08 February 2013

A Response to Dalrock


I’ve apparently been called out by Dalrock.  Since he was one of the first Manospherians I started reading (in addition to Vox, Roissy, and Hawaiian Libertarian), though I’ve since stopped, I thought it would be fitting to at least respond to his criticism of my writing.

It isn’t clear who or what he is referring to here, but that is the point.  All I can tell is he is referring to Christian married (or divorced) men in the manosphere.  In a baffling denial of the modern feminist movement, Simon places the bulk of the blame for the rebellion of women on the common man:

I mention no one by name precisely because I checked out of that corner of the manosphere about eighteen or so months ago.  The general impression I was left with was that there is a strong tendency for that segment of men to blame women for every problem the world has ever seen.  This is slightly hyperbolic, of course, but a good-faith reading of what I wrote should indicate as such.  As the esteemed proprietor of this blog (note: this phraseology is tongue-in-cheek), I certainly have the license to use non-literal language in writing, and readers have the license to misunderstand me.

I also freely admit that my impression about that particular corner of the manosphere could be completely wrong.  But then, that merely begs the question of why Dalrock thought I was talking about him when I was describing a group as nominally Christian MRAs who complain a lot.  Which of those shoes does he think fits him?  And if the answer is none, why does he feel the need to defend himself?  He’s not under attack, at least by his own admission.  (And if those shoes don’t fit anybody, then why mount any defense at all?  No one is being attacked, and all that’s happening is a crazy guy is tilting at proverbial windmills.  Note: this is also a possibility in this instance.)

As Cane Caldo points out in his excellent post Advocates Under Authority, the OT similarly only offers enhanced moral protection for women who are under submission to a man.  The idea that the mass of modern women in feminist rebellion are in submission to either a father or husband is truly laughable.

Here’s another alternative mode of thought that may or may not be correct.  (I’ve been thinking about this for the last couple of months, but have not yet come to a solid conclusion.  Apologies in advance if this seems incomplete or hare-brained.)

While I certainly agree that feminism, as a macro-sociological movement encompassing a large number of men and women alike in Western society is certainly rebellious, at least in the sense of striving against God’s created order, it doesn’t necessarily follow that all members of the movement are likewise rebellious.  It could be that some members of the feminist movement are merely gullible.

An argument can be made that this was the case with Eve’s original sin.  When God asked Eve why she ate of the fruit, she replied, “The serpent deceived me, and I ate.”  If her intent was to show Adam that she was independent woman who need him telling her what to do, her response would have been along the lines of, “Adam’s stupid, and I thought I didn’t need to obey his stupid rules.”  Of course, this argument assumes that Eve was being honest in her response to God, and that she also truly understood her motivation for her behavior.  Either implicit assumption could be wrong, and the bible is not definitive either way, so my theological argument remains strictly a matter of opinion, and could be wrong, and is certainly subject to revision.

Another point worth making is that a woman who is not in submission to a father or husband (a sad state indeed) is not necessarily in rebellion to male authority.  It may be that a woman’s submissive desires are being improperly channeled.  This would generally be the case with girls who have “daddy issues.”  While some girls with daddy issues act out of rebellion, a good number of girls with daddy issues (at least in my experience) act like sluts because they are seeking a substitute father.  In this case, women are seeking to fulfill their desire to submit, but are going about it wrong-headedly.  The reasons for this are legion, and would require a post unto itself to list.  Nonetheless, this is an observable phenomenon, and perhaps worthy of further consideration.

At any rate, it would be important to remember that what motivates a group member is not necessarily the same thing that motivates a group leader.  Thus, it is possible that feminism can be a rebellious movement while some of its members do not share in its rebellious spirit.

Nevertheless, Simon has doubled down on this idea that God holds men primarily accountable for the rebellion of women in his second post in the series, I Will Not Punish Your Daughters When They Commit Harlotry.

This assertion is simply the by-product of poor reading comprehension.  The first assertion of that particular post was that, in the days of Hosea, God allowed the women of Israel were able to play the harlot with relative impunity because the men were unfaithful to God in that they worshipped false idols (let me know if my interpretation of Hosea 4 is incorrect).  This is not even remotely the same as asserting that God was generically punishing men because women disobeyed God.  How Dalrock managed to confuse the two is beyond me, and is indicative of sloppy thinking and poor reading skills.

