Tags
blogging, conservatives, lefties, opinon, politics, poverty, rants, secularism
There’s been some interesting discussions going on at Violet’s place, feminism, egalitarianism, prostitution, privilege, and leftism. I’m laughing here, but believe it or not, all those subjects tie into one another.
So, many are under the impression that lefties are all about the helping the little people whereas “conservatism is – maintaining the status quo for the group of people who hold most power, for whom life is easiest.”
Being one of the little people who also leans rather conservative, I completely disagree. Also, sometimes the elitism and privilege of academic lefties can just boggle my brain, but that’s a post for another day. In the process of these discussions, Violet said:
“Seeing as you’ve assigned yourself to the bottom rung of society’s ladder, you should do a post on what you view are the avenues out. Try to avoid suggesting praying.”
That’s a great idea! First of all, may I just lament and bemoan the privilege and elitism inherent in such a statement? I assume the desperate need for “avenues out” implies that the avenue one is in, is somehow vastly inferior? In case this inferior status wasn’t made quite clear, I believe the the word “pity” was used a couple of times.
So, step one in helping the bottom rung of society, stop perceiving people with pity and acting as if their situation, lives, circumstances are somehow inferior to yours. This is demeaning and totally robs people of their power. There was a time in the US when most of us were poor and yet few of us even knew it. That was before lefties decided to step in and “help” by labeling everyone under privileged, at risk, deprived, unequal, inferior, pitiful, victims….
Step Two, you know I’m going to go here, but Try to avoid suggesting praying? I don’t think so! In fact the precise opposite. Bring back public prayer! Prayer is about hope and so much more. When I was a child in this country people prayed in public all the time, at school, in restaurants, at football games, before political meetings. People who are poor, struggling, oppressed, need prayer and need to see prayer happening publicly perhaps more than anyone else. Prayer is a sign of hope and encouragment, it’s an expression of concern, it’s a symbol of unity. How unkind to try to deprive the oppressed of prayer itself! Martin Luther King was a pastor for goodness sakes, those marches were born of prayer.
Step three, get the thumb off people’s backs and let them find their own way. People don’t need a six dollar increase in food stamps, they need jobs, housing, and the freedom to provide for themselves, to innovate, to build, without endless regulations that trap them in poverty. And they sure as heck don’t need a mandatory insurance policy they cannot afford with deductables that exceed their entire income and fines for non compliance. People are trapped in poverty for two, three, four generations, because every time they turn around somebody in government is trying to “help”….keep them in their place.
Step Four, drop the darn elitism. Not everybody needs a four year degree at an overpriced ivy league university in order to succeed. In fact, some of the dumbest people I know have graduated from those universities. Bring back trade schools, start honoring blue collar work again. Plumbers, electricians, contractors can earn as much, if not more, that people with four year degrees. Even Einstein said if he had to do it all over, he would have been a plumber. Those are the people who make our world go around, not some woman’s studies professor.
Step Five, start nurturing and encouraging marriage and families. Intact marriages and healthy families tend to do better financially. It’s better for kids, it’s better for building communities, and it is far more fruitful economically. As awesome as some single parents are, they usually struggle financially, they’re less able to afford to buy homes, and they have less time to start businesses. Families are an important foundation for economic success.
So Violet, all in good humor here, but lefty loserism is actually all about doing those things in reverse, pity people and rob them of their power creating learned helplessness, ban prayer and take away hope, regulate and control people until they’re trapped in poverty, cultivate elitism so blue collar work is no longer valued (and be sure to pile on the debt, too)and than work to dismantle the traditional family.
Separate, divide, and control. I could not have designed a better system guaranteed to impoverish and oppress the most number of people if I tried. It’s like an elaborate scheme to send us all crashing to the bottom. And why? For what? Because you pity someone? Perceive them as inferior? Don’t believe people can make it without you? Because people’s struggles make you uncomfortable? Because prayer offends you? Because you hope to remake the world into your own image?
Ah, yep. I think it’s that last one. In your image, not His. And that is why atheism, secularism, and leftism love to dance together.
Paul said:
Too many -ism’s for me. I do agree that more jobs and returning dignity is critical. If you can figure out how to do that it would be amazing. The problem with prayer IB is that everyone prays different and praying in public tends to imply the exclusion of those who don’t pray like you do. It would be very nice if we could all agree.
LikeLiked by 1 person
JaimiH said:
I disagree. It warms my heart when I see prayer in public, and in fact, I feel MORE included, even if I’m not personally invited to pray with them. I’m encouraged when I witness public prayer.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Fromscratchmom said:
I couldn’t agree more, IB. I remember all the public prayer when I was young. It was, in some significant ways, a kinder better culture then. I find it amazing when I hear people decrying how awful and evil it was. I lived in it. It had its pros and cons. Today does not have a lack of it’s own problems. In fact today’s problems seem far worse from my perspective living through both and everything in between. Today our culture is fractured, confused and lacking in hope. When I was a kid when people heard about rape, domestic violence, or random violence from strangers they knew it was wrong and they knew it had to be opposed/preached against/given governmental penalties etc. etc. but in the years since people have become polarized and confused and outright bizarre. They make pet projects out of reducing and changing court mandated punishments into things that have no effect on society on the whole to deter crime. But they bemoan the high crime rates as well as the shocking “new crimes” and terrors.
