
You would not choose Samson would you? Yet God did.
A bit of humility and wonder is in order.
I am puzzled by your associating Trump with true masculinity. All that bluster and rudeness suggest to me a man who is not secure about possessing a genuine masculine identity. I think of traits such as bravery, service to others, gentlemanliness (not ridiculing the handicapped, not making a woman’s cycles the subject of cheap shots), calm competence, sexual self-control, loyalty, fidelity to oaths–I am not seeing any of these in Trump.
Regarding the traits you mentioned, I believe he only fails to exhibit one, which is sexual self-control, based on his affairs (though I assume he’s not still engaging in that behavior). Certainly his willingness to put his life on the line is a sign of bravery and a service to others, seeing as how there’s no material gain for him to pursue the White House. He didn’t ridicule a handicapped person nor make fun of a woman’s menstrual cycle (“wherever” does not equal “vagina”). When has he broken an oath?
He broke his wedding vows. That doesn’t lead me to think he would necessarily regard fidelity to an oath as a life and death matter. Would you not concede that some of his comments to public figures have been boorish?
Can you give an example?
Ummmmm…
It sure didn’t do the Clintons any harm materially.
Donald Trump is the poster boy for everything that drives feminism. His objectification of women is what gives male leadership a bad name. Supporting The Donald means supporting the cartoon character of masculinity that brags about how many women he’s slept with in the boys locker room.
“Vote Trump, because he’s supported by emasculated White men who might get violent if you don’t support him!”
That’s seriously the argument you’re going to run with? I suggest that it won’t get you very far.
I know, right? That really is the sentiment I am reading in so many places. Seriously, people? Is this the best you can do?
No, they might get violent if they continue having their masculinity beaten out of them and continue being treated as disposable pieces of garbage who ought to live in constant shame. Trump is serving as a model (an imperfect one for sure) of someone who pushes through the hysterical matriarchy in order to “get things done.” Do I like the things he wants to “get done?” Some yes, some no. But it’s his modeling that is key. He is showing that the matriarchy is not all-powerful and unbeatable.
Matriarchy? Patriarchy? Where is the stand for sane, educated, well meaning men and women to come together for the good of our country God created men and women to rule together . Together they a harmonious balance modeled after The Trinity
Oh amen to this! Where’s the line for people who just love God’s diverse design and would like to rejoice in one another’s company?
It’s behind the massive matriarchy and patriarcy lines.
Yes, in a famous moment of harmonious balance and co-rulership, Jesus asked to not be tortured to death, and Daddy said No. Patriarchy?
Maybe “Don’t vote Trump if you’re a seriously emasculated man. If you do, thugs might beat you up. God forbid anyone stand up to them.”
This is true and well said. Never really spoken of however, is the fact that feminism exists in response to something else, that we have cause and effect going on here. It did not simply spring forth from a meaningless void.
Well, to be fair, that point has been spoken of here quite frequently.
…and for many, many years. ME — use the search function.
You are both right, it has been spoken of, however all the comments here about how women are “just whoring up” and how men shouldn’t have to “man up and marry the sluts” speak pretty loud as to what is lurking within the human psyche.
All the comments? You mean just the one, right? Citation needed.
In this thread, there is only one so far. In other threads, there are multiple examples. The point being, as long as someone like Donald Trump is perceived as the epitome of manhood, feminists will have the moral upper hand.
Amen again
Who perceives Mr Trump as “the epitome of manhood”?
“He is one of very few public figures who exhibits anything resembling true masculinity.”
Is it too much to ask that people actually read the comments right in front of them before before demanding citations and hurling accusations?
Here’s another hint. It is virtually impossible for me to copy and paste a comment unless it has actually been written.
Apparently you can read but not comprehend. Trump isn’t, say, Frederick the Great, or Henry V — but he’s also not a gelded sham-opponent for progressivism, which cannot be said of anyone else on Team Conservative today. Trump is a man who has successfully exercised supreme executive authority in a large organization for several years, which is indeed something that requires certain masculine traits. “Epitome”? That’s your word.
I think his failures did result in some restructuring, at which point his degree of control became rather less than supreme. His political success has not happened because he is a principled opponent of progressivism; I doubt he has much depth of understanding with respect to the issues involved, or particularly cares.
This does not detract from my point at all.
Gross exaggeration and “accusation with no citation” are what some specialize in around here.
Trump,
The anti Eliot Spitzer.
(Sort of?)
(Anthony Weiner? Alec Baldwin?)
Hmmm. Sounds like we need another meme contest! ????????
Something else… something else… would that be the Marxist-Communist idea that there should be no such thing as private property, so all women must surrender the use of their bodies to their male comrades for the collective good?
Or would it be a response to the idea that the family (father, mother and children, at least, with maybe grandparents, grandchildren, uncles, aunts and cousins thrown in for mutual support) is the foundational unit of civilization, and destroying that would enable [a given society’s] enemies to desyroy that society without resorting to force of arms?
Why would nice girls want to whore up?
Because the nice strong boys have left the building, allowing Trump & FDR to become the new daddies.
So the ladies are trying to catch flies with whatever bait they think will work.
In the last 40 years the playing field has been leveled to include women and those of other ethnic backgrounds.The power that white men had that was not earned or merited is slipping from their grasp and being shared. Those who are too lazy or too weak to compete are whining incessantly about feminists, equal opportunity etc, etc.
It’s way beyond “leveled.” Many white males with superior grades and entrance exam scores get turned down from med schools and other programs. In the name of “fairness” and “diversity,” we’re turning down some of the best and brightest. Your last line is pure SJW gold.
SJW?
“And perhaps someone could think this because he has a higher view of
what women were called to be than is currently being promoted? A man can
hate feminism because of the vandalism it is perpetrating on feminine
glory.”
This was wonderful. You can’t fault our host for his words. The problem being, there are not enough people in the world who share his views. Far too many object to feminism because they outright hate women.
And want to keep their grasp on the power they had that is slipping away.
Yes. The sad part being, men who genuinely possess their own power and know from whence it flows, have no fear of it slipping away. It is only those who think power is something you get to lord over others that are so fearful.
Like the Centurion that Jesus spoke well of, the responsible authorities are the ones who know that they are under authority themselves!????
Who objects to feminism because they hate women?
The voices in ME’s head
I imagine there are quite a lot of men (and even some women) who do.
That’s not anything like the position that anyone on this board or anyone likely to read ME’s comments is taking, though.
I thought it was the feminists who hated the women.
“We have gotten to the point where misogyny could be defined as telling a woman the truth.”
“The truth is off limits when it comes to speaking about women.”
Truer words have never been spoken. If you want to know who rules over you see who you are not allowed to criticize.
Ain’t that the truth. Try questioning or criticizing any supposedly spiritual leader and see where that gets you. No one except God should rule over anyone else
What about those who tell en the truth.
“But shouldn’t it be possible to think that for women to have a permanent
silvery drip hanging from the bottom of their noses is not as fetching
as everybody said it would be?”
Not only is it possible, but you’re doing it right now.
Dead on Doug. Your post reminded me of this quote by Orwell, “Truth is treason in an empire of lies.”
Back in the day when “I am woman, hear me roar” was popular, I had T-shirts printed up that said, “I am man, hear me snore.” I did not become rich and famous as a result.