My second assertion was that 21st America resembles the days of Hosea in that women generally act like sluts and don’t appear to suffer negative consequences, relatively speaking.  This seems fairly self-evident, since women are the recipients of lots of government protections, guarantees, legislation, funds, etc. that all promise women that if worse comes to worse, Uncle Sam will pay their bills and make sure that no ex-husband can take their children away from them.  The worst thing that happens to modern sluts tend to be STDs and turning into cat ladies.  Since, historically, the more common consequences of slutting it up tended to be social ostracism, abandonment, or even death, a treatable disease and spending a couple decades with cats instead of a man seems rather pleasant.  Again, relatively speaking.  Thus, my second assertion is generally valid, in that a comparison can be made, and that it is approximately similar.

Here was my conclusion, “I would suggest that, as in the days of Hosea, the reason why women are essentially getting away with being whores is due to men being unfaithful to God.”  Astute readers will note the phrase, “I would suggest…”  This phrase was not accidental; it was intentional.  I did not assert that my argument was conclusive; it was merely a suggestion.  People can certainly disagree with my analysis, and I won’t blame them if they do.  This was simply a suggestion, and possibly a useful suggestion at that.

Nowhere do I claim that it is definitively the case that women today get away with being sluts because men are too busy worshiping idols to be faithful to God.  I merely suggested that this may be the case, and presented an argument in its favor.  Paul, in Romans 15, stated, “For whatever things were written before were written for our learning.”  We should consider Old Testament examples and see if there is anything we can learn from them. Perhaps the message of Hosea is applicable to us today; perhaps it is not.  But let’s at least consider the possibility.

Simon also discovered a scriptural defense of Man up and marry those sluts!

While my aside was tongue-in-cheek (“I note, not without some degree of amusement…” should have been a tip off), Dalrock’s rejoinder is simply hand-waving.  God told Hosea to marry a prostitute.  Ergo, there is at least one occasion in which God expected a man to do his God-given duty and marry whore.  This would kind of indicate that the assertion that God would never expect a man to marry a whore is false.  It would be more correct to assert that God does not generally require men to marry whores, but on occasion he does.

Given this logic I can only assume that we should look forward to a future post by Simon Grey explaining to pro lifers that “God does occasionally instruct parents to kill their children“.

Well, God did command Abraham to kill Isaac.  He also commanded King Saul to kill infants.  It is theologically flippant to act as if God would never require an action that we might personally find distasteful or counter to our own notions of morality.  God is the creator and we are the created. We must obey his rules, whatever they are, even if we don’t understand why he gives the command.  If God commands someone to marry a prostitute, he had better do it.  If God commands a man to offer his only son as a sacrifice, he had better do it.  If God commands a king to kill a bunch of infants, he had better do it.  God’s game, God’s rules.  If you don’t like God’s rules, tough shit.

(For clarification, not every rule that God has laid down exist for everyone in perpetuity.  The commands given to Hosea, Saul, and Abraham have clearly limited scope, and therefore do not apply to us generally.  However, it is both ignorant and arrogant to act is if our current understanding of God-given morality is always and forever the proper understanding of God-given morality, and that God is bound by our conception and understanding of his will.)

If men like Simon Grey and Samson’s Jawbone have insight to share with other married Christian men, I call on them to share it and stop the passive aggressive sniping.

A word of clarification is in order.  This is my blog, and I fill it with the content I see fit.  I am under no obligation to anybody, not even Dalrock.  I don’t have to share anything with anyone.  I write what I want, publish it when I want, and do so for my own reasons.  I am not obligated in any way to my audience, such as it is.

If you read my blog and find what I have to say to be helpful to you, then more power to you.  If you read my blog and don’t find what I have to say to be helpful, then more power to you as well; you can always refrain from reading it.  And if my thoughts, as written down on my blog, appear to be nothing more than metaphorical steaming piles of excrement coming from the deranged mind of a high-functioning lunatic, well, then, that’s not really my problem.

There is a mass of human suffering out there and pompous claims of “I’m better than those other Christian husbands” won’t do anyone any good, men, women, or children.

If I’ve made the claim that, “I’m better than those other Christian husbands,” let me know and I’ll retract it.  Elsewise, take down your straw man and kindly refrain from mischaracterizing my words.