People hate on families and justify divorce and scream at the top of their lungs that it’s not a terrible thing to do to kids. But then the divorce rate just keeps getting worse and the children of divorce just keep growing up and speaking and writing about all the brokenness of divorce. Maybe the answer to bad marriages should have been a cultural move toward better expectations for marriages rather than toward easy divorce?
People have philosophical discussions about healthcare being some kind of human right but they deny logic, dignity or dissenting opinions that posit wiser ways to address the underlying concerns. They bully others to force consent where they can’t win by virtue of convincing others. Many of the people I have known who display all that also openly despise God, churches and religion. They blame God for the sins that they claim to hate but as their policies and bullying have won the day and their own dogma has taken over, many of the sins they claim to be conquering with their own personal dogmas have been growing like weeds.
I know some fringe people. I don’t just mean poor. I mean people who have trouble functioning and handling life. They are the real people who my lefty friends thought I should have been convinced needed rescuing by government. But the government has made their lives less and less affordable and made them feel more and more resentful, angry, exposed and desperate over these last few years. They used to have a plan to pay off a couple of debts they regretted. Now they have a plan to just barely survive and try not to give in to the despair of having to carry those debts. They are trying hard. But every wise plan they come up with gets wrecked by new medical insurance related stuff they used to just not purchase.
I also know tons of just average middle class folks who are basically responsible for themselves and from among them I’ve heard many many stories in the very recent times of how bad their personal finances are being impacted by new problems with regulations effecting their doctors. It’s shocking (even to me despite the fact that I knew enough about economics to know it was coming) how many stories and just how quickly they are piling up. “The doctor had a code issue. If he does anything to fix the error he’ll face tens of thousands of dollars in fines.” “Now we aren’t eligible. Now we owe thousands ourselves for this stuff we used to have covered” None of them were rolling in excess dough. Many gave up vacations or sports or piano lessons for their kids in the last year or so when they health insurance expense increased so dramatically or before that while other economic ills were rolling across society. They have no idea what they are going to give up next in order to make life keep happening. Dignity and freedom are both being stripped away from middle and lower class people at an alarming rate and it was all voted in and approved by those who scream that they do it to get the opposite effect. But you know at least my lefty friends still feel good and superior in their dogma. I know people in Maryland who have been horrified by the sudden appearance and fast growth of Hoovervilles in and near Baltimore during the economic horrors of the last eight years. They can’t do much about it because they have serious and rare medical problems and as we all know healthcare is now exorbitantly expensive far beyond what it was before all this recent “help” got forced on everyone. I know people in Florida doing amazing things trying to reach out to the huge and rapidly growing number of homeless in the Tampa area…and getting tons of small donations from our hundreds of other friends across the country who have already given up vacations and many other obvious luxuries and who are asking for prayers about how they’ll cover all their own vastly increased medical stuff. But at least my lefty friends still have causes to talk about and they still feel good about talking about them. It’s weird how I never hear any of them talking in real life terms, actually straining to fix their budget up enough to squeeze out a few more dollars for the homeless or for helping the fringe folk in their own backyard so to speak, like I hear from so many others. Don’t cha think?
LikeLiked by 2 people
insanitybytes22 said:
Great comment. I agree, I know so many people really struggling right now, those on the fringe and middle class folks, too. This healthcare imbroglio has really thrown a wrench in things. Dignity and freedom are being stripped away. Just in terms of healthcare, so many people have pointed out some major problems, only to be completely shot down, to told we just hate the poor or wish to deprive people of their rights. Uh, no, many of us are the poor and we’re being crushed by this monstrosity that everyone seems to believe is so wonderful. Dignity and freedom are also about being heard, about having a voice, and so many people have basically been told to just shut up, the Gov knows what’s best for people.
LikeLike
Wally Fry said:
I’m fairly conservative, at least in the sense of thinking we need far less government in our lives than more. But I promise I feel quite deeply the pain of those who don’t have jack. I was one of those people, and now I am not. It wasn’t some government program that pulled me out of that; it was real people teaching and showing me how to achieve a better life. We have never had a lot of college degrees in our family, I was among the few. Funny thing is, for years all I ever heard from my mom was, “When you go to college, when you go to college.” It just never occurred to me to NOT go to college.
I honestly think the liberal elite loves the government programs because then they don’t have to get their hands dirty. Why go get in the life of a poor kid with no dad, when you already paid all those taxes; let the government do it, that is what they get paid for.
Final note. Trade school. Great idea for many. I was lucky, my college education did in fact get me my first career, as an officer in the Army. But for many it’s just a big waste of time. Seriously, English is great and fun, but how you gonna make a living? What I do now requires no education at all, only the willingness to learn and work really hard, and pays me more than anything I ever got from my degree. But elitism is in full force, and the folks out in the trenches actually doing things that do something for us are often looked at sideways as if they only do that because they could not do something else.
Ok, not final note, this is. Family. Men. Stay…..with……your…..families. Suck it up buttercup. Don’t love her anymore? Too dang bad. Not enough sex? Too dang bad. If you made babies, suck it up. The absence of the father in American homes is the central issue from which so many other issues we face radiates. Crime, poverty, social adjustment. You name it, and much of that can be trace to the fractured family. So, men…suck it up and get back in there, because it’s not all about you.
LikeLiked by 9 people
insanitybytes22 said:
Awesome comment, Wally. You’ve really nailed it. Men, husbands, fathers are absolutely vital for the health and well being of families, communities, and the economy. I like what you said about getting your hands dirty, people need mentors, encouragment, opportunities, a one on one relationship with actual people in order to thrive. What can I say, people need the church! The church has often filled that role. When you’re part of a family, a community, you do your best to look out for one another. That’s messy and time consuming work, but it’s an investment in people that really pays off.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Wally Fry said:
It is an investment that pays off IB. That’s a great way to put it. You and I have talked before about the need for us to all be up in each other’s lives. I hate to quote Hillary Clinton, but to an extent it does take a village. Ugh, that hurt LOL, but fits nonetheless.
LikeLiked by 1 person
insanitybytes22 said:
Ha! Painful stuff, Wally. 😉
I agree, it does take a village. The problem with her words is that she does not believe in a chain of command, in recognizing something like parental authority.
LikeLiked by 1 person
OKRickety said:
“Family. Men. Stay…..with……your…..families. Suck it up buttercup. Don’t love her anymore? Too dang bad. Not enough sex? Too dang bad. If you made babies, suck it up. The absence of the father in American homes is the central issue from which so many other issues we face radiates. Crime, poverty, social adjustment. You name it, and much of that can be trace to the fractured family. So, men…suck it up and get back in there, because it’s not all about you.”
Wally, you’re right. It’s not all about the man. Sometimes, it’s about the woman!
From what you wrote, men are primarily, if not entirely, at fault for the social ills in the USA, because they are not staying with their families. I’m not buying that. Sure, some men choose to leave (both early and late), but is that true 90% of the time? 70% of the time? More than 50% of the time?
How many times does the mother tell the father, her live-in lover, to leave? How often does the wife initiate the divorce although the husband does not want to leave?
Do you have any studies to back up your implied claim that men are almost always the ones who have chosen not to be with their children and their mother? Or is that just supposition on your part?
In my opinion, one of the major problems in American society today is the failure to recognize marriage as a central foundation to our society. The marriage rate is decreasing, and the divorce rate is relatively steady. As long as marriage is considered to be less than total, life-long commitment, then the family and society will suffer the consequences.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Wally Fry said:
Hey Orickety
“In my opinion, one of the major problems in American society today is the failure to recognize marriage as a central foundation to our society. The marriage rate is decreasing, and the divorce rate is relatively steady. As long as marriage is considered to be less than total, life-long commitment, then the family and society will suffer the consequences.”
I agree with that statement ten thousand percent. Well said.
Studies? No. Do women end marriages? Yes indeed they do. Can a man in every case hold a family together? Nope to that one too. See? We agree on quite a bit I see.
Now..who is ultimately responsible for the leadership in the family. Well, we are of course. Me, you, and the millions of other divorced men. That’s just truth.
I maintain my position that if men followed Jesus they way He invites them to do, and then led their families to that same faith as well, more families than not would stay together.
And, if it simply cannot be saved, then I challenge men to not step out of their children’s lives as I have seen way too many do.
I also maintain my position that there is a generation of men making babies who have absolutely zero intention of every being a father, financially, emotionally, or physically in the child’s life. I don’t need studies to show that.
Thanks for your points, as I did not intend to imply that all men have failed.
LikeLiked by 1 person
OKRickety said:
Wally,
“Now..who is ultimately responsible for the leadership in the family. Well, we are of course. Me, you, and the millions of other divorced men. That’s just truth.”
Digressing briefly, there are some (not me) who maintain steadfastly that the man/husband/father is not given leadership in the family. They believe that being the head is not equivalent to leading. Instead, the husband is to serve, and the presumption is that the wife and children will follow.
“I maintain my position that if men followed Jesus they way He invites them to do, and then led their families to that same faith as well, more families than not would stay together.”
I expect that men living Christian lives does improve the chances of families staying together. And the same is true for women living Christian lives. However, all people have free will, and can choose to leave a spouse/family. Examples are Israel leaving the perfect God, and many in the church have left the perfect Jesus. Men are called to live and love like Christ, but they do not have ultimate responsibility for the choice of wives and families to leave. Every individual has free will and always has ultimate responsibility for their actions.
“And, if it simply cannot be saved, then I challenge men to not step out of their children’s lives as I have seen way too many do.”
I believe many do step out, but I also believe many are given tremendous obstacles to staying in their children’s lives, sometimes by the “Christian” mother, and often aided by our state authority structures.
“I also maintain my position that there is a generation of men making babies who have absolutely zero intention of every being a father, financially, emotionally, or physically in the child’s life. I don’t need studies to show that.”
“Generation of men” is too all-encompassing, again suggesting that all men (see my note below), at least of a certain age group, have no intention of participating in their children’s lives.
Since you don’t mention women, you are implying that they are not guilty of similar behavior (which is another way of implying that men are the only ones at fault). I will state the complementary position that for every baby there is a woman who participated in making that baby, often with zero intention of becoming a mother. Obviously, it’s not as easy for a woman to avoid being involved as a mother, at least during the pregnancy.
Note: If you don’t mean to imply “all men”, please be careful in your wording. Awareness and practice will likely lead to improvement. In a similar fashion, remember that women may have an equivalent failure that you are ignoring.
LikeLike
Wally Fry said:
“I will state the complementary position that for every baby there is a woman who participated in making that baby, often with zero intention of becoming a mother.”
I really don’t know what you meant by that Orickety. Unless a woman aborts or adopts out, she IS a mother. Abortion, obviously is wrong. Adoption is a wonderful alternative, and I would never point a finger at some woman who opted for that. I’m not talking about that. Look, I know what I see day in and day out. What I see is women raising children….and no man anywhere. I see it every day, all of the time. It may be anecdotal, but it is reality.
Am I ignoring women’s responsibility? Well, no. All I can say is, if this shoe doesn’t fit you, don’t wear it. I don’t consider it my calling to instruct women on how to be women and mothers, so I don’t spend much time addressing them. I do, however, consider it part of my calling to address men and their responsibilities.
I get that women fail, no problem. I even get that sometimes nothing a man can do will stop a coming train wreck. Heck I am a personal testimony to that. Mine left me after 25 years and according to the law of the land I could do nothing to stop her. Agreed, we are all responsible for our own actions in accordance with our own free will. I simply maintain ours as men is greater. Funny thing there, though. I was a non believer for those 25 years. Food for thought there I suspect. Another topic for exploration some day, I suppose.
“Digressing briefly, there are some (not me) who maintain steadfastly that the man/husband/father is not given leadership in the family. They believe that being the head is not equivalent to leading. Instead, the husband is to serve, and the presumption is that the wife and children will follow. ”
It’s both. We are leaders, and we are servants. It’ not either or. You and I seem to agree in this area. Check this out. Whether we like it or not, if we want to claim the position of leadership, then we also have to bear the burden of increased responsibility. So, all things being otherwise equal, are we more responsible? We sure are. So, since I truly and completely believe that men ARE to be in a positive servant leadership position in their families, I also believe that the burden to assume responsibility is just as great. How are we to love? As Christ loved the church, and gave Himself for her. That’s pretty complete isn’t it?
All I can really say is please don’t take offense if this is not you. Perhaps my language and grammar were not suitable to your tastes, and if so no personal offense intended. Other than that, I stand behind what I said. Men, suck it up stick it out, fight for it, and don’t give up.
LikeLiked by 1 person
insanitybytes22 said:
Amen, Wally. Of course women can be deeply flawed, but the one who picks up the responsibility also picks up the power. So men taking authority, responsibility, and leading, isn’t about who is to blame at all, it’s about who has the power to change things. Jesus Christ was blameless and yet He picked up the responsibility and went to the cross for us all. Men too, created in His image, have the power and authority to be blameless when it comes to the sins of women and yet to still take responsibility and lead. It is not because men are to blame or at fault, it is because that is what they are called to do, to reflect Christ’s relationship with His church. And it’s not an easy walk, there are huge challenges, but the alternative is really to render oneself powerless, forever waiting for the world, for women to change. Near as I can tell, we are to be the change in the world.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Wally Fry said:
Nice IB. That is exactly what I would have said had I had those words. I really liked the part about being blameless when it comes to the sins or our wives and women in our lives yet still be responsible. Perfect.
I know I am where God knew I would be, but I am also of the thought that had I been right with Him all of those years, that I might well still be there. Certainly that would have been His preference.
LikeLiked by 1 person
OKRickety said:
Wally,
“I will state the complementary position that for every baby there is a woman who participated in making that baby, often with zero intention of becoming a mother.”
I really don’t know what you meant by that Orickety. Look, I know what I see day in and day out. What I see is women raising children….and no man anywhere. I see it every day, all of the time. It may be anecdotal, but it is reality.
My point is that men are not the only ones responsible for those children being raised in a family without a father. You said there are many men who sire a child with no intention of being a father. In those cases, if the women had not had willingly had sex, there would be no child, and there would not be a woman raising a child without a man in the family. BOTH the man AND the woman have significant responsibility for that specific situation.
There are many other ways this situation can arise, and women have a significant portion of the responsibility in virtually all of those cases. Men, of course, have the other portion of the responsibility.
Am I ignoring women’s responsibility? Well, no.
From the reader’s perspective, you might as well be ignoring it. When you point fingers at the men, but not at the women, it is effectively the same. In this case, I don’t see anyone else agreeing that women have responsibility for this situation.
You say you consider it your calling to address men, but not women. If that is your primary calling, I suggest you quit spending your time here (I highly doubt that the men reading this blog need your instruction), and find a place where you can better follow your calling.
insanitybytes22,
Are you saying that God has given husbands the authority and responsibility to lead their wives and family?
LikeLike
insanitybytes22 said:
“Are you saying that God has given husbands the authority and responsibility to lead their wives and family?”
Yes.
LikeLike
Wally Fry said:
OKRickety,
“From the reader’s perspective, you might as well be ignoring it.”
Actually, I would say primarily from your perspective.
I said what I meant and meant what I said. Sounds like you have a burr up your hinderparts over this issue somewhat. I am sorry for whatever has caused you to feel this way.
Now, as far as your suggestion that If I don’t feel called to minister to women perhaps I shouldn’t come here. Last time I checked, God put my calling on me and not you. But thanks for the suggestion anyway.
My point stands. Leadership given fits like a hand in glove with responsibility given.If we want that role, we take the entire role. Too bad, so sad. You don’t get one without the other. If that offends your sensibilities I suggest perhaps you might be better served reading elsewhere.
Peace
LikeLiked by 1 person
OKRickety said:
Wally,
God has given husbands the leadership and the responsibility. If they abdicate that role, then they have failed. Correspondingly, wives are to respect their husbands and submit to them in everything, and to have a gentle and quiet spirit.
It’s my contention that failure on the part of both husbands and wives is the root of the problem. Both should be addressed together, because the success of the relationship depends on both understanding and accepting their roles. You seem to refuse to address the women, because it’s not your calling.
My burr is that you (and many others) are willing to believe that women will usually “do the right thing” if men would just “do the right thing”. What a naive conclusion! I have never disagreed that men need to be responsible and lead, but have pointed out that women need to also behave accordingly. You weakly agree, but then return to your beratement of men. Sin needs to be called out, and it is rare for women to be called out, especially when it comes to behavior in marriage, but also sex outside of marriage.
Note: Sex outside of marriage is a huge problem which should be addressed to both men and women, as both have significant responsibility for it. However, the evidence is that women have the greater responsibility, because they are choosing to allow sex, although they have the capability of denying it. Why do women allow sex without the commitment of marriage? Men would be motivated to greater responsibility if women would refuse sex outside of marriage.
You say “I do, however, consider it part of my calling to address men and their responsibilities.” What is truth? Looking at your blog, it’s quite interesting to find a category “Biblical Manhood” and find only three articles, none of which you wrote. Nor does a quick perusal of the blog show you specifically addressing men and their responsibilities. In my analysis, your claim is weak. As you state addressing men is “part” of your calling, what is the rest of your calling?
You restated my suggestion to you poorly, leading me to wonder if you truly understood it. I suggested that you would better serve your calling of ministering to men by finding an avenue where the men who need it would be more likely to be present. My reasoning being that those men are unlikely to be reading this forum, and the men who do read it are unlikely to need your ministry.
[Proverbs 13:10 HCSB] 10 Arrogance leads to nothing but strife, but wisdom is gained by those who take advice.
I am already wise enough to know that reading and commenting here is unlikely to be good stewardship of my time and energy.
LikeLike
insanitybytes22 said:
“My burr is that you (and many others) are willing to believe that women will usually “do the right thing” if men would just “do the right thing”. What a naive conclusion!”
Well, let me interject here. That really is what taking responsibility, picking up authority is all about. You do the right thing completely independent of any else’s behavior or compliance. Leaders lead and leading well simply compels people to follow. You cannot ask women to be sweet gentle spirits, as if “woe is me, if women would just submit and then I would lead.” First you have to provide the leadership, the safety and security women need in order to follow you.
These are harsh truths and I don’t mean to sound unsympathetic towards men here. Reverse the genders however, and try to hear what I am saying. If a woman is forever finding herself drawn towards abusive men, at some point love compels one to point out that it is not about those men at all but rather about her inability to pick up responsibility and accept authority over her own life. She can lament the nature of men until the cows come home, but the truth of the matter is that the problem really lies within her. She may be blameless for whatever abuse she has suffered, but she is not blameless for walking into it.
“However, the evidence is that women have the greater responsibility, because they are choosing to allow sex, although they have the capability of denying it.”
This just makes me want to cry in sheer frustration. I’m sorry, but you don’t get to preach “submit, submit, submit” and then when women do, turn around and try to claim “it ain’t my fault, she allowed it.”
With authority comes responsibility. Unless women are holding a gun to your head, sex is a man’s responsibility too.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Wally Fry said:
Hey OKRickety
You and I agree on much. But, you have some issues
I never claimed to be a minister to men. I said, to clarify, that when I talk about this issue, I address men. If I was unclear, I actually am sorry. I hate to break it to you, but there is actually not a requirement that I address both. It is part of my calling to work with other men. That doesn’t mean I have to write about men’s issues. I do this thing called conversation. Try it sometime, it works pretty good. So, here is the point where you can quit telling me how I should talk and what I should talk about.
You are guilty of the same thing you accuse me of. You seem to assume that my failure to speak to ladies on this comment means I absolve them of any responsibility. Well, that is simply not true. I state that as fact from me. If you continue to disbelieve my statement, then you are either dense or intentionally misrepresenting my position.
“My burr is that you (and many others) are willing to believe that women will usually “do the right thing” if men would just “do the right thing”. What a naive conclusion”
Your burr is that you want off the hook for everything but your own behavior..Again I stand on my position.
Good grief, it was a COMMENT! I stand by it. Get over it.
LikeLike
OKRickety said:
IB,
“My burr is that you (and many others) are willing to believe that women will usually “do the right thing” if men would just “do the right thing”. What a naive conclusion!”
“Well, let me interject here. That really is what taking responsibility, picking up authority is all about. You do the right thing completely independent of any else’s behavior or compliance. Leaders lead and leading well simply compels people to follow. You cannot ask women to be sweet gentle spirits, as if “woe is me, if women would just submit and then I would lead.” First you have to provide the leadership, the safety and security women need in order to follow you.”
So, men should do the right thing regardless (I agree, they should), but “you cannot ask women to be sweet gentle spirits” unless “first you have to provide the leadership, etc. women need in order to follow you”? Are women exempt from the standard of doing the right thing regardless? I don’t think that’s what scripture says.
It’s interesting to see the contrast between your statements above and those of Paul, when he writes about marriage roles in Ephesians 5:22-33 and Colossians 3:18-19, and Peter in 1 Peter 3:1-7, where both of them first address the wives, then the husbands. They certainly define a high standard of behavior for the husbands, but an argument could be made that they consider the behavior of the wives to be of first importance. None of these scriptures make the wife’s submission, chaste and respectful behavior, or gentle and quiet spirit conditional upon the husband’s behavior. In fact, Peter says that a wife’s behavior may win her husband to the Lord, meaning she does the right thing before he does.
[1 Peter 3:1-4 NASB] 1 In the same way, you wives, be submissive to your own husbands so that even if any of them are disobedient to the word, they may be won without a word by the behavior of their wives, 2 as they observe your chaste and respectful behavior. 3 Your adornment must not be merely external–braiding the hair, and wearing gold jewelry, or putting on dresses; 4 but let it be the hidden person of the heart, with the imperishable quality of a gentle and quiet spirit, which is precious in the sight of God.
“If a woman is forever finding herself drawn towards abusive men, at some point love compels one to point out that it is not about those men at all but rather about her inability to pick up responsibility and accept authority over her own life. She can lament the nature of men until the cows come home, but the truth of the matter is that the problem really lies within her. She may be blameless for whatever abuse she has suffered, but she is not blameless for walking into it.
Shouldn’t this be addressed in general to all women before they make the mistake the first time? Where is the love in waiting for “some point” to teach her after she has made the same mistake “forever”?
“However, the evidence is that women have the greater responsibility, because they are choosing to allow sex, although they have the capability of denying it.”
“This just makes me want to cry in sheer frustration. I’m sorry, but you don’t get to preach “submit, submit, submit” and then when women do, turn around and try to claim “it ain’t my fault, she allowed it.””
For a myriad of reasons, I’m quite frustrated at your response, too.
It seems “submit” is a touchy word for you. You act as if I am preaching it constantly. Not so! I said it one time, referencing scripture saying wives are to submit to their husbands. By the way, I do not believe that all women are to submit to all men, only those men to whom they should be submissive (for example, husbands, and, if unmarried, fathers).
In case it wasn’t clear, I was referring only to sex outside of marriage. In that situation, the scriptural admonition to wives to submit is absolutely irrelevant!
A woman allowing sex outside of marriage is not being responsible about her own life. (Nor is a man who does.) I said the woman has greater responsibility, because I do think a woman really does control whether she has sex or not, except in the case of rape. Regardless, a woman who ends up pregnant has much more significant consequences than the man who provided the sperm. I know that’s not fair, but it is reality.
Also, “With authority comes responsibility. Unless women are holding a gun to your head, sex is a man’s responsibility too.”
Which is exactly what I said previously! “Sex outside of marriage is a huge problem which should be addressed to both men and women, as both have significant responsibility for it.” That is, I didn’t ‘try to claim “it ain’t my fault, she allowed it.”’
My only intention in this thread was to balance Wally’s appeal to men to be fathers, with an appeal to women to recognize their own failures and change their ways, too. It seems you are presuming that I am the quintessential ogre who believes that men are more important than women, and husbands have the God-given right to demand obedience from their wives regardless.
I think, if you read my comments carefully, you will find that I clearly state that both men and women have responsibility for the state of the family in the USA. I also believe that the state of the family is significantly impacted by the behavior of both men and women in regards to marriage. The state of the family is also greatly influenced by the acceptability by both men and women of sex outside of marriage, and the acceptability of cohabitation.
I wonder if the biggest cause for disagreement with my comments is that I am not being “politically correct”, that is, I am not pointing the finger only at men, nor am I giving women a free pass on their behavior.
LikeLike
insanitybytes22 said:
OkRickety, I must state that you seem to have a huge chip on your shoulder. I don’t mean that unkindly, it is just that I have written perhaps 30 posts on submission, a few dozen on Ephesians, and perhaps 250 0r so praising men. And yet you declare that “submit” is a touchy word for me? And that I am offended because you are not politically correct? That simply has to be a projection, because I practically wrote the book on how to be politically incorrect and I frequently rejoice over the very word “submit,” from multiple angles, including submission to our Lord and submission to husbands.
However, I remain firm here, if men wish to have authority, than they must take responsibility. Every time men focus on what women should do, how women are responsible, what’s wrong with women, they lose power. Men cannot control those things, but they can focus on themselves and what they should be doing, and by showing that kind of leadership, women follow suit.
LikeLiked by 1 person
OKRickety said:
IB,
If the huge chip on my shoulder is related to touchiness, just look at what you wrote to me when you stated “submit, submit, submit”. If that was stated in response to my comments, it seems excessively unwarranted, that is, touchy. For whatever it’s worth, I hope you recognize that your response was not logically relevant to what I was saying.
Perhaps “politically incorrect” is not the appropriate description. Whatever you want to call it, your response has overall been to only focus on what men should do, and avoid doing the same for women. This is exemplified by your earlier statement “Of course women can be deeply flawed, but the one who picks up the responsibility also picks up the power.” Your last paragraph above only reinforces this — it’s all about what men should or shouldn’t do, and nothing about what women should or shouldn’t do.
I believe that I have regularly and often stated that both men and women need to do the right thing, regardless of what the other sex does.
You are being firm about what men need to do. I am asking that you also be firm in regards to women. Point out what they need to do, too. That is what Paul and Peter did!
LikeLike
insanitybytes22 said:
You simply must be a Dalrockian or a red pill, because your rhetoric is just irrational projection, like being trapped in all too familiar fun house hall of mirrors.
I guess you’ve missed the last 150 posts about what women “should do,” not that such facts would ever pierce your preconceived notions. Just today I wrote yet another about “what women should do,” and the first step is to marry a bad man because the ones who think they’re so darn good, always lack the humility needed to make marriage work.
LikeLiked by 1 person
OKRickety said:
“You simply must be a Dalrockian or a red pill”
Based on my experience here, I will consider that a compliment.
Thank you for your mention in your blog of The Peaceful Wife, which I had seen before but had forgotten about. My perception is that she is a woman who has recognized her faults and failures, and is on her “journey toward becoming a respectful, submissive, joyful wife with a gentle, peaceful and quiet spirit that does not give way to fear.”
LikeLike
Debbie L said:
Well said IB.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Vincent S Artale Jr said:
Reblogged this on Talmidimblogging.
LikeLiked by 1 person
insanitybytes22 said:
Thank you! 😉
LikeLiked by 1 person
Vincent S Artale Jr said:
You’re very welcome Sister
LikeLike
silenceofmind said:
My supervisor is an atheist and she corrects me every time I refer to spring break as Easter vacation.
When I grew up there was Christmas vacation in the winter and Easter vacation in the spring.
Now it’s winter break and spring break.
In fact, it has been for a long, long time.
But why should Christians submit to barbarian cultural practices?
And you know things are bad when the weekly bulletin at your local Catholic parish issues announcements using spring break instead of Easter break, all the while going through the motions of Easter celebration.
Our diocese, a very old and traditional one, allows priests and choirs to go about their business in the ancient Latin tradition but won’t keep the idea of an Easter break alive in the community.
And by the way, my atheist supervisor was educated by the Jesuits.
LikeLiked by 1 person
insanitybytes22 said:
Maddening and crazy making, Silence. Keeping tradition alive in the community is so important. There are kids today who have no idea what Easter even is or why some of us might celebrate. It’s one thing to not believe, but it’s another to demand the complete erasure of history, tradition, and culture. The Easter bunny for example, people would be horrified if we suggested banning egg hunts and chocolate, but we must take away the faith based purpose of such seasons and keep them on the down low so nobody feels offended.
LikeLike
silenceofmind said:
In a free society with a free market economy, wide-spread poverty is inexcusable.
The tyrant uses poverty to guilt trip the populace into outsourcing their duty to their follow man, to the all-power, all-knowing government.
The do-gooder elitist uses the issue of poverty for personal aggrandizement and as a feel good drug.
It’s really as simple as that.
And whereas the free market cures poverty for the common man, tyranny and do-gooderism doom the common man to poverty.
LikeLiked by 2 people
DebbieLynne said:
My husband and I, both severely disabled since childhood, would give ANYTHING if we could be less dependent on government assistance. For us, there’s no alternative. But able-bodied people shouldn’t have to live under a nanny-state. Believe me, it’s the hardest part about being disabled.
We vote along conservative lines, willing to lose benefits for the good of the country. Pray for us.
LikeLiked by 4 people
insanitybytes22 said:
Will keep you in my prayers. 😉
It is actually a need to support those who can’t work that also motivates some of my conservatism. There are all these unfunded liabilities, pensions, social security for the elderly, all people who genuinely need to be looked after, and the way we’re spending money like crazy doesn’t make those things secure.
LikeLiked by 2 people
DebbieLynne said:
That’s also true, and causes me sleepless nights. I can only trust that when the liberals crash the economy (which they will), the Lord will provide for us. Hopefully, the church will rise to the ocassion.
LikeLike
insanitybytes22 said:
Sleep well, the Lord will provide. My husband hates it when I say that, but it’s true. 😉
All will be well, one way or another, and when we keep our eyes on Him, He gives us peace. He loves us and people love us too, so don’t let worry give you sleepless nights. 😉
LikeLike
Pingback: On improving societies we live in | Random thoughts
violetwisp said:
Good post Insanity. Obviously I don’t agree with all of it, maybe not any of it, but interesting thoughts nonetheless. I like the idea of valuing traditionally ‘lower’ jobs, or indeed just not caring what people do for living beyond it being a potential context for conversation. I’m in a low-paid, low respect job and I love it. I enjoy the flexibility, the lack of stress and the fact that we can get by without worrying about if we should go on skiing holidays. Life is better simple.
“, drop the darn elitism. Not everybody needs a four year degree at an overpriced ivy league university in order to succeed.” Totally. But I also think that studying to a certain level is really useful for personal development. It should at least be an option for all young people. Perhaps I think that ‘succeeding’ shouldn’t be seen as being limited to high paid careers – is that really all that life is about? I think we’re reaching an age where we can take a broader view of living. Maybe not in the USA where the base cost of living and getting health care is problematic – there seems to be an issue with the most basic feeling of security there given the limitations.
LikeLike
Eric said:
Ha—Wordpress has a Hilary Clinton campaign ad on the sidebar to this article. lol
“The Status Quo for whom life is easiest” doesn’t contain a lot of Conservatives. The Government, Media, Academia, Corporate America, most city police and courts, increasingly the military and churches—all are run by the Far Left. It’s not Liberals who are being purged from American institutions. Anarchotard street vermin paralyze whole cities while Oregon ranchers protesting peacefully over grazing rights get gunned down in cold blood. Homo thugs desecrate churches and beat up Christians, while officials who refuse to recognize them are jailed and forced to resign. Radical Moslems are invited into the country and resettled here while Christian men with foreign wives can’t get entry visas.
And now we see Left-Wing stormtroopers shutting down political rallies; just like they’ve previously overthrown university governments, they show they’re willing to overthrow the national government.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Eric said:
I would add Step 6: The Ameroboobs need to get their heads out of the sand: stop living in denial; put away the dope and turn off the TV and start looking at what our country looked like in our grandparents’ time compared to what it’s degenerated into today. Just speaking our ‘best men’ compare average American men who held on fighting in places like Pork Chop Hill against fanatical Communist Chinese to today’s average American men who cry and apologize to the Iranian Coast Guard.
Yet the average Ameroboob still believes in his own superiority and Liberal hubris is going to be our downfall.
LikeLike
Wally Fry said:
“Ha—Wordpress has a Hilary Clinton campaign ad on the sidebar to this article. lol”
Oh, the irony
LikeLiked by 2 people
insanitybytes22 said:
WordPress is so dang full of irony, sometimes all I can do is bite my tongue and sit on my hands, Wally.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Tricia said:
Well I saw that prompt from Violet earlier and was hoping you would take her up on it. Very well said IB!
I was just speaking about Leftism with a friend of mine tonight and why some otherwise very decent and intelligent people fall so mistakenly under its spell. We came to the conclusion that the tribe is divided in to two camps. First are those that are born in to left leaning families and who grow up in a culture that promotes it (schools, entertainment, mainstream news etc…). They’ve never really been exposed to any other type of thinking and believe the cartoon character stereotypes about conservatives that have been spoon fed to them almost since birth. You can discuss your conservative points of view with them and while they may look at you like you have three heads, they like and respect you enough to hear you out and over time at least begin to understand that you’re coming from a place of good intent and maybe even agree with you on some points.
Then there is the hard left whose identities are based on political positions and where being moral means enacting feel good sounding policies no matter how much of a complete disaster they become in reality. These folks can get vicious because when you criticize bad policy they take it personally and discussions devolve quickly in to ugliness. There is a strong element of elitism in both camps but I’d much rather hang with those in the former.
Don’t get me wrong, many on the right have issues with identities being tied to politics too but that’s for another post…;)
LikeLiked by 2 people
Grace and Truth Ministries International said:
Very excellent practical instructions with true love for your fellow man of empowerment as the objective, instead of the hypocritical “sympathetic” government subsidized programs that don’t benefit anyone, but their own “financial security.”
LikeLiked by 1 person
oldpoet56 said:
Very good work.
LikeLike
oldpoet56 said:
Reblogged this on Truth Troubles: Why people hate the truths' of the real world and commented:
Very well done article, I hope you will enjoy this reblog. Good night, God bless.
LikeLike